Roe v. Wade

Post Reply New Topic

What's your opinion on the Supreme Court's ruling?

Not bad 7 posts and you are about to reignite a flame war

I don't know much about the case so I have just briefly checked out Wikipedia

the basic summary is interesting

"In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the foetus becomes 'viable.'" The Court defined viability as the potential "to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2] The Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, as defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton."

Although I support a womans right to abort her pregnancy I do have reservations about time limits and I would certainly hope that abortion is not allowed that late (unless it is a matter of protecting the mothers life)

Mixed feelings.

I agree with their rationale about a right to one's body as it emerges from the implied right of privacy.

However, I think they omitted a key part of the debate (which rages on today) over the right of the fetus to live and the rights of all parties to the fetus' creation.

Some say it's just a group of cells with no rights, but others feel that once it has a heartbeat, you can't say that.

This is a contentious issue of law because if you punch a woman in the belly and cause a miscarriage, it's considered murder (of something with no right to live). However, if that woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy, it's a "right" she's exercising.

More so, if the biological father wants the fetus aborted, he has no say, but he can be compelled to support the child until it's 18. Likewise, if the biological father wants the fetus to live and would take full parental responsibility, he cannot force the woman to carry the fetus to term and hand it to the willing parent after it is born.

Pregnancy, even by artificial means, requires material from two people. It's no longer "the woman's body" once she conceives because the fetus within her is not just her's...it belongs to at least one other person who has an interest in its fate.

This is a totally unjust and one-sided ruling of law that has no place in American society.

It's two ways to cross the Potomac...

Strongly opposed on three grounds, two of which are Constitutional, the third of which is pragmatic.

Point #1) Constitutional.
The twelfth amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In my view, this clearly indicates that abortion is in fact a "state's rights" issue, and therefore the High Court was, in fact, in error for even hearing the case.

Point #2) Constitutional
The effect of the ruling was to de facto legalise abortion within the United States. This is a case of "legislating from the Bench", and thus a breach of Legislative authority. Again, in my view, highly unconstitutional.

Point #3) Pragmatic.
The basis for the ruling was the "implied right to privacy" in the Constitution. Implication is highly dependant upon the personal values and prejudices held by the individual doing the implying. As such, I see ruling based upon implication as a highly slippery slope, and leads to law being far fuzzier, rather than clearer. I am of the opinion that it is the job of the courts to clarify rather than obfuscate law, in the case of "Roe vs. Wade" the High Court did just the opposite. This, to me, indicates poor judgement. Edit: This ruling also created a "right to privacy" and can also be seen as breaching legislative authority, thus also unconstitutional.

Having made my case, you might be quite surprised to learn that I am quite staunchly pro choice. It is the means, rather than the end to which I object. In so far as the ruling itself, I find it to be most pragmatic, and thus reasonable, and might well applaud the decision were it made by a state Supreme court as opposed to the Federal. This would, of course, depend upon the verbiage of that particular states constitution.

I do, however, strongly agree with zerOnetgain, in that the rights vs. responsibility side of the equation with regards to the father have been largely ignored by the law. It takes two to tango, and if both parties are to be judged, than it would seem that both parties should have input on the issue. I know a number of fellows who have fallen into this hole in the law, in at least one of these cases paternity was not clearly established. It was more a case of: someone must be responsible, you'll do.

I think it's legislation from the bench with consideration that it'd be impossible and inhumane to challenge who had an abortion vs who may have had a miscarriage or other accident. Not to mention it's with the safety of the citizens in mind.

Not to mention also, you're not considered a citizen of the state until you're born and also it's just an easy line to draw at birth. No BS like all this garbage with abortion...draw the line at birth and that's it.


The BS is all started by religious organizations looking to flex power within the community and has nothing to do with life or the preservation thereof.

Though it's a case of legislation from the bench, it was a case of the judges making a decision that would have been impossible for an elected official to ever carry out due to the power the religious organizations enforce over most. And it was a judgment for the better in terms of protecting the citizenry as a whole.