Abortion and the Law What would a world without Roe look like?

WSJ ^ | November 5, 2005 | WSJ editors

[msnimje]

Die is the correct word, babies who are killed, die!

You are right, the word "die" is correct but it is not an accurate description of what happens to them. They are murdered.

[elbucko]

If liberals could figure out how to count fetus votes in their column, abortion would be illegal in the twinkling of an eye.

Very well put!

[elbucko]

Yes that takes away the FEDERAL JUDICIARY role in usurping the will of the people-but what good will it do us in states of mini black robed Fuhrers?

Good point and should give pause to those who consider "states' rights" to be the answer to all problems. State supreme courts, legislatures and executives can be just as "activist" in their tyranny as the feds.

[Conservative til I die]

And most of them would be just as liberal?

Does it really matter? Or should we just abort liberals.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

good point.

There is something pretty disturbing about making the right to privacy (aka abortion) the cornerstone of all political rights.

Quite different from the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the radical of his day Thomas Jefferson cited.

[Lexinom]

Demographic: Immigration reform. We'll home-grow our replacement population, thank you very much, not import it. Kick out the illegals to make room for Americans.

Financial: There would eventually be more taxpayers, too, and more consumers.

Moral: There would arise a deeper appreciation of the sexual act and its implications - no more "easy way out" at the expense of an innocent third party. It would partially undo the destructive effects of the sexual revolution.

[Lexinom]

It is ironic, isn't it... The "right" which appears no where in the Constition is their cornerstone.

As a matter of fact, the irony gets even better: the very part of the Constitution they point to - the Fourteenth Amendment - as sanctioning abortion is the very one which undermines abortion as it is this, along with the Emancipation Proclaimation, which guaranteed freedom to former black slaves:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They try to get out of this by pointing to the word "born". Are we really to believe the architects of this amendment intended to exclude someone one day before his birth, ten days before his birth? Does that jive with original intent?

Originalists: It's important we them on our highest court.

[Regulator]

nor shall any state deprive any person of life

Note that because of this language, it was necessary to declare the unborn as unpersons - a tactic that the Communists - i.e., the Left - have always used.

Humans are not human to them; they are semantic objects, cold images, nothing more. If they are bothersome...they are declared "not objects", and torn apart.

Literally.

[Lexinom]

Yep, and the way to deal with that is to illuminate the absurdity. The pro-choicer who believes an unborn baby is not a "person" must, by necessity, accept a magical "poof!" moment that marks a qualitative change at the moment of birth.

The trouble is, the whole thing - even conception! - is a dynamic process that takes place gradually over time. For this reason, I hold that life begins at the conclusion of conception, which marks the completion of the process that culminates in new, unique identity-establishing DNA.

Thus, you have a new entity, a person, with a complete and law-like development program that distinguishes him from his mother. No magic "poof!" required. It's the miracle of life, which leaves science marvelling and which marks each one of our beginnings.

[Sender]

Personally I think Thomas Jefferson and quite a few of his peers would have a cow if they could see the 'rights' we debate today.

[Regulator]

For this reason, I hold that life begins at the conclusion of conception, which marks the completion of the process that culminates in new, unique identity-establishing DNA

I was a first year biology major in 1973 when the vaunted Supremes were debating "when" you became a person. I thought it was ludicrous, because the definition you just gave is the one that is taught in every freshman biology class from time immemorial, and there is simply no debating it.

What they did at the time I understood to be the legalized sanctioning of killing, by simply ignoring the biology and replacing it with a legal definition of "personhood", which has nothing to do with when life begins. Unless of course you're a law school graduate who is infatutated with your own power.

[LiteKeeper]

That has to be just about the dumbest line of thinking I have ever read. Have you ever murdered anyone? If not, don't talk to me about outlawing murder. Repeat this argument about any law on the books. Fill in the blanks...

The issue is very simple - what is it that is growing inside the the mother? Until you answer that question you can't bother with any other questions.

[Lexinom]

What they did at the time I understood to be the legalized sanctioning of killing, by simply ignoring the biology and replacing it with a legal definition of "personhood", which has nothing to do with when life begins

Roe was clearly a utilitarian decision designed to accommodate the consequences of the sexual revolution going forward. It cloaked the decision in Constitutional garb but was never to find its basis in Constitutional law. It had no grounding in science - no one bothered to ask you or your professors at that time.

[Paloma_55]

Where the laws are written by congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the courts?

I see you were happy with the recently signed Campaign Finance Reform.

OK. You got me. I knew when I said "upheld by the courts" I was being to general. Clearly, unconstitutional laws should not be upheld by the courts, but then again, we don't want a court that deems unconstitutional laws constitutional, and laws that are not covered by the constitution depending on their whim.

[mplsconservative]

There'd probably be nearly the same amount of people because of fewer pregnancies. Without abortion as an option, women would find alternate means of birth control, like not getting pregnant in the first place.

Did you forget a sarcasm tag?

Please tell me it's so, if not, your post is one of the most ignorant I've seen in a long time.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

***40 Million more taxpayers plus their families.***

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. 40 million abortions = 40 million fewer taxpayers. Which means the U.S. is losing a LOT of money.

Also, 40 million abortions = 40 million fewer Democrats (give or take a few). [Am I right in my assumption that it's mostly Democrats who have abortions?]

[joesbucks]

OK. You got me.

My comment wasn't designed to be the ultimate gotcha, at least in the the normal sense.

I have seen Where the laws are written by congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the courts on this forum and heard it from many of the talking heads including the very articulate Limbaugh. I can't say for sure, but I believe even the President has used it or a variation of the same line.

And I cite the CFR where it was done exactly in that manner described above. Even the President claimed it was unconsititutional during the 2000 campaign process then turns around and signs it, under the guise it would be overturned by the court. My contention has always been why and how could he sign something clearly unconsitutional to many and get away with it? Especially when he swore to uphold the constitution and seems to have knowingly signed an unconstitutional bill.

I think there can be disagreement even with strict constutionists on the Supremes. And there will also be times when those strict constutionists will vote in a way that we disagree. That's why even with the selection of Roberts and now Alita unpopular decisions like Roe may not be overturned.

[Jaidyn]

Did you forget a sarcasm tag?

Please tell me it's so, if not, your post is one of the most ignorant I've seen in a long time


I wasn't being sarcastic. Since Roe vs Wade, women have used abortion as birth control. Many women have had 3 or more abortions. Some of their mindset is that abortion is safer than 'the pill.' Others find abortion, "more convenient" than actually planning other birth control options. If abortion wasn't available to them, then, they would re-consider ways of not getting pregnant in the first place. Roe gave women a pass to be sexually active without any consequences. Before Roe, the young women mostly abstained. The others used various forms of contraceptives. In other words, they didn't get pregnant in the first place.

[The Cuban]

Those numbers are mind boggling. If anyone beleives that the evil allowed into the world by the murder of even one innocent, only casts a shadow on those directly responsible, they are mistaken. They laughed when Mother Theresa said that the fruit of abortion is nuclear war. Given the vacuum that abortion creates, which is filled in large part by muslim immigrants, her prophecy is no laughing matter. If things don't change, it will come to pass.