Thoughts about the Constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade?

Binary_Digit · 08-18-08, 08:43 PM

Even though this relates directly to abortion, I put this in the "Separation of Powers" section because Federal laws vs. State laws is the main topic I wanted to get at.

I've noticed that a lot of people believe Roe vs. Wade (RvW) is unconstitutional. One argument is that the Federal gov't shouldn't get involved, and instead it should be a decision for the States to make. As a Libertarian, I truly believe in the notion that, as much as feasible, laws should exist at the State and local levels instead of the Federal. But most people agree it's appropriate for Federal law to prohibit murder, so in the context of RvW and whether it's unconstitutional, it comes down to the standard debate about whether or not abortion is murder.

On one hand, it's hard to consider an endoplasm as being any more of a "person" than a skin graft. On the other, it's hard not to call partial-birth abortion murder. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere between conception and birth, where the fetus becomes a "person" and is therefore protected by law. Where to draw that line is at the core of just about every abortion debate that has ever taken place. Of course "life" begins at conception, because when two living cells combine, it makes sense that the result is a "life" of some sort. But when should that "life" become a "person" protected by law?

If the line is drawn too close to the moment of conception, then the Federal gov't is imposing on citizen's rights unnecessarily. But if the line is drawn too close to the moment of birth, then allowing abortion is allowing murder. Until it's officially decided where to draw the line, some sort of compromise is in order. Because it's appropriate for Federal law to prohibit murder, and because abortion is murder if the line is drawn at one extreme, I think it's appropriate for Federal law to determine the compromise. And that's what Roe v. Wade does. It draws the line in 3 different places, laying out the appropriate ground rules for each trimester, and takes into account that all three arguments (civil rights, state rights, murder) are very good ones.

Of course, for those who believe "personhood" begins at conception, it's going to be considered bad legislation regardless. And some would argue that the trimesters are too arbitrary, and that the lines should be moved to more specific stages of development. I personally think that preventing the States from banning abortion in the first trimester is unconstitutional. But taking everything above into consideration, RvW seems to be a very good piece of legislation to me.

What are your thoughts on this?

MC.no.spin · 08-18-08, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

Even though this relates directly to abortion, I put this in the "Separation of Powers" section because Federal laws vs. State laws is the main topic I wanted to get at.

I've noticed that a lot of people believe Roe vs. Wade (RvW) is unconstitutional. One argument is that the Federal gov't shouldn't get involved, and instead it should be a decision for the States to make. As a Libertarian, I truly believe in the notion that, as much as feasible, laws should exist at the State and local levels instead of the Federal. But most people agree it's appropriate for Federal law to prohibit murder, so in the context of RvW and whether it's unconstitutional, it comes down to the standard debate about whether or not abortion is murder.

On one hand, it's hard to consider an endoplasm as being any more of a "person" than a skin graft. On the other, it's hard not to call partial-birth abortion murder. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere between conception and birth, where the fetus becomes a "person" and is therefore protected by law. Where to draw that line is at the core of just about every abortion debate that has ever taken place. Of course "life" begins at conception, because when two living cells combine, it makes sense that the result is a "life" of some sort. But when should that "life" become a "person" protected by law?

If the line is drawn too close to the moment of conception, then the Federal gov't is imposing on citizen's rights unnecessarily. But if the line is drawn too close to the moment of birth, then allowing abortion is allowing murder. Until it's officially decided where to draw the line, some sort of compromise is in order. Because it's appropriate for Federal law to prohibit murder, and because abortion is murder if the line is drawn at one extreme, I think it's appropriate for Federal law to determine the compromise. And that's what Roe v. Wade does. It draws the line in 3 different places, laying out the appropriate ground rules for each trimester, and takes into account that all three arguments (civil rights, state rights, murder) are very good ones.

Of course, for those who believe "personhood" begins at conception, it's going to be considered bad legislation regardless. And some would argue that the trimesters are too arbitrary, and that the lines should be moved to more specific stages of development. I personally think that preventing the States from banning abortion in the first trimester is unconstitutional. But taking everything above into consideration, RvW seems to be a very good piece of legislation to me.

What are your thoughts on this?

The common debate is when life begins, but this isn't really the point of contention in Roe. They in fact left the issue of when life begins open to question. What the point of contention is, and still is today, is whether or not the 14th Amendment's due process clause gives a right to privacy that can be legislated as an enforcable right, not to be infringed; particularly the right to abortion, which had over 20 anti-abortion laws already on the books in some states at the time the Amendment was passed, yet somehow failed to repeal until Roe. If the writers of the Amendment wanted abortion legalized, it would have happened immediately.

This kind of activist judicial legislation opens up a pandora's box of what is and isn't a part of the constitution, such as assisted suicide, preventing wire-taps on terrorists, stopping CIA interrogations, eroding property rights, enforcing gay marriage on all 50 states, prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools, removing charter schools, stripping God from the Pledge, banning the death penalty, removing military detention bases over seas, opening up big-dollar lawsuits against business, plus increasing welfare and healthcare programs to epic, non-viable proportions.

Kernel Sanders · 08-18-08, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

I've noticed that a lot of people believe Roe vs. Wade (RvW) is unconstitutional. One argument is that the Federal gov't shouldn't get involved, and instead it should be a decision for the States to make. As a Libertarian, I truly believe in the notion that, as much as feasible, laws should exist at the State and local levels instead of the Federal. But most people agree it's appropriate for Federal law to prohibit murder, so in the context of RvW and whether it's unconstitutional, it comes down to the standard debate about whether or not abortion is murder.

Except in a few cases, murder is not under federal jurisdiction.

Source [ Wikipedia | Murder]

Quote:

If murder is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction. If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the Federal Government also has jurisdiction. If a crime is not committed within any state, then Federal jurisdiction is exclusive: examples include the District of Columbia, naval or U.S.-flagged merchant vessels in international waters, or a U.S. military base.

The federal government has no business regulating abortion. Whether or not Roe v Wade was a good decision, it was the wrong decision.

1069 · 08-18-08, 09:20 PM

My thoughts about the Constitutionality of Roe v Wade can be summed up in a single succinct phrase:

Stare decisis et quieta non movere.

ARealConservative · 08-18-08, 09:54 PM

the decision is nonsensical and will eventually be overturned.

1069 · 08-18-08, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

the decision is nonsensical and will eventually be overturned.

It's been nearly forty years.

But feel free to keep holding your breath.

ARealConservative · 08-18-08, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

It's been nearly forty years.

But feel free to keep holding your breath.

40 years is a blink of an eye.

I'm not going to hold my breath, but I do take comfort in the belief that humanity is evolving minus a few step back such as this one.

1069 · 08-18-08, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

40 years is a blink of an eye.

I'm not going to hold my breath, but I do take comfort in the belief that humanity is evolving minus a few step back such as this one.

Except that abortion's been legal (and even explicitly condoned by the Catholic Church, within certain parameters, so you can't say abortion didn't exist, or wasn't acknowledged) throughout all of recorded history, except for less than 100 years, beginning in the Victorian era.

Soon abortion will have been constitutionally protected for longer than it was ever illegal.

That <hundred years was a failed social experiment, which our elected leaders- conservative and progressive, and regardless of what they say to the contrary- have no wish to repeat.

So, like I said:

Good luck with that.

ARealConservative · 08-18-08, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Except that abortion's been legal (and even explicitly condoned by the Catholic Church, within certain parameters, so you can't say abortion didn't exist, or wasn't acknowledged) throughout all of recorded history, except for less than 100 years, beginning in the Victorian era.

Soon abortion will have been constitutionally protected for longer than it was ever illegal.

That <hundred years was a failed social experiment, which our elected leaders- conservative and progressive, and regardless of what they say to the contrary- have no wish to repeat.

So, like I said:

Good luck with that.

The step back I refer to is the step back from the rule of law and consent of the governed.

I'm not going to waste time explaining it to you though 10 as your presence in these forms of threads is utterly transparent. You keep laughing at people you think are in great pain over this nonsensical legal opinion though. It's your "thing"

1069 · 08-18-08, 10:52 PM

Quote:

You keep laughing at people you think are in great pain over this nonsensical legal opinion though.

It's not my impression that anyone here is "in great pain".
We- prolife and prochoice- have laughed together at too many dead baby jokes over the years.
I assume that participation in this forum is, for everyone here- as it is for me- an intellectual exercise and a form of entertainment.

There is one poster in my recollection who might've been an exception to this; I eventually came to the conclusion that she might be mentally ill, and near the end of her tenure on this forum I stopped responding to her and encouraged others to do likewise.

Other than that, no, I do not believe that anyone here is 'in great pain".
Are you implying that you are "in great pain"?

If this place causes anyone even slight pain, they should go away, and find a less painful pastime.
It's not like we're getting paid to be here.