Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It tells me that his stance on abortion is the major issue for them.

If you are so concerned with finding the truth and not demonizing others then surely you can realize that the Supreme court has no authority to make laws. There was nothing in the Constitution concerning abortion, therefore it should have been a states right to decide.

The decision in Roe V Wade was unconstitutional. That is the underlying cause of all this ugly division.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972) was concerned with the constitutionality of state criminal abortion statutes under the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions on state action and the 9th Amendment's reservation of rights to the people. In the opinion of the Court:

It is thus apparent that, at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.

So, the Supreme Court didn't make any laws, and the opinion of the Court was constitutional.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972) was concerned with the constitutionality of state criminal abortion statutes under the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions on state action and the 9th Amendment's reservation of rights to the people. In the opinion of the Court:



So, the Supreme Court didn't make any laws, and the opinion of the Court was constitutional.

The opinion of the court was that a woman's right to an abortion was constitutionally supported based on a vague reading to the "right to privacy". The law concerning unreasonable searches was used to cover the right to abortion. So the same people who complain with the constitutional "right to bear arms" are the same who can justify abortion using the protection against unreasonable search without a warrant. That to me is the height of hypocrisy.

Think of the irony that the restrictions on abortion are tighter and more stringent now than prior to the ruling. If the Supreme court had simply argued that this is a state's rights issue what would have happened? Some states would have outlawed it, perhaps Texas would be in that category, hard to tell. Some states would have put in restrictions and regulations, probably NY and California would be in that category. Some states would have legalized it completely, perhaps Nevada, etc. But you would have taken the rug out from any who would protest. Against abortion, move to where it is illegal. For abortion, what is the big issue, if you don't want to move simply go out of state when necessary.

Not only would this have put a stop to most protests, it would have also eliminated it from the discourse in national politics. Congressmen, Senators and presidents would not need to say anything more than "that is a state's right issue". As for local politicians it could easily have become a referendum issue, just like legalizing Pot or some other topic.

So instead of blaming Evangelicals why not look in the mirror? The man in the mirror is the only one you have authority to change. Blaming Evangelicals suggest to me you aren't really serious about a solution.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The opinion of the court was that a woman's right to an abortion was constitutionally supported based on a vague reading to the "right to privacy". The law concerning unreasonable searches was used to cover the right to abortion. So the same people who complain with the constitutional "right to bear arms" are the same who can justify abortion using the protection against unreasonable search without a warrant. That to me is the height of hypocrisy.

Think of the irony that the restrictions on abortion are tighter and more stringent now than prior to the ruling. If the Supreme court had simply argued that this is a state's rights issue what would have happened? Some states would have outlawed it, perhaps Texas would be in that category, hard to tell. Some states would have put in restrictions and regulations, probably NY and California would be in that category. Some states would have legalized it completely, perhaps Nevada, etc. But you would have taken the rug out from any who would protest. Against abortion, move to where it is illegal. For abortion, what is the big issue, if you don't want to move simply go out of state when necessary.

Not only would this have put a stop to most protests, it would have also eliminated it from the discourse in national politics. Congressmen, Senators and presidents would not need to say anything more than "that is a state's right issue". As for local politicians it could easily have become a referendum issue, just like legalizing Pot or some other topic.

So instead of blaming Evangelicals why not look in the mirror? The man in the mirror is the only one you have authority to change. Blaming Evangelicals suggest to me you aren't really serious about a solution.

Put down the crack pipe man. I didn't blame Evangelicals for anything. It was a statement of putative fact. I read it in several periodicals including the WSJ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Put down the crack pipe man. I didn't blame Evangelicals for anything. It was a statement of putative fact. I read it in several periodicals including the WSJ.

Well, if the WSJ says it then we can't question it.

The US is a republic founded on a constitution. If the powers that be ignore or twist that constitution then it is unreasonable to assume they will not reap the wind.

They thought they could put it behind them, they didn't. They thought it would resolve the matter, it didn't.

What is the fear in making this a state's right issue? A simple solution that would immediately remove it from all political campaigns for national office.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The US is a republic founded on a constitution. If the powers that be ignore or twist that constitution then it is unreasonable to assume they will not reap the wind.

Have you not heard in liberal circles that the constitution is a "living document?"

It has to be changed because the Founders never envisioned things like cell phones and the internet. Thus saith Al Gore, notable carbon bigfoot.