Pure BS. Most religious groups allow abortions in case of rape or incest. Plus, the vast majority of abortions (over 99%) are regular but "invonvenient" pregnancies, anout half of them by married women "who don't want another baby." Why not giving it up for adoption? Society "forces" women to drive under the speed limit, not to drink in public until age 21, to pay their taxes, etc etc. How about restricting their freedom to kill their (and their husbands' or partners') children? In many states, parents have the right to send their 15 year old daughter to her room if she misbehaves, to make sure she's back by curfiew, to decide what she should eat most of the time... but not whether she can have an abortion? Preposterous. Then we complain that the family fabric of this country is weakening with all the corresponding disastrous effects. The bloody hypocricy of the liberals is immense on this topic: endless griping about a few thousand (admittedly tragic and regrettable) deaths of volunteer soldiers who are defending their country overseas, and at the same time absolute fury about any discussion to curtail the senseless slaughter of millions of babies every year, a holocaust over and over again. Go figure!
The Bill of Rights was voted on and ALSO had to be ratified. Why are you refering to Federal abortion statutes. The debate and the Courts ruling were in response to STATE laws.
we did vote on it. my state of south dakota, one of the most conservative bible thumping states in the midwest,had a vote on an abortion ban in the last election cycle. it lost big.
The court is not saying abortion is right, they are saying that preventing a woman's right to having an abortion is wrong. Quite a difference. One perspective is that a woman should by her own right choose what to do with her body and her biological reproductive system, the other perspective is that a woman's rights and choice should be superseded by the state, i.e. be forced against her will to decide to bear a child she does not want. The court is not commenting on whether the woman is right or wrong in her choice to abort a fetus, the rightly leave that question alone as they have answer for that question if the stick with Constitutional law. It is easy to think that abortion is wrong, yet also think it is wrong to control the choices of women. Just as some people think taking drugs, or being a drunk, or any of a number of choices people make are wrong, but that choice should be their own what to do with their body, not for the state to decide.
Exactly vhehn. Pro-lifers can continue to lobby their neighbors if it's ever on the ballot again but none of us can say it wasn't in the hands of the people.
What if it was the other way? What if when New York passed their law allowing abortion back in the 60's the Court had struck it down? You know as well as anyone that decisions are fluid. Another Court-another time-a completely different decision. I can make arguments for pot as compelling as for abortion. Guess what? They'd go no where. Probably not a state in the country would pass a pro-pot referendum (except maybe Alaska). Any chance that the liberal Berger Court would've said pot smokers have a right to choose their own mental health option. No way. At least abortion rights would survive a ballot test in most states. Pot smokers-even those who're using pot to battle more serious addictions to alcohol and meds have no recourse and no champion. And med-pot in Nevada? A 2-1 loser back in 2004.
Ummm... who voted on the Bill of Rights? Are you trying to refer to ratification by 11 states as a "vote?" "The Bill of Rights established soaring principles that guaranteed the most fundamental rights in very general terms. But from the beginning, real live cases arose that raised difficult questions about how, and even if, the Bill of Rights would be applied. Before the paper rights could become actual rights, someone had to interpret what the language of the Bill of Rights meant in specific situations. Who would be the final arbiter of how the Constitution should be applied? At first, the answer was unclear. Thomas Jefferson thought that the federal judiciary should have that power; James Madison agreed that a system of independent courts would be "an impenetrable bulwark" of liberty. But the Constitution did not make this explicit, and the issue would not be resolved until 1803. That year, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional in a case called Marbury v. Madison. Although the facts of this case were fairly mundane (a dispute over the Secretary of State's refusal to commission four judges appointed by the Senate), the principle it established - that the Supreme Court had the power to nullify acts of Congress that violated the Constitution - turned out to be the key to the development and protection of most of the rights Americans enjoy today. According to one eminent legal scholar, the independent judiciary was "America's most distinctive contribution to constitutionalism."
Well said yannis. I'm not a particularly compassionate individual so I don't really care if the little fucks get murdered or not. In most cases they're probably better off anyway. It's the left's hypocrisy on the subject that annoys me.