Have you ever read the Roe v Wade decision?

[n0n1m0us3]

Where and when is the next meeting?

You know I can't divulge that info on a public forum.

 

[Tilted]

As for the apply strict scrutiny--protecting human life is ALWAYS, ALWAYS a compelling state interest and there is no way to protect the life itself with being able to ban abortions. Whether the fetus is viable (can live on its own without its mother is interesting to analyze legally) but lots of people without medicine and breathing tanks would die yet obviously the state still has an interest an protecting their safety. I don't like the three trisemster division by the court. I just feel that to me its clear the state has a compelling interest in protecting the fetus from conception.

Isn't that the crux of the legal issue though (at least, preliminarily, and in a way that sets the ground rules for the legal consideration) - whether an embryo or fetus is a human life rather than merely "the potentiality of human life"? I'm not suggesting that it isn't, but when it comes to considering the matter, isn't assuming that all embryos and fetuses are life just begging the question?

I think it's safe to say that, to the extent they are clearly regarded legally as human life, there would be a compelling government interest in protecting that life which is, in the vast majority of cases, sufficient to overcome the appreciated privacy right. If the Roe majority had specifically found that embryos and fetuses were human lives, in the same way legally that the born are, the result would have been much different I think.

That's the crux of the problem even with just the legal consideration of the issue, let alone a particular conclusion. That question - whether an embryo (especially) or a fetus is a human life - isn't, by its nature, a legal one. It's a philosophical one, maybe a moral one. If there's to be an objective answer, perhaps a medical one. Whatever, but it isn't really a legal question. Yet, at the same time, in our society, it has to be.

If that's a separate human life that a woman is carrying around in her belly, she doesn't have a right to murder it, except in self-defense. She certainly doesn't have the right to murder it after it's capable of surviving without her. On the other hand, if it isn't a separate human life, she has a pretty strong right to do what she wants with her body. That's the conundrum the Supreme Court faced. Pretend though we might that the legal issue is simple, it is not - because it isn't a legal issue at all, just one demanding that it be treated as one. If anything, the Supreme Court should be most criticized for skirting that question somewhat - but, had it not, I suspect the controversy would be even sharper and its 'talk past each other' tone would be in even greater force.


EDIT: Oh, forgot - yes, Griswold was the 'penumbras' decision.

 

[ylexot]

Isn't that the crux of the legal issue though (at least, preliminarily, and in a way that sets the ground rules for the legal consideration) - whether an embryo or fetus is a human life rather than merely "the potentiality of human life"? I'm not suggesting that it isn't, but when it comes to considering the matter, isn't assuming that all embryos and fetuses are life just begging the question?

I think it's safe to say that, to the extent they are clearly regarded legally as human life, there would be a compelling government interest in protecting that life which is, in the vast majority of cases, sufficient to overcome the appreciated privacy right. If the Roe majority had specifically found that embryos and fetuses were human lives, in the same way legally that the born are, the result would have been much different I think.

That's the crux of the problem even with just the legal consideration of the issue, let alone a particular conclusion. That question - whether an embryo (especially) or a fetus is a human life - isn't, by its nature, a legal one. It's a philosophical one, maybe a moral one. If there's to be an objective answer, perhaps a medical one. Whatever, but it isn't really a legal question. Yet, at the same time, in our society, it has to be.

If that's a separate human life that a woman is carrying around in her belly, she doesn't have a right to murder it, except in self-defense. She certainly doesn't have the right to murder it after it's capable of surviving without her. On the other hand, if it isn't a separate human life, she has a pretty strong right to do what she wants with her body. That's the conundrum the Supreme Court faced. Pretend though we might that the legal issue is simple, it is not - because it isn't a legal issue at all, just one demanding that it be treated as one. If anything, the Supreme Court should be criticized for skirting that question somewhat - but, had it not, I suspect the controversy would be even sharper and its 'talk past each other' tone would be in even greater force.

Exactly. And that's why I don't understand the argument that it is an issue for the states to decide.

 

[Tilted]

I was forced to check No, but I generally disagree with it, Now I know that leaves me open to a charge of hypocrisy, because how can I disagree with something I never read?

I don't think so. I think people can reasonably either generally agree with or generally disagree with the decision without having read it. Most people have a general sense of what it means - enough that they can fairly think it's basically right or wrong. That's why I worded it that way.

On the other hand, I've talked to a number of people that were more specific in their criticism of its reasoning, and described that reasoning in a number of dismissive ways, where it turned out that they hadn't read any (or much) of it. When I'd ask them to explain why they felt the way they did, they couldn't tell me the first thing about what the decision actually said or what its reasoning actually was. I can only assume that they had been mistakenly relying on agenda-driven commentary and wanting-ly repeating talking points they'd picked up. with those that then took time to read it, our conversations were somewhat different the next time around - not in that they now agreed with the decision, but in that they better understood why they didn't (or shouldn't) agree with it.

People shouldn't have to have read an opinion to like or dislike it, or even agree or disagree with it. But, if they're going to substantively criticize its reasoning, they should know what that reasoning actually is - and the surest way to have that be the case is to read it.

 

[n0n1m0us3]

I am going to have to disagree with your analysis of the case there. The court had earlier said there was privacy right, but the case decided whether abortions were included within that privacy right. Roe v. Wade wasn't about debating whether there was a privacy right and then just assume abortions fell under that right. Rather the case dealt with abortions and whether that could fall under the fundamental right to privacy.

Second, the application of strict scrutiny focused solely on the basics of abortions, hence the different rules for the trimesters. Roe v. Wade for example, said states could prohibit abortions once the baby is viable (the moment where it could live on its own even with the help of machines if it was taken out of its mother) and said that for purposes of clarity it would be assumed that a fetus in the third trimester could survive on its own.

Isn't that the crux of the legal issue though (at least, preliminarily, and in a way that sets the ground rules for the legal consideration) - whether an embryo or fetus is a human life rather than merely "the potentiality of human life"? I'm not suggesting that it isn't, but when it comes to considering the matter, isn't assuming that all embryos and fetuses are life just begging the question?

I think it's safe to say that, to the extent they are clearly regarded legally as human life, there would be a compelling government interest in protecting that life which is, in the vast majority of cases, sufficient to overcome the appreciated privacy right. If the Roe majority had specifically found that embryos and fetuses were human lives, in the same way legally that the born are, the result would have been much different I think.

That's the crux of the problem even with just the legal consideration of the issue, let alone a particular conclusion. That question - whether an embryo (especially) or a fetus is a human life - isn't, by its nature, a legal one. It's a philosophical one, maybe a moral one. If there's to be an objective answer, perhaps a medical one. Whatever, but it isn't really a legal question. Yet, at the same time, in our society, it has to be.

If that's a separate human life that a woman is carrying around in her belly, she doesn't have a right to murder it, except in self-defense. She certainly doesn't have the right to murder it after it's capable of surviving without her. On the other hand, if it isn't a separate human life, she has a pretty strong right to do what she wants with her body. That's the conundrum the Supreme Court faced. Pretend though we might that the legal issue is simple, it is not - because it isn't a legal issue at all, just one demanding that it be treated as one. If anything, the Supreme Court should be most criticized for skirting that question somewhat - but, had it not, I suspect the controversy would be even sharper and its 'talk past each other' tone would be in even greater force.

People are removed from life-support, feeding tubes and allowed to die all the time. What are your thoughts about that in the context that protecting human life is a compelling state interest?

 

[Tilted]

Read excerpts and generally disagree with it.

Roe v. Wade makes an official joke of the constitution and has been the backbone for every politician since who basically takes the oath and then proceeds to piss all over it.

Roe = What should we make up this week?

Do you really think Roe is the backbone for that phenomenon, or just one of many pillars supporting it (and not, by any means, the original one)?

There have been many 'if you don't like the required result, just make stuff up' precedents. I think Slaughterhouse could more readily be described thusly than Roe, and it's from the 19th Century.

 

[Tilted]

How about an option for just a simple "No"? I can't agree or disagree with the decision since I haven't read it. :shrug:

We can count you as a simple no.

But, as I said in response to ImnoMensa, it seems to me that people can generally agree or disagree with the decision (fairly) without having actually read it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Do you really think Roe is the backbone for that phenomenon, or just one of many pillars supporting it (and not, by any means, the original one)?

There have been many 'if you don't like the required result, just make stuff up' precedents. I think Slaughterhouse could more readily be described thusly than Roe, and it's from the 19th Century.

Here is a question; what would the court have said, which is to say, what SHOULD the court have said, based on Roe, in response to a federal law of the day allowing abortion under any circumstance? What should it have said to a federal law banning abortion under any circumstance?

Obviously, you have to guess at what the details of such laws might have said but, that's half the fun, like arguing what the '78 Steelers and '89 49'ers would have given us in a mythical game.

Roe is constructed, in my view, on the premise of privacy; if an abortion is chosen, it is no ones business. It is not settled on the legality of the procedure of abortion itself. By the same argument, one can use drugs, engage in prostitution, you name it, because the act is not commented on per the court; only the right to privacy to do as one pleases.

Now, the act of discussing prostitution is illegal as is the act itself. The possession of drugs is illegal as is the consumption. Right?

So, Roe throws up the basic premise for much of what ails society today; the right to do whatever we want with NO regard for anyone else; not the father. Not the siblings. Not even the doctor as we sue doctors who get picky over what abortions they will or will not perform. Roe sets abortion up as this thing one does, totally on ones own, that has nothing to do with anyone else.

Now, I am covering more ground than is conversational at this point but, I wanted to set the two basic points down; abortion doesn't happen in a vacuum (no pun intended) and it opens up much of the rule of law to complete failure. How is my speeding hurting anyone when I haven't hit a thing? How is my putting off paying taxes hurting anyone else when I have other bills to pay? How is my taking your property for a few moments any of your concern if I put it back in the same condition and you never knew I had it? Add in drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc, etc.

Roe is all about rights and zero regard to responsibility. And, on top of that, it is the most barbaric thing humans can do. By far.

 

[philibusters]

Here is a question; what would the court have said, which is to say, what SHOULD the court have said, based on Roe, in response to a federal law of the day allowing abortion under any circumstance? What should it have said to a federal law banning abortion under any circumstance?

Obviously, you have to guess at what the details of such laws might have said but, that's half the fun, like arguing what the '78 Steelers and '89 49'ers would have given us in a mythical game.

Roe is constructed, in my view, on the premise of privacy; if an abortion is chosen, it is no ones business. It is not settled on the legality of the procedure of abortion itself. By the same argument, one can use drugs, engage in prostitution, you name it, because the act is not commented on per the court; only the right to privacy to do as one pleases.

Now, the act of discussing prostitution is illegal as is the act itself. The possession of drugs is illegal as is the consumption. Right?

So, Roe throws up the basic premise for much of what ails society today; the right to do whatever we want with NO regard for anyone else; not the father. Not the siblings. Not even the doctor as we sue doctors who get picky over what abortions they will or will not perform. Roe sets abortion up as this thing one does, totally on ones own, that has nothing to do with anyone else.

Now, I am covering more ground than is conversational at this point but, I wanted to set the two basic points down; abortion doesn't happen in a vacuum (no pun intended) and it opens up much of the rule of law to complete failure. How is my speeding hurting anyone when I haven't hit a thing? How is my putting off paying taxes hurting anyone else when I have other bills to pay? How is my taking your property for a few moments any of your concern if I put it back in the same condition and you never knew I had it? Add in drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc, etc.

Roe is all about rights and zero regard to responsibility. And, on top of that, it is the most barbaric thing humans can do. By far.

I think you are not understanding the courts privacy argument. You are thinking of privacy like how we use that term in everyday language. The court was however, also using that term to describe self-autonomy. Why do you as a person have the right to decide to cut your hair or not to get a haircut. Why do you have the right to eat fattening McDonald's or not to eat eat fattening McDonald's. You might say because those involve my body and my health, its none of the state's business. You probably would not say privacy. However, when the court uses the term privacy it also includes that self-autonomous value that I am talking about. Why does a woman have the right to an abortion. The court can say, its her body and her health--its not the potential baby's father body or health, its not the siblings body or health, its not the hospital's body or healthy. Well what about the right of the father in the fetus--what about the states interest in protecting that fetus? How about the fetus right to life?

Well, the court had try to value those interests. They valued those interests by saying until the fetus is viable those interests whatever they are do not overcome the woman's privacy right (which is the right to control her own body and health).

When I attacked the court's application of strict scrutiny, I was attacking the court's reasoning in applying such a low value to whatever you want to call that fetus.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think you are not understanding the courts privacy argument. You are thinking of privacy like how we use that term in everyday language. The court was however, also using that term to describe self-autonomy. Why do you as a person have the right to decide to cut your hair or not to get a haircut. Why do you have the right to eat fattening McDonald's or not to eat eat fattening McDonald's. You might say because those involve my body and my health, its none of the state's business. You probably would not say privacy. However, when the court uses the term privacy it also includes that self-autonomous value that I am talking about. Why does a woman have the right to an abortion. The court can say, its her body and her health--its not the potential baby's father body or health, its not the siblings body or health, its not the hospital's body or healthy. Well what about the right of the father in the fetus--what about the states interest in protecting that fetus? How about the fetus right to life?

Well, the court had try to value those interests. They valued those interests by saying until the fetus is viable those interests whatever they are do not overcome the woman's privacy right (which is the right to control her own body and health).

When I attacked the court's application of strict scrutiny, I was attacking the court's reasoning in applying such a low value to whatever you want to call that fetus.

Aren't you making a distinction without a difference? Boiler-plating? There is "Self-autonomy" in taking drugs and prostitution yet we require some subordination of that autonomy to serve the public interest to prohibit both activities.

 

[ImnoMensa]

I can only speak for myself on this point but I do believe that if I have read these articles and am aware of these numbers that other blacks would be to. I guess I'll have to bring it up at the next meeting and ask the other Negros if they have managed to hear anything about this.

Btw that first paragraph was torturous to read with the bizarrely placed spaces, commas and apostrophes.

Maybe you should bring it up at the next meeting.

It appears that you don't have any objections to seeing the Genocide, maybe some of the others do.

I, Certainly : did Not, mean to torture , you: with all of those er' Uh:you know , comma's and apostrophe's.

 

[philibusters]

Aren't you making a distinction without a difference? Boiler-plating? There is "Self-autonomy" in taking drugs and prostitution yet we require some subordination of that autonomy to serve the public interest to prohibit both activities.

Yes, you are correct that the distinction I made really is not that meaningful of a distinction.

You are saying if the states regulation and restrictions on the right to have an abortion require strict scrutiny, so should the states restriction on the person's right to engage in prostitution or take drugs. After all they seem to involve ones own body and ones own health. The same autonomous values mentioned earlier.

I think you are right in that citing autonomous values doesn't separate the right to have an abortion from the right to engage in prostitution or take drugs. I was probably barking up the wrong tree on that comment.

To answer you question of why the court may treat the right to an abortion as deserving a different standard of review from the right to engage in prostitution or the right to take drugs, it is because of the courts legal reasoning and methodical for due process cases which I will explain a little bit below.

The Constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade is the following text from the 14th amendment

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

So the Supreme Court has to decide if a state law is depriving a person of life, liberty, or property ("without due process of law"--which language the court kind of ignores). So is depriving somebody of the right to smoke a cigar a deprivation of liberty--how about the right to have children (forced sterilization), how about the right to travel across state lines, the right to educate ones children--whichs of those restrictions deprives a person of liberty?

Well they all deprive a person of liberty in some sense. But obviously the court could not find all laws which deprive person's of liberty in any sense are unconstitutional-hence the court decided only laws which deprive a person of a fundamental right are depriving a person of liberty.

But that begs the question what is a fundamental right? Well the court said the main way to figure out how what is a fundamental right is to look at history and tradition. Has that right tended to be always protected in U.S. History? How about throughout the civilized world (hence where you get courts citing foreign law that gets conservatives all riled up). Courts also examine a concept of ordered liberty to determine if something is a right, or at least have done so in the past.

So the court created a privacy interest in Griswold. Griswold involved the right to use contraceptives. Conn. had a law that banned the sale of condoms are something like that. Court said people's sex lives have a history of being protected in the U.S. (whether that is true or not is probably a historical debate). The court then cited a lot of laws that protected people's privacy regarding things like their sex lives in their own marital home.

Then came Roe. And the court cited history and tradition to say the right to an abortion has a long history and tradition of being protected and that further the right to an abortion involves one of the most important decisions a woman will make regarding her body in her life and that falls under a privacy interest so its inherent in a concept of liberty. (At least thats what I think Roe v. Wade said, I actually forgot what it said--just reconstructing what it likely said, but I will reread it to verify at some point)

Some that brings up to prostitution and the right to use drugs. In some sense those seem to be the similar to the right to an abortion because they all involve the control over ones body and health. There are probably ways to distinguish them, but I do agree with you that logical they involve the same interests.

However its doubtful whether a court would ever say there is history and tradition to support those behaviors as a fundamental right. As for whether those rights are inherent in the concept of liberty you could point to the similarity between them and abortion, but the court would probably distinguish them saying an abortion is a life changing event that has a higher privacy right than the right to choose to have or not to have a hair cut, then the right to consume drugs, or the right to engage in prostitution. None of those arguably have the life altering consequences of the abortion choice and thus have a lower privacy interest and thus only abortion of those decisions is implicit an a concept of ordered liberty.

 

[Tilted]

I have read it and believe it's something that should have been left up to each state to decide.

What should be - the decision whether or not to prohibit abortion (or under which circumstances to) or the decision whether or not doing so is a violation of Constitutional rights? If the former, that's essentially taking the position that the Supreme Court got it wrong with regard to the latter. I'm not arguing with that position, just trying to point out that the Supreme Court had to make the latter decision - that's not something that's supposed to be left up to the states.

 

[Tilted]

Roe has nothing to do with abortion. It was settled on the non existent absolute right to privacy, that the government has zero interest in what one does with their body in privacy.

I don't think that's correct. In fact, Justice Blackmun's majority opinion is quite explicit that the privacy right in question (i.e. that manifestation of "the concept of personal 'liberty' embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause") is not absolute - that it, like other substantive rights, is subject to restrictions in furtherance of compelling government interests. I could easily find and quote numerous passages (from the Roe decision) that make that point clear, but how would anyone know that I wasn't presenting them out of context? Considering that this remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in our history, and considering how passionately people argue various aspects of the issue - including the propriety of the Court's reasoning - it seems to me that conversations would be well served by more people actually reading the entire opinion, and deciding what it says and means, for themselves. We spend lots of time reading all kinds of stuff that, by the next day, doesn't matter or is forgotten, while this momentous opinion remains unread by many of those who speak most passionately about it.

I take you as someone who is, first and foremost, sincere in your expressions of opinion and understanding. Yet, you seem to think that Roe v Wade stands, perhaps among other things, for the proposition that "the government has zero interest in what one does with their body in privacy." I don't think that's at all an accurate reading. One of the things it does stand for though - and I think this is, and would be, one of the major points of contention - is the notion that the unborn are not themselves 'persons', and thus are not entitled to the same protections, under the Fourteenth Amendment, that the born are. The reality that the person-hood question, much like the life question I referred to in a previous post, is more a philosophical one than a legal one aside, why did the Court find the way it did in this regard? Did it just pull stuff out of its ass, or were there historical and textual underpinnings to its reasoning? I think a fair reading of the Roe opinion evinces a fair bit more searching originalism than that decision is given credit for, without regard to whether the conclusions it reaches are right.

My problem with the law is on that basis; an absurd legal construct used to achieve a specific legislative outcome.

Based on your previous comments, I'm going to assume that the absurd legal construct you are referring to is the privacy right notion. If that assumption is wrongly made, please correct it. If it is not, then I would ask - without suggesting that I know myself - what substantive rights do you think are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and how do you come to the conclusion that they are? People sometimes claim that the 14th Amendment, fairly read, doesn't mean this or that. To which I sometimes respond: Fair enough. Then, what does it mean (I'm referring specifically to the Due Process and Privileges or Immunities Clauses, considered together - which I think is necessary because of the unusual precedential history of the clauses whereby one has been neutered and the other has been elevated in its place and to fill its purpose)? Surely, some substantive rights are protected by that Amendment, otherwise what's the point of the DP and PoI Clauses? So, what are those rights, and how are we supposed to know what they are?

 

[Tilted]

People are removed from life-support, feeding tubes and allowed to die all the time. What are your thoughts about that in the context that protecting human life is a compelling state interest?

I believe that the liberty right includes, as among its most essential and self-evident components, the right to make one's own decisions with regard to their own life. I believe that that right necessarily overcomes the state's compelling interest in protecting that particular life, though not its interest in protecting the lives of others.

Further, we readily accept the notion that people have the right to assign to others their rights to make decisions with regard to, e.g. their finances, their ownership interests in various things, or their health, and that such assignment is made for them under some circumstances that effectively require it to be, e.g. when they are in a prolonged state of unconsciousness and haven't sufficiently made clear who they wish to make decisions on their behalf. So, to the extent that we accept that someone is acting on behalf of someone else on life-support, I believe that the government's interest in protecting the life of the latter has to succumb to the latter's right to decide their own fate, even though that decision has been assigned to, and is being effectuated through, the former.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't think that's correct. In fact, Justice Blackmun's majority opinion is quite explicit that the privacy right in question (i.e. that manifestation of "the concept of personal 'liberty' embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause") is not absolute - that it, like other substantive rights, is subject to restrictions in furtherance of compelling government interests.

Right there is the vulgar contradiction; establishing a federal, constitutional right to abortion while trying argue that the state, the government, still retains to limit those rights.

We're not talking about a face lift. If we establish a constitutional right to abortion, the killing of the unborn, for whatever reason, how in the flying hell do we so "No smoking dope, kids! No screwing for rent money!"

There is a deeply compelling interest for the state to be seen as rational and consistent in prioritizing what it deems, via the court, to be the extent of our rights and not be seen a frivolous and having principles firmly planted in quicksand.

 

[PsyOps]

What should be - the decision whether or not to prohibit abortion (or under which circumstances to) or the decision whether or not doing so is a violation of Constitutional rights? If the former, that's essentially taking the position that the Supreme Court got it wrong with regard to the latter. I'm not arguing with that position, just trying to point out that the Supreme Court had to make the latter decision - that's not something that's supposed to be left up to the states.

The Supreme Court was not required to take the case… No? They could have deferred to the states… No? Shouldn’t this be an issue like any other handled at the state level? Death penalty, property taxes, etc… Even though we have a specific amendment that says everyone has a right to own a gun; each state still has their own regulations regarding that ownership.

I’m struggling to figure out what makes this case different from so many others that demand it be resolved at the federal level.

 

[Larry Gude]

Y

You are saying if the states regulation and restrictions on the right to have an abortion require strict scrutiny, so should the states restriction on the person's right to engage in prostitution or take drugs. After all they seem to involve ones own body and ones own health. The same autonomous values mentioned earlier.

To me, it is not the states business if we choose to have an abortion or take drugs or engage in sex for money.

It is in the states interest to limit these things from the standpoint of 'just say no', of education, of promoting alternatives but, it is not the role of the state to prohibit a sane, rational adult from engaging in pretty much whatever they deem is their chosen pursuit of happiness given it is not interfering with the life and liberty and pursuit of another.

So, Roe, again, to me, is this silly construct designed to reach a political, legislative result that threatens the bedrock rule of law and the legitimacy of the constitution, not that that hasn't been messed with enough as is.

 

[Larry Gude]

I take you as someone who is, first and foremost, sincere in your expressions of opinion and understanding. Yet, you seem to think that Roe v Wade stands, perhaps among other things, for the proposition that "the government has zero interest in what one does with their body in privacy."

First, thank you. That is what I think I think about what I think.

Now, Roe. What does a kid think when he grows to realize that the only thing between his existence and never having been is...a choice? Ye,t there are all sorts of other things the government says you can't do.

Can't rob and shoot a bank teller. That's taking an innocent life. Not supposed to take drugs. Not supposed to steal a car from a man who has 20.

All of this is more important than an infant? What is the message? What are the priorities? Can kill for the country at 18. Can't have a beer until 21.

My argument is the moral message, the government is practical joker, unserious in matters of the most innocent and helpless among us but, deadly serious about trivial things.

The courts should have never stepped into abortion. They should have left it as a state problem. Or, they should have found a way to punt it to DC and argue that federal legislation on abortion should come from elected representation and then they'd rule on that.

Not only did Roe say Texas was wrong but then, they, in essence, wrote a federal law to replace it, deciding for everyone an immense issue.

Blackmun said the constitution says, basically, whatever the people say it says. Well, I think Harry went from his job of interpreting the constitution and into interpreting the people; not his job.

 

[PsyOps]

First, thank you. That is what I think I think about what I think.

Now, Roe. What does a kid think when he grows to realize that the only thing between his existence and never having been is...a choice? Ye,t there are all sorts of other things the government says you can't do.

Can't rob and shoot a bank teller. That's taking an innocent life. Not supposed to take drugs. Not supposed to steal a car from a man who has 20.

All of this is more important than an infant? What is the message? What are the priorities? Can kill for the country at 18. Can't have a beer until 21.

My argument is the moral message, the government is practical joker, unserious in matters of the most innocent and helpless among us but, deadly serious about trivial things.

The courts should have never stepped into abortion. They should have left it as a state problem. Or, they should have found a way to punt it to DC and argue that federal legislation on abortion should come from elected representation and then they'd rule on that.

Not only did Roe say Texas was wrong but then, they, in essence, wrote a federal law to replace it, deciding for everyone an immense issue.

Blackmun said the constitution says, basically, whatever the people say it says. Well, I think Harry went from his job of interpreting the constitution and into interpreting the people; not his job.

Wow, I never thought I would agree with you on every level.

I guess the thing I want to know from you is, should there be a law, at the state level either allowing or forbidding abortion; or should it be a non-issue , in law, for each individual to decide on their own?