Permanent Constitution or a Permanently Changing One?

[Odin]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
I don't think public opinion in the US was ever really for abortion, at least not in its present form. I think most people are ok with abortions in circumstances that require it such as incest, rape, or when the mother's life is in danger. When people start having abortions to select gender or because they forgot to use contraceptive then you have a problem. I won't even get started on partial birth abortions which I would think anyone who isn't completely deficient in morals would find to be outright murder.

Most Americans are Pro-Choice.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Odin


Most Americans are Pro-Choice.

most americans are pro-choice and most americans are pro-life.

this doesn't tell us much about their preferences with regard to law relating to abortion.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No one believes the Constitution makes abortion illegal.

and the roe v wade decision asserted that. hooray forward thinking judges!

[Kuciwalker]

MRT, are you truly dense?

Roe said the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion. If it were struck down abortion could still be legal, it would just be up to the legislatures.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by MRT144
furthermore I dont see any harm done. Abortions dont kill people unless the doctor kills the mother.

abortion has held a death grip on American Politics for the last 30 years. there are gobs of people on the right and left who will only vote solely on someone's position on abortion.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
MRT, are you truly dense?

Roe said the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion. If it were struck down abortion could still be legal, it would just be up to the legislatures.

I was going to ask you the same thing.


Cite in the ruling where the 7 justices argued that it was guaranteed. The ruling said there was not a legal basis to ban abortion, but they didn't state that it was guaranteed because of the ambiguity in where life starts. If it was determined by consensus that life started at conception, the 14th amendment would protect fetuses, but consensus doesn't, so go kick rocks. Its a brilliant ruling!

[Kuciwalker]

Cite in the ruling where the 7 justices argued that it was guaranteed.

I can't believe I'm explaining this. From the majority opinion:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

The ruling said there was not a legal basis to ban abortion, but they didn't state that it was guaranteed because of the ambiguity in where life starts.

It said that banning abortion [except in limited circumstances] is unconstitutional. Not "there is no legal basis" (normally such regulation would be within the states' power) but that the Constitution specifically prohibited laws banning abortion [except in limited circumstances].

If it was determined by consensus that life started at conception, the 14th amendment would protect fetuses, but consensus doesn't, so go kick rocks.

The argument that Roe is bad has nothing to do with whether or not fetuses are people.

Why am I arguing with MRT about law? If Ramo or Imran started spouting this **** I'd assume they'd had brain damage...

[Ecthy]

That banning abortion is unconstitutional is not the same as saying that the constitution guarantees the right to abortion though?

[Kuciwalker]

In this case they are. The justification in Roe stems from an interpreted [qualified] right to abortion in the constitution. Of course, that's absurd

[Kuciwalker]

MRT is committing a relatively simple logical fallacy here. If fetuses counted as people under the Constitution, the same amendment that (supposedly) grants a woman's right to an abortion would probably make abortion illegal, because it would protect the fetuses. However, even if fetuses aren't considered people, the Constitution doesn't necessarily guarantee a right to an abortion.

[Ecthy]

But banning it might be unconstitutional anyway... isn't everything allowed in the US unless it's expressly banned?

[Kuciwalker]

Not really - the federal government is endowed with specific, limited powers, but some of them have become very broad. And the states (which are the ones trying to ban abortion) have even broader powers, which are usually only restricted if they conflict with federal powers or with enumerated rights.

In the case of abortion, even Roe admits that the government might have legitimate reasons to regulate abortion (e.g. public health), but that the right to abortion is so strong that these reasons must become "compelling" before the state can restrict it.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Cite in the ruling where the 7 justices argued that it was guaranteed.

I can't believe I'm explaining this. From the majority opinion:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

The ruling said there was not a legal basis to ban abortion, but they didn't state that it was guaranteed because of the ambiguity in where life starts.

It said that banning abortion [except in limited circumstances] is unconstitutional. Not "there is no legal basis" (normally such regulation would be within the states' power) but that the Constitution specifically prohibited laws banning abortion [except in limited circumstances].

If it was determined by consensus that life started at conception, the 14th amendment would protect fetuses, but consensus doesn't, so go kick rocks.

The argument that Roe is bad has nothing to do with whether or not fetuses are people.

Why am I arguing with MRT about law? If Ramo or Imran started spouting this **** I'd assume they'd had brain damage...

This is just your way of saying I'm right but not for the right reasons or the way I said it. Im shocked you tried to deny the truth I wrote when it's clear that I said as much.

[Kuciwalker]

You're completely off. I disagree with the Roe decision's logic (it's terrible), its political result (absolute polarization of the issue), and its substantive result (a more extreme guarantee of abortion rights than I would support).

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
In the case of abortion, even Roe admits that the government might have legitimate reasons to regulate abortion (e.g. public health), but that the right to abortion is so strong that these reasons must become "compelling" before the state can restrict it.

this is exactly what I wrote. I don't understand why you are so easily confused.