What will be the fallout "IF" Roe Vs Wade is Overturned

[blogger31]

:

You have become seriously irrational. You are stretching the truth, making false statements, leaving out important information in your "facts", and not absorbing all the information given to you. You cannot just pick and choose information to prove a point, all of it must be presented. You have not proven anything you post, and have not provided any sources. That only means one thing; you have no valid points to make. All your points have been countered with more valid ones. You have been defeated.

Give me a second here: :rofl :rofl :rofl

OK, usually the first person in a debate trying to even claim victory feels that they are losing something. Do you have a complex that you feel you need to claim victory during a debate to make yourself feel better? Besides I look at who is claiming victory, the same person who favors the legalization of all drugs no matter the consequences. Let me guess you favor anarchy also and just let everyone do what they want? If they don't like it they don't have to participate do they? :roll:

So are you telling me that I have not proven that the majority of Americans are in favor of Roe v. Wade, but only because they favor abortion for rape, incest, and life of the mother? Even though I got my poll from the same place you got yours. Yeah I have no sources even though my poll said CBS news poll right at the top. Not very hard to look up a poll done less then a month ago.

 

[blogger31]

Show us please where Laura Bush & John McCain said they're only pro-choice in case of rape, incest etc? For example, McCain said:

How about Laura Bush?


That thinking is not correct at all. I've posted links previously proving that handing out birth control in high school does not increase the number of people having sex at all, period:

Source: http://www.health24.com/Woman/Sexual_health/711-730,25338.asp


It will never happen IMHO. Plus even if somehow Roe V. Wade is struck down all it would mean is that the States get to decide, and with few exceptions most States would still have legal abortions.

First of all I have to ask, are you kidding me? You are comparing the majority of Americans, and you come back with two people? You do know what a majority is don't you? I don't care what Laura Bush or Sen. McCain say or feel. I know what the majority of Americans feel, and that is they want abortion only for rape, incest, or life of the mother. The poll I posted is less then a month old. So I hope it goes back to the states, then it will be up to legislatures, and a great majority of states will not allow an abortion for convenience sakes

 

[Fantasea]

According to The "Disappointment Trolley" web site @ http://users.accesscomm.ca/ollenbep/dtroll/
1.4 million abortions are performed in the U.S. every year. (I don't know where they pull this number from so won't defend it).

This excerpt comes from an unimpeachable source:

Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) abortion data:
The AGI is a non-profit group which was founded in 1968 by Alan F. Guttmacher (1898-1974). At the time, he was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, an obstetrician-gynecologist, an author and a leader in reproductive rights. It specializes in "reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education....The Institute's mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation." 1 Although the AGI is a pro-choice group, its data is widely accepted as accurate and is used by both pro-choice and pro-life groups.

The AGI supplies information that is more current than the data from the the Division of Reproductive Health of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. They issued their report for the year 2001 in 2002-AUG.

Pregnancy outcomes by state for 2001:
"Each year, six million of the 60 million American women of childbearing age (15-44) become pregnant. 63% of these pregnancies result in live births and 22% in abortions; the remainder end in miscarriage." These data refer only to known pregnancies. There are many early pregnancies that are terminated by miscarriages before the woman realizes that she had become pregnant.

Pregnancy outcomes by state and are listed below. 2 The percent of pregnancies that are terminated by abortion are influenced by many factors, including:

The culture of the area
Its religious makeup
The availability of abortion services, compared with adjacent states.
Restrictions on abortion access (waiting times, parental notification, parental permission).
The area's economy.
Availability of family planning services.
Type of sex-education classes in schools.
The percentage of students who attend public schools.

There is no point displaying the data from fifty states. However, a little simple math based on the above shows the following:

Number of pregnancies not ending in miscarriage: 5,100,000
Of these, the number resulting in live births: 3,780,000
Number resulting in abortion: 1,320,000
Ratio: Live births to Abortions: 2.86 to 1

It would seen that the odds of making it out of the womb alive aren't very good.

If that number is correct, and abortion is criminalized, even assuming that 90% of those who would have gotten an abortion catch a clue and use birth control; that leaves 140,000 unwanted children in the U.S. every year.

In the book "Freakenomics" the author postulates that the decrease in crime from the 60s and 70s is due to the legalization of abortion. Unwanted children were not born. By his reasoning, unwanted children, being poorly cared for grew to be a large part of the criminal element. By the legalization of abortion, crime decreased. If he is correct, and If Roe v Wade is overturned. Then may we not expect more crime in 10-15 years?

This flies in the face of actual experience.

During the depression years of the 1930s, the economy was in a shambles, unemployment rates were in over 20%, poverty was rampant, and there were no welfare programs as we know them today. Yet, violent crime rates were a small fraction of what they are today.

What would this do to the economy? Would the work force be able to absorb them? How many would end up on welfare or in prison? A positive note would be we would have more workers to pay for social security. However if you think about it social security is being payed for right now by a decrease number of workers, now drop a city sized number of unwanted children into the mix, and taxes go up to pay for social programs. If social programs are cut, crime goes up, so now we have to pay for all those new prisons. A glut of workers coming of age approximately the same time would wages drop?

That's some solution you propose; kill off the children who have the greatest potential for undesirables and troublemakers before they are born. Actually that was the often expressed goal of Margaret Sanger. For those unfamiliar with the name, she was a founder of Planned Parenthood. It is unclear whether she got the idea from Adolph Hitler or he got it from her, since they were contemporaties who shared the same goal.

You fail to realize that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in welfare entitlements which caused a drop in family formations, a rise in broken families, a rise in school drop out rates, and produced a sub-class of young people of all races who, being insufficiently educated to blend into the mainstream labor force, remained dependent on the welfare system, or turned to crime as a way to raise their living standard.

Can anyone else come up with repercussions of criminalization?

When it was a "crime", the offense was 'performing an illegal abortion'. The doctor was indicted; the mothers were never charged.

Repercussions? None of any consequence. Life will go on as it did before Roe v. Wade. There were no repercussions prior to 1973, were there?

Educating kids out of the welfare trap would improve things further.

 

[Fantasea]

Abortion was certainly around, but it was not legal in many cases. I am curious to know if the Constitution would have included the unborn if the lawmakers knew we would be killing the unborn 100 years later. I never said abortion wasn't around and that they were not aware, read the post.

The founding fathers erred in one respect. They believed that many truths were self-evident and they listed a few in the Declaration of Independence. However, they gave the people credit for having sense enough to realize that the occupant of a womb was a living human being and that marriage was reserved for one man and one woman; hence there was no need to codify these things.

They never anticipated the rise of the ACLU and an activist class of social liberals which would examine every legislated word under a microscope, seeking omissions or ambiguities which could be exploited before judges who could be adduced, conduced, induced, or seduced to legislate from the bench, instead of merely interpreting the laws which were enacted by legislators.

It's amazing how, at their beck and call, things which have lain dormant for two hundred years suddenly, as if by magic, leap out of the Constitution.

 

[Fantasea]

This is a part of Article VI of our Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "

It is the Supremacy Clause. It means all state's laws are under the Constitution. No state law can override the Constitution.


The Fourteenth Amendment states:
"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."

There is nothing more fundamental to the concept of "liberty" than personal freedom and privacy. Without those things, we are not a free nation.

This country tried giving states the power to govern themselves with The Articles of Confederation. It did not work. That is why we now have The Constitution and the Supremacy Clause.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be as a direct result of the germination and blossoming of the seeds of its destruction which were planted in it by its author, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun.

In Section IX B, he wrote the following:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The highlighted portion is the key. The year was 1973 and all of the wonders of technology available in the twenty-first century were not then available. It was a safe course of action, especially since the abortion advocates urged that legal abortions were necessary because victims of rape and incest needed an alternative to "back alley butchers" and women in danger of death in childbirth needed to be saved. How many abortions could there be? So, he conveniently passed the buck to a future court. (I wonder how he would feel if he knew that the count is now approaching fifty million?)

Now, we find ourselves in the twenty-first century in the midst of an information and technological explosion of knowledge. Can it now be said with scientific certainty that human life begins at conception? When the appropriate court case emerges, there will be a veritable parade of expert witnesses from the biological, scientific, medical, obstetric, genetic, and other disciplines who will argue, on the basis of research and ultra-sound scans, that human life does, indeed, begin at conception.

The abortion advocates will have no countering argument except that of privacy.

Privacy cannot trump a human life. The court will declare that human life begins at conception and Roe v. Wade will fall.

The larger consequence of this will be that since no human being can have the right of life or death over another human being, state laws permitting abortion will be invalidated.

 

[Alex]

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be as a direct result of the germination and blossoming of the seeds of its destruction which were planted in it by its author, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun.

In Section IX B, he wrote the following:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The highlighted portion is the key. The year was 1973 and all of the wonders of technology available in the twenty-first century were not then available. It was a safe course of action, especially since the abortion advocates urged that legal abortions were necessary because victims of rape and incest needed an alternative to "back alley butchers" and women in danger of death in childbirth needed to be saved. How many abortions could there be? So, he conveniently passed the buck to a future court. (I wonder how he would feel if he knew that the count is now approaching fifty million?)

Now, we find ourselves in the twenty-first century in the midst of an information and technological explosion of knowledge. Can it now be said with scientific certainty that human life begins at conception? When the appropriate court case emerges, there will be a veritable parade of expert witnesses from the biological, scientific, medical, obstetric, genetic, and other disciplines who will argue, on the basis of research and ultra-sound scans, that human life does, indeed, begin at conception.

The abortion advocates will have no countering argument except that of privacy.

Privacy cannot trump a human life. The court will declare that human life begins at conception and Roe v. Wade will fall.

The larger consequence of this will be that since no human being can have the right of life or death over another human being, state laws permitting abortion will be invalidated.

Very well said. I do not agree with it, but I like the way you wrote it. Finally someone has written a response to my posts that does not attack and makes logical sense. You rock Fantasea.

 

[Fantasea]

Very well said. I do not agree with it, but I like the way you wrote it. Finally someone has written a response to my posts that does not attack and makes logical sense. You rock Fantasea.

Thank you.

I'm curious to know your point(s) of disagreement.

 

[blogger31]

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be as a direct result of the germination and blossoming of the seeds of its destruction which were planted in it by its author, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun.

In Section IX B, he wrote the following:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The highlighted portion is the key. The year was 1973 and all of the wonders of technology available in the twenty-first century were not then available. It was a safe course of action, especially since the abortion advocates urged that legal abortions were necessary because victims of rape and incest needed an alternative to "back alley butchers" and women in danger of death in childbirth needed to be saved. How many abortions could there be? So, he conveniently passed the buck to a future court. (I wonder how he would feel if he knew that the count is now approaching fifty million?)

Now, we find ourselves in the twenty-first century in the midst of an information and technological explosion of knowledge. Can it now be said with scientific certainty that human life begins at conception? When the appropriate court case emerges, there will be a veritable parade of expert witnesses from the biological, scientific, medical, obstetric, genetic, and other disciplines who will argue, on the basis of research and ultra-sound scans, that human life does, indeed, begin at conception.

The abortion advocates will have no countering argument except that of privacy.

Privacy cannot trump a human life. The court will declare that human life begins at conception and Roe v. Wade will fall.

The larger consequence of this will be that since no human being can have the right of life or death over another human being, state laws permitting abortion will be invalidated.

It would be interesting to see what many decisions would be if they decision maker could see the end result. Anyhow, I think in the end you are right on this, technology has consistently rebuked many claims by the PC crowd over the years, and I believe with the increase in technology abortion will be reversed and stopped at the state level.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I may have already commented on this thread but I'll do it again. The overturning of Roe v Wade would be a correct decision as it was incorrectly decided the first go-round. The liberal judge (Blackmun) concocted a right that appears nowhere in the our Constitution. Furthermore by making it the law of the land he assured over three decades of hate and distrust among Americans. He would have to be one of the worst justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court and appointed by a Republican president no less.

I don't give a rat's patoot about abortion, per se. What I object streneously to is the legislation from the bench. If this is what it comes down to, let's abolish the presidency and Congress and just appoint a Counsel of Wise Elders and they can just make up the law as they go along. Be cheaper and probably just as effective as the bought and paid for Congress that we have now.

 

[vergiss]

Thank God I live in Australia.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Thank God I live in Australia.

Sometimes I wish I could join you. The liberal mindset here is mind boggling with the historical revisionism that passes for news here. "America bad, insurgents good", etc.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The liberal judge (Blackmun) concocted a right that appears nowhere in the our Constitution.

Are you incapable of writing a post that does not use the word LIBERAL in a negative fashion? Is it too much for you to write Blackmun without LIBERAL? Are you incapable of expressing an opinion that is strong without using LIBERAL? From where I'm sitting it doesn't appear you have that level of intelligence when writing posts.

Furthermore by making it the law of the land he assured over three decades of hate and distrust among Americans. He would have to be one of the worst justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court and appointed by a Republican president no less.

Want to know how misguided I think your opinion is? The vote was 7-2 and Blackmun wrote the Opinion of the Court. 7-2 is what George Tenet would call a "Slam Dunk" Furtherore Blackmun was not one of the "worst justices ever" that is partisan politicas speaking, it has no basis in FACT. Here's a part of Time Magazine's obituary.

Nixon thought he had appointed a "strict constructionist," a conservative jurist who would read the law narrowly. But over his 24 years on the court, Blackmun showed his independence -- reliably conservative on law-and-order issues, while increasingly concerned with the practical impact of his decisions, putting victims' needs first and trumpeting the rights of individuals over the state. "Like Harry Truman, Harry Blackmun really grew in office," notes TIME senior reporter Alain Sanders, who covered Blackmun during much of the Justice's career. "Early on he was viewed as second-rate, the Minnesota twin of Warren Burger," Sanders notes. "But over time he split with the Chief Justice, finding his own voice on the court." Indeed, ever an open mind, Blackmun reversed his support for capital punishment in 1994. "I shall no longer tinker with the machinery of death," he wrote.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,20900,00.html

What I object streneously to is the legislation from the bench. If this is what it comes down to, let's abolish the presidency and Congress and just appoint a Counsel of Wise Elders and they can just make up the law as they go along. Be cheaper and probably just as effective as the bought and paid for Congress that we have now.

So you are against the Checks & Balances system set up by our Founding Fathers? Interesting, very interesting. Let's take it one step at a time? If the Supremes reversed their decision then you would believe in them again? However, since you disagree with their decision you find them to be inadeqaute and useless?

I disagree. I think it is what it is, meaning it's an ever changing canvas, a portrait that will never be completed and that will be remade in the image of the times.

Do you think the Liberals which you seem to hate with a vengence would write or suggest that the Checks & Balance system be abolished if Roe V. Wade is reversed? Seems to me that anyone who would write such drivel is unable to differentiate between personal opinion and the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Sometimes I wish I could join you. The liberal mindset here is mind boggling with the historical revisionism that passes for news here. "America bad, insurgents good", etc.

I need to be enlightened? Please show me the overwhelming evidence that you must have that Liberals think America is bad and the insurgents are good?

If you can't how about you consider the shear stupidity in writing stuff like that? Posting bullshit like that is.....bullshit. Someone who posts bullshit is what, exactly? A bullshitter?

You know what, anyone who thinks that Liberals are anti-American must himself be anti-American since a "real" American would never, ever hate his fellow countrymen to the point of calling him a traitor without cause, without evidence, without squat.

2+2=4 Mr. Mule.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I need to be enlightened? Please show me the overwhelming evidence that you must have that Liberals think America is bad and the insurgents are good?

If you can't how about you consider the shear stupidity in writing stuff like that? Posting bullshit like that is.....bullshit. Someone who posts bullshit is what, exactly? A bullshitter?

You know what, anyone who thinks that Liberals are anti-American must himself be anti-American since a "real" American would never, ever hate his fellow countrymen to the point of calling him a traitor without cause, without evidence, without squat.

2+2=4 Mr. Mule.

Well obviously haven't even begun to see what the left has had to say about America. You might read up on what Chomsky, Moore, Clark and even former Carter has had to say about America, not only here but abroad. So far as I know every one of these individuals is a "liberal." Am I wrong?

You know, we used to hang traitors at one time, or lined them up to be shot. You should avail yourself of the history of the United States. Suggest you check out the "Palmer Raids" of WWI or the way FDR handled the German Sabotours. Both Democratic presidents.

Nowaways it ain't hip unless one is trashing the United States and all of our dastardly deeds around the world. Why the liberal campuses won't even allow military recruiters onto their campuses because it isn't "politically correct." I suppose they believe that our military of the future will get their applicants from the skid rows of America, lest the liberal intelligentisia be bothered by such inconveniences as a military defense. I could go on but you get the idea.

 

[Missouri Mule]

You wonder why I rail about liberals. Listen to the supremely silly Helen Thomas. Should I take any liberal seriously?
=======================


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN JULY 31, 2005 19:44:05 ET XXXXX

HELEN THOMAS ANGRY AFTER 'KILL SELF' OVER CHENEY COMMENTS PUBLISHED

White House press doyenne Helen Thomas is plenty peeved at her longtime friend Albert Eisele, editor of THE HILL newspaper in Washington, D.C.

In a column this week headlined "Reporter: Cheney's Not Presidential Material," Eisele quoted Thomas as saying "The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."

Thomas also said: "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does," according to Eisele's column.

But Thomas said yesterday at the White House that her comments to Eisele were for his ears only. "I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying.

"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.

But Eisele said that when he called Thomas, "I assume she knew that we were on the record."

"She's obviously very upset about it, but it was a small item -- until Drudge picked it up and broadcast it across the universe," Eisele said.

Still, he noted that reporters aren't that happy when the tables are turned. "Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele said with a laugh.

Developing...

www.drudgereport.com

 

[Missouri Mule]

Are you incapable of writing a post that does not use the word LIBERAL in a negative fashion? Is it too much for you to write Blackmun without LIBERAL? Are you incapable of expressing an opinion that is strong without using LIBERAL? From where I'm sitting it doesn't appear you have that level of intelligence when writing posts.

Want to know how misguided I think your opinion is? The vote was 7-2 and Blackmun wrote the Opinion of the Court. 7-2 is what George Tenet would call a "Slam Dunk" Furtherore Blackmun was not one of the "worst justices ever" that is partisan politicas speaking, it has no basis in FACT. Here's a part of Time Magazine's obituary.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,20900,00.html


So you are against the Checks & Balances system set up by our Founding Fathers? Interesting, very interesting. Let's take it one step at a time? If the Supremes reversed their decision then you would believe in them again? However, since you disagree with their decision you find them to be inadeqaute and useless?

I disagree. I think it is what it is, meaning it's an ever changing canvas, a portrait that will never be completed and that will be remade in the image of the times.

Do you think the Liberals which you seem to hate with a vengence would write or suggest that the Checks & Balance system be abolished if Roe V. Wade is reversed? Seems to me that anyone who would write such drivel is unable to differentiate between personal opinion and the meaning of the Constitution.

I understand the Constitution just fine, thank you very much. It has three legs, and the judiciary is supposed to be the "least dangerous." Did you know that? If that is the case, why does the Supreme Court set the agenda for the rest of the country? I may be dumb but I'm not stupid. The Supreme Court is out of control and has been for decades. Why don't the liberals just come out and say it? Abolish the other two branches of government and let the "wise elders" in the Supreme Court just write the legislation too? It would at least be an honest admission of what they have been trying to snooker the public for the past decades. I'm for honesty, aren't you?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Well obviously haven't even begun to see what the left has had to say about America. You might read up on what Chomsky, Moore, Clark and even former Carter has had to say about America, not only here but abroad. So far as I know every one of these individuals is a "liberal." Am I wrong?

:rofl This is your overwhleming evidence? :rofl (at you)

These are the same four you always mention. Do you mean that because of these 4 all American Liberals are anti-American and pro insurgency? :rofl

You know, we used to hang traitors at one time, or lined them up to be shot.

Do yu want Michael Moore hung? Is that what you're saying? Please clarify. Who else, specifically, do you want to hang? Name names, please!

Nowaways it ain't hip unless one is trashing the United States and all of our dastardly deeds around the world. Why the liberal campuses won't even allow military recruiters onto their campuses because it isn't "politically correct."

Please tell me which "liberal" universities make your $hit list? Which don't?

I suppose they believe that our military of the future will get their applicants from the skid rows of America, lest the liberal intelligentisia be bothered by such inconveniences as a military defense. I could go on but you get the idea.

Please go on, it's very enlightening. What other stories about Liberal America do you want to make up? Any opinion on second hand smoke? Is that a Liberal plot to destroy the American economy? How do you feel about EZ Pass? Is it a Liberal scheme to take jobs away from hard working toll collectors?

 

[Missouri Mule]

:rofl This is your overwhleming evidence? :rofl (at you)

These are the same four you always mention. Do you mean that because of these 4 all American Liberals are anti-American and pro insurgency? :rofl

Do yu want Michael Moore hung? Is that what you're saying? Please clarify. Who else, specifically, do you want to hang? Name names, please!

Please tell me which "liberal" universities make your $hit list? Which don't?

Please go on, it's very enlightening. What other stories about Liberal America do you want to make up? Any opinion on second hand smoke? Is that a Liberal plot to destroy the American economy? How do you feel about EZ Pass? Is it a Liberal scheme to take jobs away from hard working toll collectors?

Some of your post is irrelevant such as the "EZ Pass" so I won't address it.

Specifically, I would not hang Michael Moore. He is a film maker in the ilk of Oliver Stone who makes up history to sell their films. They are dishonest, immoral and they ought to be shown for the charlatans they are.

On the other hand, individuals like Chomsky, Clark , Churchill and others who go abroad to make the utterly outrageous statements against the United States certainly quality as "traitors." I would, if I had the power, put them on trial for treason and duly punish them if they are found guilty. Otherwise, abolish the treason laws. If they are not "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" then I don't know what they are doing.

As to the liberal universities, most of the eastern and western well known universities are infected with extreme leftists who continually spill their anti-American venom. Berkeley comes to mind. There are many others. As I have said earlier, patriotism has become passe', and not de rigueur in the "new think" that passes for education today. I could probably get you a list of universities and names but it would be much to long to post here, exceeding the post limits.

But you're asking me to defend my views. Let me ask you to do the same. Prove that liberals are patriotic. How many have shed their blood on the battlefields of the Middle East? How many are signing up to serve their country? How many are stepping out to defend the United States against an implaccable foe that would destroy our civilization? How many are doing what JFK admonished us all to do; "Ask not what your country can do for you but ask yourself what you can do for your country." How many liberals follow his advice? You asked me to name some names. Now give me your names of prominent liberals who actually follow his advice.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

 

[vergiss]

Sometimes I wish I could join you. The liberal mindset here is mind boggling with the historical revisionism that passes for news here. "America bad, insurgents good", etc.

...

You know, I have a feeling you would hate Australia. You seem the type to resent common sense. After all, the last person in Parliament to whinge about abortion caused a public outcry and was told off by the Prime Minister.

 

[Schweddy]

I will pass on Australia. There are no guns to protect yourself.

This thread has completely turned into an "us vs them" instead of a discussion about the topic at hand. Roe v Wade.

Getting back on topic:
Overturing Roe v Wade would be one of the greatest achievments in the 21 century.

 

[cnredd]

I will pass on Australia. There are no guns to protect yourself.

This thread has completely turned into an "us vs them" instead of a discussion about the topic at hand. Roe v Wade.

Getting back on topic:
Overturing Roe v Wade would be one of the greatest achievments in the 21 century.

Vauge...prepare to duck! You know it's comin'....:rofl

 

[Missouri Mule]

Vauge...prepare to duck! You know it's comin'....:rofl

It isn't going to happen. Even Roberts says it is "settled law." It'll happen only if our country somehow comes back into a semblence of unity. It is now just a wedge issue to raise campaign dollars. I don't really care all that much about abortion per se. What I resent are the liberal activist judges legislating from the bench. Roe v Wade is a national travesty and most of the division in our country dates roughly from its enactment in 1974. It should have been a states rights issue and we would never be in the fix we are today.

 

[Alex]

It isn't going to happen. Even Roberts says it is "settled law." It'll happen only if our country somehow comes back into a semblence of unity. It is now just a wedge issue to raise campaign dollars. I don't really care all that much about abortion per se. What I resent are the liberal activist judges legislating from the bench. Roe v Wade is a national travesty and most of the division in our country dates roughly from its enactment in 1974. It should have been a states rights issue and we would never be in the fix we are today.

Our Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. It means that the Constitution trumps all state laws. We tried giving states sovereignty with the Articles of Confederation. It did not work.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Our Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. It means that the Constitution trumps all state laws. We tried giving states sovereignty with the Articles of Confederation. It did not work.

That's the point you see. The Constitution says that all laws not enacted by the federal government belong to the states to make their own laws. This was legislation from the bench, pure and simple. We really ought to just junk the Congress and presidency and just let this "Court of Elders" do everything; enact the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws. They are doing it anyway. The voters be damned.

 

[Alex]

That's the point you see. The Constitution says that all laws not enacted by the federal government belong to the states to make their own laws. This was legislation from the bench, pure and simple. We really ought to just junk the Congress and presidency and just let this "Court of Elders" do everything; enact the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws. They are doing it anyway. The voters be damned.

This is not true. The Supreme Court turns away over 2000 cases a year. They only hear the ones that are Constitutionally important. If it were not for them we would not be a country of liberty.

The Constitution says that all laws not enacted by the federal government belong to the states to make their own laws.

The Constitution also states the right to liberty. There is nothing more fundamental to the concept of liberty than personal freedom and privacy. Also, there is the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. It means the people have individual rights.

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment that is being referred to states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


"...nor prohibited by it to the States" means that this Amendment is also under the scrutiny of the Constitution in regards to the rights of the States.