A few things about Roe vs. Wade you may not have been aware of...

- Roe lied and said she had been gang-raped by 4 Black men, in an attempt to garner sympathy for her case.

Roe vs. Wade was a racist ruling, on par with Dred Scott vs. Sandford
(ok maybe I'm going a little bit over the top here)

- Roe vs. Wade was decided 5 to 4. Five of the Supreme Court judges agreed with the decision and four judges did not.

- The text in the majority written opinion for the case doesn't actually make much sense and parts of it are contradictory, along with obvious logical inconsistencies and meager half-hearted attempts at trying to come up with a rationale. The judges were probably just looking for convenient legal routes to justify their ruling.

- Roe vs. Wade doesn't actually legalize abortion, it just set a precedent which makes the orders from any other court virtually ineffectual (because the Supreme Court could presumably just issue a overriding writs on a case by case basis to counter it). So essentially the verdicts from other courts cannot be enforced. It is still theoretically conceivable that a defendant could be prosecuted for abortion and the Supreme Court might not decide to intervene in their specific case. (Actually a federal Appellate court would be more likely to be involved, but that's besides the point here)

- The defendant Roe (actual real name Norma McCorvey) later recanted and said she was so glad she had been prevented from being able to get an abortion.

 

Actually Roe V. Wade was decided 7 to 2.

Otherwise you are essentially correct.

 

I think only 5 of them signed on to the majority opinion though. The other 2 agreed with the ruling for differing reasons.

 

I'm not going to bother to check the validity of the claims so please excuse me for being lazy on that. (Though providing some source wouldn't be a bad idea)

No matter how you shake it a fetus isn't a person till it's born and a woman has fill rights to do with her body as she sees fit. Besides what good do you see coming from unwanted babies being born to, statistically, single, working-poor women?

 

What makes you think that the majority o abortions are performed on single working poor women?

And if a woman has full right to so with her body as she sees fit why can't she sell it for sex or put illegal drugs into it?

 

Some excerpts with a few criticisms of the Roe vs. Wade majority opinion:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n..._Wade--A_Faulty_Legal_Decision.pdf?1333310939


(Also I might be wrong about that 5-4 thing, really sorry if I am, this is mostly from memory and I'm having trouble finding original sources right now)

 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/...aining-class-gaps-in-unintended-childbearing/

I'm all for women, and men, being able to do both of those things. The law being slow in some ways doesn't provide an argument for undoing progress.

 

Roe v. Wade basically just reaffirmed Griswold v. Connecticut - right to privacy under the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment. Roe v Wade does not stand on it's own, it is also a compilation of numerous right to privacy cases.

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring). - From the Decision.

 

I remember the arguments at that time in the press and it was sold to the public as only applying to the first trimester.

 

Hahaha Well now that there's one foot in door...

There are many cases of babies surviving before the second trimester was over.

Kind of like Margaret Sanger insisting to the public they were never going to do abortions when she founded Planned Parenthood, all those years ago.

 

interesting

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/19/the-pro-life-legacy-of-norma-mccorvey-the-roe-of-roe-v-wade/

 

Did you have a point anywhere in there ?

7 to 2, conservative court

 

Sanger was against abortion, called it an abomination....that's why she pushed BirthControl so much....

Ya know, you'd look better informed if you didn't get your "information" from LIEnews site

 

Calling the Burger Court (Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Burger) "conservative" is a bit of a mistatement. In a number of areas such as rulings on law enforcement the Burger Court did indeed take a traditionalist, conservative tendency in rulings.

But there were a number of what we would consider very liberal rulings that came down from it as well.

I don't have a link to the source right now, but I recall an analysis that showed the Burger Court was actually more liberal than the famously liberal Warren Court that proceeded it.

 

It was considered a conservative court. Yes, they also had rulings which some would call liberal and I would call fair.

In any case, RvW it was a correct ruling.....if you want to consider it a "liberal" ruling go ahead, we're proud of that.

 

What many fail to consider is the implications of overturning the right to privacy - because it would not only apply to abortions but to all medical procedures and maybe even social media and other avenues as well

 

Really?? How many abortions are there at that stage of pregnancy that were not for gross foetal abnormality?

 

if a "right to privacy" is so important why not amend the Constitution to enshrine it there.

 

I've read the opinions of a number of pro abortion rights lawyers who openly admit that the Roe V. Wade ruling was a bad decision.

Personally, I think ANY modern court ruling NOT about the treatment of blacks that cites the 14th Amendment to support it is a bad ruling.

 

And I think any ruling that preserves the rights of citizens and prevents the states from taking them away is a good ruling.

Could it have been better? Yes, maybe, but I'll take it as it is....

See post # 8

 

Is it too late to play the race card?

 

I'm not obsessed with rights unless they are matched with responsibilities.

 

So you wouldn't mind having your rights taken away by being forced to give someone a blood transfusion or a new heart or kidney...is that your responsibility?

 

Blood yes. As giving blood causes no real harm and is not dangerous.

Note, while you cannot "force" people to give blood. Legally.

Technically. It has been done.

When I was in college all the fraternities and other organizations competed as to who could give the most blood at the blood drive each semester.

The campus ROTC always won. Why? Because the ROTC would routinely ORDER every member who was physically able to do so to give blood.

 

You can't compare organ donation with pregnancy. The latter is far more a natural part of bodily function than the first, and besides, women's bodies are designed to do it. Plus the woman sort of created the situation in the first place, presumably. If you intentionally drank a gallon of vodka and then, in a drunken stupor, ran over someone with your car, maybe you should be required to donate one of your kidneys, if that person needed it because of the accident you inflicted on them.

Pregnancy doesn't remove anything from the woman, it's not permanent. So in that sense it's not really like organ donation. You could argue that C-section requires the woman to be cut up, and there's always a risk that may be required, but I think C-sections are done far too often and drastically overutilized by the medical community in the U.S. but I don't want to deviate too far off from the original topic.

Nice try though.