POLL: Roberts and Roe v. Wade: The beginning of the End

Remove all ads!

This may be another difference here in the States. You can only write off medical expenses if they comprise a very significant part of your total income. I think it's something around 7.5%. Given that, the only people who have a realistic shot at hitting that figure would be people who lacked medical insurance.

I sure hope not. I don't see why this "must happen". While I generally oppose abortion, I think this right is important for women to possess. I can't place my morality on other people and expect them to accept it.

Hopefully, you don't see me as someone sitting on the fence. I think I made my views clear. While I would never opt for an abortion except in extreme cases, I similarly believe that it is a right women should possess. I don't think it's my place to force my morality onto others, and I definitely don't think it's the government's place to legislate something that can only qualify as an opinion.

 

I feel so neglected...

Well, it's only your expenses if you are the one paying them...

It's been happenning for centuries. What do you think the Law is?

You say that you oppose Abortion, but you won't see it curtailed or banned. That, to me, is Fence sitting.

Again, They do that all the time. They based everything they do on opinion. Why should this issue be any different? Besides, Opinions change. If the law begins recognizing an unborn child as being alive, then eventually, the public will follow. It happened with different colours. I believe that 'nigger' is now basically a swear word now. It happened with the genders, and for th emost part, women are considered equal.

 

Both I and others (NonSequitur springs to mind) have discussed why other laws are on the books. People think that murder is bad, theft is bad, etc., and this is an opinion. It is legislated because soceity accepts how these actions harm others. There is no universal acceptance of abortion in regards to this. If you want to know more of my opinions, look a couple of posts further up on this page where I talk about this in greater detail. I won't go through it all again for the sake of repeating myself.

No, it's not. Just because I wouldn't do something doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. Here's some examples: I think gays should be allowed to marry, even though I'm not gay, and would never marry a man, regardless of whether it is legal or not. I think that driving an SUV is both ecologically and economically irresponsible, but I don't think we should ban the sales of SUVs either. I don't think that smoking pot is any more harmful than someone who is smoking and drinking daily, and while I wouldn't suddenly become a pot head, if the same restrictions applied to pot as apply to alcohol, I'd like to see that be made legal too. And, yes, while I would never want a child that I fathered to be aborted, I don't think the practice should be illegal.

Why you ask? It all goes back to it being MY OPINION. Just because I have evidence to back up my opinion in most cases doesn't mean it still isn't just an opinion. You no doubt have opinions on these issues too. Regardless of why you feel that way, you are very much entitled to that opinion. What you don't have the right to do is force your opinion onto others who do not share that opinion. For me, I value personal freedom more than these other issues, which is why I'd like to see things made legal (or remain legal) which expands upon this. What I don't want government to do is legislate people's opinions to restrict others from doing what they themselves would not. To use the above examples again, no one is going to make you marry a man, no one is going to make you buy a hybrid vehicle, no one is going to make you smoke pot, and no one is going to make you get an abortion. So if you are opposed to all of those things, then you have every right to not engage in such activities. All I'm asking is that everyone should be given that same choice.

 

If you lack the moral conviction to defend your opinion, then that's fence sitting. If you don't think you have the right to step off the fence, then you might as well be comfortable there...

 

It's not as simple as this. I have plenty of moral conviction about my position; I (and presumably Aldeth) recognise that although I have a particular personal opinion, I also acknowledge that I have no right to impose that on others, and to advance a compromise which I feel is in the better interest of society.

That's not sitting on the fence - it's being aware of where I stand in relation to the fence, looking at everything else related to the issue, and suggesting a course of action which will be acceptable to the majority while also addressing the issues as I see them. If you see something as black and white (which you seem to in this case), then yes, that would be fence-sitting. Without meaning to sound insulting, I believe that there are very few people who see abortion as starkly as you do, Gnarf.

No matter how screwed up others think a person's opinion is, they should always feel that they have the right to state it plainly. Heck, in this case and many others, being on the fence is taking a position; it's equal to acknowledging that this is not a simple issue and that you don't have the answers. I base my position on what I feel are the most compelling issues - substantive equality, reproductive freedom for women, and avoiding the various consequences of criminalising abortion. You, as you've stated many times, base yours on religious teachings and a belief that a foetus is a human life as deserving of protection and recognition as any other.

And as I've said before, if it were easy, there wouldn't be an argument. Both of us feel that we are right. That one of us feels that we have no right to seek the imposition of law based on our misgivings and concerns about abortion is not a sign of moral uncertainty; I am as absolutely convinced of the moral rightness of not doing so as you appear to be about the opposite.

While there will be cases I do not agree with, there will certainly be many, many more which involve those issues about which I am particularly worried and why I view abortion as a regrettable but necessary option. Based on that, I believe I have no right to punish all for the sake of the very few who may abuse or misuse that option.

I'm sure you would put a slightly different emphasis on that statement, Gnarf. But don't make the mistake of assuming that those of us with a similar position to Aldeth lack the moral fibre or personal conviction to take a stance on this matter. We simply recognise that although it is an ethically fraught issue, what we see as being in the better interests of society outweighs our personal misgivings sufficiently to concede that abortion should not be outlawed.

 

*sigh* Gnarff, I can only assume you either didn't read or didn't understand my entire post by making this statement. NonSequitur has made a very eloquent post that is a pretty good indicator of my views. That having been said, I do have a few things to add.

The reason I'm not sitting on the fence is that I am firmly on the pro-choice side of it. If my wife becomes pregnant, our choice would be to keep the baby. What is hard to understand here? Just because I would not advocate an abortion in my case, doesn't mean that I feel that way about all cases.

Where I am in my life right now (early 30s, married, decent job) I feel I have both the means and the will to be a good parent. OTOH, the me of 10 years ago (early 20s, single, college student) was in NO position to provide for a child. If my girlfriend in college became pregnant would I have pushed for an abortion? I really don't know. What I am sure about though is I certainly would have considered it, whereas now no consideration would be necessary.

The decision to get or not to get an abortion does not really have anything to do with moral or religious conviction if you aren't a particularly religious person. It's about the freedom to make the best choice for yourself and your partner. (Technically it's the woman's choice, but we're assuming if she's in a healthy relationship she would discuss this with the father before making a final decision.) The right choice for each person and each situation here is irrelevant. It is about having the freedom to decide for yourself.

 

My position on the question is pretty much the same as NonSequitur and Aldeth's. I am not going to repeat what they have said so well. I just want it known that there are others, including women, who feel the same way.

Having no training in Law I am not sure how this works but I always thought that the Supreme Court was the final authority on the Law. If Roe v. Wade can be overturned by another Supreme Court ruling then to me that means that any other ruling could possible be overturned. A liberal court makes liberal rulings, a conservative court comes along and makes conservative rulings, a liberal court gets in power--->. This is not good imo.

 

Nakia,

Your description is pretty much accurate. Roe vs. Wade, as a Supreme Court ruling, could only be overturn in one of two ways:

1. Another Supreme Court ruling that would essentially state that the way the former Court interpreted the law was in error. For any court to over-rule itself or another court is actually quite rare, but it can happen.

2. Congress passes a law outlawing abortion. This would obviously nullify the Roe vs. Wade ruling. The Supreme Court interprets the law, however, so even if such a law passed, it would be up to the Court to decide if the law was unconstitutional.

 

I don't think it can be outlawed, but there must be steps taken to reduce it. Making councelling available (mandatory?) would be a huge step in the right direction...

 

@Gnarfflinger...My concern is whether or not the Supreme Court can overturn the ruling of a prior Supreme Court. If this can be done then it turns the Supreme Court into a joke imo. I don't think that is what our 'Founding Fathers' intended. If a conservative Supreme Court can overturn a ruling by a liberal Supreme Court then the reverse is true.

 

Nakia,

Maybe I can explain it a little better. A new Supreme Court Justice can't just come in and say, "Let's review the Roe vs. Wade decision", and then unilaterally decide to overturn it. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Once a precedent has been set in a given case, it is actually expected that other courts will follow that same decision. The only way a reversal could occur would be if the Supreme Court decided the way the Court interpreted the Constitution in Roe vs. Wade case was incorrect, and then they would say that it should have been interpreted this way, and then overturn the decision.

That doesn't mean it can't happen, but what it does mean is because the precedent set is that abortion is legal, it could only be overturned by saying the former Court was wrong, which would be rare to say the least if history is any indicator.

Gnarff: I noticed you didn't repsond to my previous post. Do you understand where I'm coming from, or are you just sick and tired of discussing the issue?

 

Thank you, Aldeth, for your clear and direct explanation. This was truly bothering me.

 

Well, I look at the situation as an impasse. I argure that the right to life should apply to the unborn, but people don't seem to be eager to extend that right. I understand that you don't want the law to step in to influence that decision, but I see that as part of their mandate. If nobody wants to help defend that, then I've gone as far as i can with that point...