Posted on 08/26/2007 2:54:35 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
No they're not.
The legal arguments for overturning Roe have rarely been about the personhood of the fetus. They have been about the overreach of the federal government and its impinging on states’ rights.
The legal arguments for overturning Roe have rarely been about the personhood of the fetus. They have been about the overreach of the federal government and its impinging on states’ rights.
Contradiction is of absolutely no value anywhere at any time.
State your case or stop wasting words and time.
I think a lot of people here like to just stick to the title and not keep reading because they have a personal vendetta against Romney or a different top-tier favorite.
I’m not a big Romney fan myself, but “Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney Promises to Legalize Abortion” ? Come on. That’s not only absurd, but bordering on libel. The entire article, and his views in general, support restricting abortion on every level.
Let’s not act like liberals with tunnel vision now.
This doesn't make a bit of sense. He would "allow" it? As if he'd have a say in the matter. The states don't need the President's permission.
Roe is merely 1970 science frozen into law. You recognize that what we understood about fetal life three and a half decades ago has been superceded by techniques that affirm the potential human condition of the unborn, and that individual states have the prerogative of protecting it. Other states have the prerogative of not protecting it, if their voters/legislators so deem.
You define fetal life as a sort of transitional period between living and nonliving, and let the states assume jurisdiction of it. Not my personal belief, but an answer to your question.
Baloney. Roe could not have been decided the way it was without the denial of the personhood of the unborn. Blackmun, in the majority decision, made that clear. The whole decision turned on this question, more than any other factor, by far.
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. - Justice Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade decision
“[Are you aware that Mitt is a mormon? Mormonism
invokes the name of Christ, but their beliefs
are quite different than Christianity - including
polytheism (belief in many gods), etc.?]
++++++
Tell me about these “many Gods” and I will grade you on how right your get it.”
Thanks, but I pass on the grading.
Since every MALE mormon has the potential to become a god
of his own planet, that is, by definition, more than one
god. More than one god is polytheism. Christianity is
a monotheistic religion.
best,
ampu
That is what the title says, but it is flat-out wrong and is contradicted by the content of the article.
Although your declaration, without explanation, was hardly worthy of a lengthy reply, I will acquiesce.
As far as overturning Roe goes, the Court does not write opinions merely stating that a previous decision was wrong and leave it at that.
If SCOTUS writes a decision contrary to Roe, it will not be a simple “overturning” of the previous decision that would then leave the legality of abortion question status quo ante. The SCOTUS will not find that there is no right to privacy, the right the Roe decision was based on. If SCOTUS decides against abortion it will most likely find that the enumerated right to life trumps the unenumerated right to privacy when they are in conflict. If they find there is a “right to life”, they will most certainly find that it is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. If it is a Constitutionally protected right they will not allow the states, except perhaps in limited circumstances, to disparage this right by the enactment of state laws.
In other words, they will not say that is OK for a state to enact laws allowing abortion after they have found the right to life to be a fundamental, Constitutionally protected, right. There may be exceptions, depending on how broadly they define any right to life, that would allow states to regulate certain aspects of abortion, but they would have to be consistent with their interpretation of the right to life.
Roe vs. Wade managed to be both illegal and antidemocratic at the same time. It’s kind of like punching your car windshield to break the glass. It hurts your hand and it hurts your car. This is not a trade-off; it’s just dumb. Roe v Wade violated the Bill of Rights (10th amendment), so it was illegal. Roe v Wade ignored the expressed will of the people in most states, which was undemocratic. Appointing judges who respect the Constitution and therefore will repeal Roe v Wade is a good idea. It’s also a logical first step.
Many Democrats will oppose appointing those judges, but I think this battle can be won. This will put the ball back in the court of the States. I expect they will rule differently in MA than in AL, This is consistent with both the Constitution and democracy.
If we want to force a common pro-life standard on MA and other liberal states, then we will need a Constitutional amendment. We have a constitutional process for amending the constitution and it’s not easy. It will require great resolve and support across the country to make this change. It is a logical second step.
The arguments for overturning it have almost always resided elsewhere...in the states' rights arena.
It is clear...very clear...that Roe can be overturned by constructionists on the basis of states' rights alone...on the basis of overreach on the part of a Federal court that used a non-existent "Constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy" as its rationale.
How dense can you be? Keep posting...we'll find out!
Good for you. I mean that.
As for Romney, overturning RvW would not make abortion illegal, it would allow the states to make it illegal, which was the case before.
Could a President make abortion illegal nationally? No. He has no power to do so constitutionally. Neither does Congress. He could name SCJs that could find it to be an infringement of life, but that is it.
Murder is rarely a federal offense, except when committed on a federal employee in the commission of their job (and a few other instances).
OK, tell me which Christian church is the true one in respect to doctrine about salvation and the status of a saved soul in heaven(monkey, resurrected ape-man, winged angel doing nothing.. flying around the clouds, or literally be worthy of being a child of god) ? THere are about 20,000 of them in the US, which one are you speaking for, and which one is true and the other 19,999 false?
That one is simple. The Supreme Court could decide that nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to assert power over abortion laws on the basis of the right of privacy. Just as the Supreme Court has made bad decisions in the past and then retreated from them, the court could say that Roe vs. Wade was decided wrongly and that states could decide for themselves whether to regulate abortion and what the grounds for regulating abortion would be.
Bill
Even some liberal Constitutional proponents agree Roe vs. Wade is bad law and have called for it to be overturned based on overreach.
This argument is a strong one and is easily explained to idiotic liberals who believe abortion rights are a virtue.
According to David Barrett et al, editors of the “World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200,” there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world today. “Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations.”
Actually, 34,000. Which one of these are true?
This is the interview with George Stephanopoulos what Romney really said in this Video interview not what some India news paper across the sea says!
Romney earlier this month in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said he supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion nationwide. According to the Post, the "two very different statements" reflect a "challenge" for Romney as he attempts to be a "champion of the antiabortion movement".
Not to mention the Bible Belt refusing to vote Mormon whom every Bible believing church across the country will be giving sermons on the reasons Mormonism is classified by every Christian denomination as a Christian cult.
Every little bit that shows him to be a liberal will only be remembered by conservatives and Christians across the South and Midwest. No different for any Republican from liberal states only worse for Romney because of his Religion, and don't get me wrong, this same problem will come out if Obama wins the dem primary. While his past might be allowed to skate through a dem primary it will hit him with devastation in the general election if he really did grow up attending a mosque. Everything matters in a presidential election from your views to the basis for those views, your religion.
The people who show up for Republican primaries are very conservative.......Can somebody name for me the last time a Republican from a Liberal Northern state actually won the primaries, was chosen by those conservative Republicans not to mention went on to actually win the general election??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.