door opens on dissing roe v wade

pro choice period

that pro choice is for everything in life, period

abortion
TrespassersWill, do you really think that pro-choice advocates must, if they are to argue that a woman has reproductive sovereignty over her body, also argue for her right to smoke dope, commit suicide, etc.? Is that not a non-sequitur? We are only talking about reproductive rights, not about rights to commit suicide or break extant laws. The right to commit suicide is another issue altogether.
BTW,Pdiddie. Thanks for your sane comments.

Here was NPR's morning lineup on RvW this morning. I found it quit enlightening - please draw your own conclusions:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/roevwade/index.html

Re: abortion

But Roe V. Wade wasn't decided on the narrow issue of "reproductive rights", that's just a fine tuning of the message that's been done by pro-abortion folks in recent years. The issue is whether or not a person has the fundamental right to choose what to do with his or her body under our Constitution. Now, maybe we do. But if we do, it is in the broadest possible sense. There's clearly no mention of reproduction in the Constitution. I don't see how you can reasonably argue that "reproductive rights" is the issue.

You are of course free to call yourself anything you want. I just don't care for the "pro-choice"/"pro-life" labels. Maybe that's because I suspect they both apply to a lot of people like me. I don't want to ban abortion, but nor am I against placing reasonable limits on how and when it is used.

Trespassers Will: Thank you for your extremely eloquent posts.
Regarding your BartCop post, PDid.

The one thing that distinguishes the argument asserting that abortion is the cost we pay to live in a free society is that it is NOT an ACCIDENT, unlike those drinking, driving and a significant percentage of the gun deaths.
THOSE are ACCIDENTS.
When was the last time you ever heard of a woman getting an abortion, BY ACCIDENT?

I think it's actually "pregnant" by accident, max.

Are alcoholism and cirrhosis 'accidents'?

Smoking cigarettes is accidental?

Coupla defects in your argument, there, dad.

Sorry 'bout that... :wink:

Re: abortion


This is thoroughly specious line of reasoning--i recognize that you likely make the argument in good faith, but it is unsupportable. The following is from the text of Justice Blackmun's written majority opinion:

"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.

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's [p154] decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) (sterilization)."

Please note in particular the following statement, from the above excerpted paragraphs: "Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.[/b] (The bold face italic was inserted by me.) The court was not making a globally valid statement that rights to privacy found to be inherent in the 14th and 9th amendments in a history of appellate and Supreme court decisions is an unlimited right. The topic of abortion and the interest of a state in "asserting important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life" are the very narrow, specific topics of Blackmun's majority opinion. The following statement taken from the paragraphs excerpted above specifically contradicts your statement TW: "In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions." Sorry, Boss, you're completely wrong on this one, and one only need scan the Blackmun opinion to find this text, which is how i came up with it. I have read these opinions in the past, so i knew what i was looking for.

For those interested in establishing their arguments with regard to Roe v. Wade, the following will link you to a site at which you can read all of the opinions rendered by the Supremes in this case:

The Court's January 22nd, 1973 decision

This an aol site, which was convenient for me, because aol is my ISP. For those who might mistrust such a source, try the following link:

Library of Congress

and do a search on your own.

Thanks Setanta, I've never consider RvW an accident of happenstance!

And who appointed Blackmun to the Supreme Court? It's very telling. Was it John Kennedy? No. Lyndon Johnson? No. Richard Nixon? Right.

David Souter has let down Bush the Elder, as well.

I simply am not going to count on that happening thrice in my lifetime.

Bambi, a blonde in her fourth year as a UCLA freshman, sat
in her US government class.

The professor asked Bambi if she knew what
Roe vs.Wade was about.

Bambi pondered the question then finally said,

"That was the decision George Washington had to make before he crossed
the Delaware."

Setanta - Excellent post with good information, but I respectfully disagree on your reading of the decision. That Blackmun specifically addresses issues pertaining to abortion is inherent in the case brought before him, but I do not agree that it limits the decision to reproductive rights alone. As a Supreme Court justice, his decisions must be narrowly written and go to the specifics of the case brought. It would later be up to someone else to bring a case to challenge whether you or I "see" this existing decision correctly.

In the specific language to which you refer, "Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive." I believe Blackmun is stating that the right to decide what to do with her body is not absolute and may be open to some reasonable restriction by the state.

But of course, that is just my read on it. I can certainly see how you reached a different conclusion.

How do you reckon Souter let Bush I down? Bush I wanted to show the Hard Right that he wasn't in their pocket. He was unconcerned about the usual abortion litmus test both parties employ. He iwas a moderate, and wanted a smart guy, which he got.

I didn't reach a different conclusion, i reached the same conclusion, to wit, Blackmun is expressing the court's opinion that, although the Texas statutes as then written were too broad and vague, the state nevertheless has a valid interest in the regulation of abortion. I can't think anything would be more clear. I cited that passage in particular to refute the contention that the Roe v. Wade opinion authorizes complete autonomy of the individual with regard to his/her body as opposed to the interest of the state.

Setanta - Apparently I need to write more clearly when addressing you:

YOU REACHED A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN I.

Is that really a point you want to argue?

Oh, I am reaching Bush Sr.'s conclusions for him here, Lash; having said that, I feel that Clarence Thomas was more the type Justice he had in mind.

JMHO that Souter has not stood behind the conservative agenda as much as the elder Bush wished, and perhaps (99.44% conjecture follows) damaged him electorally in 1992 with the conservative base, despite Judge Thomas' unequivocal ideology.

No, i reached the same conclusion, that the right of the woman is not absolute, as determined by the court's decision. Your partisanship is showing again. You are assuming that i believe the court to have said the woman's right is absolute, and i do not. We reached the same conclusion, but i won't indulge in puerile histrionics to make the point. I would not have replied here, but, as this would be unfair without explanation, i will point out that, due largely to your nastiness, uninvited, uncalled for, and not pertinent to a point i was making to someone else, in the Iraqi thread, i intend to ignore you. My contempt for you is now complete, and i don't wish to lower my self-esteem by continuing a futile attempt to communicate with you, nor raise my stress level by behaving as if your writings merit a response--they don't.

Setanta - Why can't you just respond to what I actually wrote?

I understand what you meant, and I never suggested "that {you} believe the court to have said the woman's right is absolute".

Nowhere, no how. Not once. If you honestly thought that's what I wrote, please understand that it was not.

My point, which I made clearly and civilly, was that you interpret the ruling to speak only to reproductive rights, while I interpret it to speak to a right to determine what we do with our entire self. I understand, and never denied, that you see this right as having limits.

Despite the possibility that Setanta will not read this, I want to offer a mea culpa. I went back and read my previous comments with which he took issue, and while I was clear in my mind as to what I intended to write, I did not write what I meant clearly.

This made it easy, and reasonable, for Setanta to misinterpret what I wrote.

I did not mean to suggest that Setanta disagreed with Blackmun on the limitations of a woman's right to choose, but I can see how someone might think that's what I was claiming.

For the record, I was trying to state that Setanta and I disagree as to whether the decision is limited to reproductive rights or to the rights of the individual in all ways to decide what to do with his or her self. On that point I thought we could agree to disagree, but the sloppiness of my reply led to Setanta's understandable interpretation, and it unfortunately took me a while to go back and see why he didn't understand what I meant.

Sorry to waste people's time with this, but seeing that I'd made a mistake I needed to try to make it right.