(vanity) Roe vs. Wade - original USSC decision text needed

now | me

[King Prout]

Hi there. I am currently embroiled in a nasty argument (elsewhere) with a self-described feminist Libertarian on the topic (among sundry other things) of the Constitutionality or lack thereof of the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe vs. Wade.

I would like something very specific: Either a link to or a posted copy of the transcripts of the ruling, including both majority and minority opinions. Your assistance in this is appreciated.

[King Prout]

I am arguing that it is unconstitutional, that it is a usurpation of rights and powers by the court at the expense of the legislatures of the several states and of the people. She is arguing that it is constitutionally valid under the 9th Amendment, that it is a "natural right" of women to control their bodies, that it is right for the Court to impose an activist "progressive" rule on us all. I am counterarguing that, if she is concerned about "natural rights", where does she factor in the natural right of the unique human individual to not be executed in-utero for the sake of the mother's convenience? I need ammo. I have not ever actually read the ruling or associated opinions. That must change immediately.

[the bottle let me down]

You can also listen to the original oral argument here.

[45Auto]

Here's a link:

Roe v Wade

[the bottle let me down]

The opinion and dissent are here.

[King Prout]

thanks, all

[King Prout]

well, isn't this a damnable bit of progressive babble:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation."

Let me see if I get this straight: A woman's vaguely established "right" to privacy, based on a very loose reading of the 9th and 14th Amendments, totally supercedes the fetus' right to LIFE - that natural right without which all of those enumerated by amendments are MOOT - and that executing a child for what is in essence the woman's CONVENIENCE is just dandy??? Is that what Blackmun had in mind?

I would like to point out that the instant another human being is involved with any action, that action ceases to be PRIVATE, by definition.

[MayDay72]

"...I am currently embroiled in a nasty argument (elsewhere) with a self-described feminist Libertarian..." -King Prout

...I'm quite 'libertarian' myself...But I would not consider myself 'pro-choice'...And would not consider it an insult to be labeled 'pro-life'...Have you ever been to 'Libertarians For Life':

http://www.l4l.org/

...I'm not sure if they have anything on this specific issue [the 'Constitution']...But they probably have some 'ammunition' that you could use...Probably a 'libertarian'/'natural rights' argument in favor of 'life'...Good luck...

[King Prout]

I'm trying to avoid all arguments based directly on matters of faith and morality, souls and "quickening" or other nebulous notions of "compelling points" here. I am trying to stick entirely to demonstrated facts and the specific powers enumerated and limited by the US Constitution.

Some facts I find relevant:

1. Once the gametes fuse and their genetic information recombines, the new genetic code is unique to an individual (except in the statistically rare cases of the various identical twins).

2. That genetic code guides the development of a new life. An embryo/fetus is by definition alive - else why attempt to kill it?

3. That embryo/fetus, having derived from donated human DNA, is without question human.

So, in short, the embryo can be factually defined as "a living, unique human being". Irrespective of whether this living being is ensouled or can be considered a "person" it is indeed alive, unique, individual, and human. (It is at this point that an honest person must pause and wonder at the mentality which would set one group of humans' convenience and desire to escape natural consequences of their own willing actions over the basic right to live of a second group of humans).

-Moreover, in nature, there is an approximate 60% likelihood that this zygote will develop to term and be born a viable human infant.

-In the common interpretation of the Constitution, the word "man" has been explicitly clarified to mean any human being within the borders of the United States, and to whom ALL rights and protections have been explicitly extended by corrective Amendments.

-Moreover, Blackmun himself admits as much in his hazy argument IN FAVOR of abortion. Terms used in the section dealing with potential hazards of pregnancy include "CHILDbirth" and references to the expense and difficulty of CHILD care and rearing, and PARENTING. One does not worry about childbirth, child care, and parenting for any outcome save a human child. In his own "justification" for broadly defining "health risks" to the woman, he clearly admits that the matter being discussed is the deliberate termination of a human life.

There is what I see as the crux of the matter.

I do not have my Word copy of the Constitution here on this machine. However, it seems that I cannot recall any hint (or "penumbra" or "emanation") in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court the authority to either define when a human being is a person (negating the trimester nonsense) or to determine by broad classification when a homicide (the deliberate killing of a human being) is legally just or instead criminal murder. I seem to recall that that specific power is reserved SPECIFICALLY AND ENTIRELY to the popularly elected representative legislatures of the several States.

Thus, if my understanding of the relavant facts is sound, CLEARLY the USSC in rendering their decision on Roe v. Wade did wilfully usurp unto themselves those powers properly reserved to the States in clear violation of the Constitution.

Someone correct me if my understanding of the facts here is flawed. I intend to refine this line of thought to its uttermost before rejoining battle, and I truly want to be 100% correct in my understanding and logic when I do.

[King Prout]

Gentlemen,
You have earned my deepest respect with your posts and demeanor.
You seem to have your heads securely bolted on, and have good understanding of the Constitution and attendant issues.
I ask you to look into this thread and advise me.
Thank you.
KP

[MayDay72]

"I'm trying to avoid all arguments based directly on matters of faith and morality, souls and "quickening" or other nebulous notions of "compelling points" here. I am trying to stick entirely to demonstrated facts and the specific powers enumerated and limited by the US Constitution." -King Prout

...There are all sorts of 'contrarian' and 'pro-life' links over here:

http://www.gargaro.com/abortion/alt.html

...You may be able to find a 'utilitarian' and 'pro-life' argument at one of the linked sites...I 'snooped' around a bit and found links to 'pro-life' 'atheists', 'feminists', 'environmentalist', 'vegan', etc...Lots of groups that you and I would usually include in the 'idiotarian' column...I guess that even a broken clock is right two time a day...

...I'll keep looking for a non-traditional [not: religious, moral, natural-rights, etc.] case against abortion that is also based on Costitutional law...But I thought that this page might point you in the right direction...Later...

[MayDay72]

...From World Net Daily: 'Why Abortion Is Still Illegal' by Joseph Farah

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22817

...The author outlines a chain of rights that starts in the 'preamle' and flows directly to 'Amendment V'...These rights were clearly laid by the 'Founding Fathers' to protect themselves and their descendants defined as those 'yet unborn'...

[King Prout]

thanks for both responses (11&12). they may well prove of use.
In your opinion, is my line of reasoning sound thus far?

[MayDay72]

...I think that you have a good start and some reasonable points...But this 'libertarian feminist' that you are debating might be holding your arguments to an unfair standard...Rights that are recognized by the 'Declaration of Independence' and guaranteed by the 'Constitution' tend to flow from a natural source [i.e. religion/morality]...There is probably a good 'utilitarian' [not based on religion or morality] 'pro-life' case to be made...And I am sure that a good argument based on 'Constitutional' law could be made against abortion as well...I'm just not sure if you can make both arguments at the same time...That is to say that any 'Constitutional' argument would tend to be based on 'natural rights', and therefore based on religion/morality...