states have abrogated their rights on so many things anymore....the cries for 'states rights' pretty much rings hollow these days.
our constitution doesn't specifically mention much at all, does it? it's up to the justices to see if a right exists under what is currently named. that's how they ruled 'right to privacy', it's also how they've decided on cases involving separation of church and state issues, since that also isn't explicitly stated. nullification was attempted by south carolina about 180 years ago- no one's attempted it since, with good reason.

here's an excerpt from an article regarding the unenumerated 'right to privacy':

The right to privacy isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, but the US Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental liberty deserving protection because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause).

The judicial concept of "Substantive Due Process," holds that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is intended to protect all unenumerated rights considered fundamental and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," among these the right to privacy. Use of Substantive Due Process is considered judicial activism, in that it seeks to limit the scope of laws that undermine personal liberty, even if the law doesn't address a right specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

In the past, (Lochner Era: c.1897-1937, second industrial revolution) Courts used Substantive Due Process in a way that reduced individual protection from exploitation by businesses and the government, such as protecting the "right" of the individual to negotiate contracts with an employer by holding minimum wage and work conditions laws unconstitutional.

Today, Substantive Due Process is used to protect the individual against exploitation or legislation that creates an undue burden on individuals, or on an identifiable group or class of citizens.

The Supreme Court first declared an individual's right to privacy in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting doctors from counseling married couples on the use of birth control. The Court held the state had no legitimate interest interfering in communication between a doctor and patient, that the nature of the discussion was private.

Griswold set the precedent used to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade, (1973) and to decriminalize intimate sexual practices between consenting adults in Lawrence v. Texas, (2003).

as for 'unenumerated rights' i turned to madison (just finished reading a new book just out about him, and i knew he'd discussed unenumerated rights. he was against a bill of rights, as he didn't want people to think only those rights explicitly stated were to ever be considered, and that the federal and state governments could then abridge other rights):

here's this:

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.


and keep in mind, the same 14th amendment was used in several other cases, yet not once can i remember anyone coming out against those rulings.

Idiotic lawmakers like Paul Ryan and Todd Akins have zero right to insert their opinions between a woman and her doctor.

Stop worrying about controlling other people's personal reproductive lives, Rupert. You do have an opinion, that "it wouldn't be the end of the world for states to choose to ban abortion"

If you are so against other people having the freedom to make the personal decision to have an abortion, you should at least be fighting for sex education and free birth control for all.

The only reason to encourage overturning of Roe v Wade is to prevent women from having rights to control their own reproductive lives.

Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.

taxes paying for what? abortions?

rest easy:

For more than 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal tax dollars from being used to pay for Medicaid abortions. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services

You tax dollars have never paid for one abortion, and they do not pay for any abortions. That's illegal. Get the facts straight

and what do you know, on my home page, a headline to this story:

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae6...eae5026c58605f

which is a crystal clear illustration of why roe v wade must be left alone.

oh, i get them and the point. but many don't. it tends to only be mentioned in things like re-arguing the civil war, and in roe v wade. not regarding ss, medicare, obamacare, medicaid, other federal mandates sent out and meekly accepted over the years. it seems that the ppuca ruling is the first time in i can't remember how long that states powers were re-affirmed. and what have states done with it? nothing right now, and probably won't do anything with roberts' gift. remember drinking age requirements sent down from dc, tied to federal highway funding? what's with all these grants that are applied for, for 'free money' from the feds? why was it ever allowed, and why has it ever been tolerated, to have the fed be the clearing house of tax money? to collect and then re-distribute as it willed? people talk about romney not being for 'revenue redistribution' but the fed has been engaged in just that for decades.
it's going to be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle. that's why i said what i said about that 'hollow ring'.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that "I am so against other people having the freedom to make the decision to have an abortion." If I was against it, I would simply state that I think abortion should be illegal. I have never said that I thought abortion should be illegal.

My comment that "it wouldn't be the end of the world if a few states banned it" was made in the context that there are people out there who may vote for Obama/Biden based on this one issue alone. I think that is ridiculous because it is unlikely that Roe v Wade will be overturned, and even if it was overturned that would not ban abortion in the US. Some conservative states may ban it but that would not be the end of the world. If you are a woman in one those states, it would be a little bit of an inconvenience. You would have to drive to a bordering state to have the procedure. As a one-time deal, if you had to drive to a bordering state, that would not be the end of the world.

As soon as the first woman who has her insurance subsidized by an exchange in IL receives an abortion public money (mine)will be used, Henry Hyde be damned again.

Really? What was so inflammatory? I didn't call anybody names.

Don't play dumb.

Not trying to. Would you consider taking an unpopular stand on a controversial subject to be inflammatory, even if the purpose was not to actually aggravate anyone?

when you call people who have abortions murderers....you're going to aggravate people.

When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, while pretending to be an altar boy...you're going to aggravate people.

In other words, you're a douchebag. Ooops, guess I lost the argument.

BTW come to think of it my tax dollars have already paid for abortions just not Federal tax dollars. Unless Cook County Hospital/Stroger wasn't actually performing abortions they say they do and bill for?

it's not taking a stand for your beliefs that's the problem. it's not inflammator to explain why you feel how you do.
calling people murderers, trying to make others live by your rules-that's inflammatory. you see, having a right is one thing....you can choose whether or not to engage in whatever right you are free to exercise. a right being in existence doesn't mean a single person will ever be forced to exercise that right.
take that right away-well, you're potentially affecting a lot of people, aren't you? and you're trying to take away that right because of your opinion. how does your opinion hold more weight than mine, or anyone's?
as for calling people murderers, how does that further your argument? what do you hope to gain by that? who made you the arbiter?

I had an abortion when I was 17.

This is a hard thing for some women to talk about, very easy for me though.

I'd like to suggest that if you are so horrified you open your home and become a foster parent. Or, better yet, adopt.

I killed no one. I was 17 and wasn't about to drag a baby to go and buy pot and wait in line for concert tickets and run off to God knows where at the drop of a hat.

It was not anyone elses business what i chose to do with my own body...the government, the church, pro-life individuals... no one has this right.

I have never regretted it for a second, never felt bad about it. I have 2 kids and had them when I was ready to and apologize to no one.

I was raised Catholic but more importantly to think for myself. Compassion, forgiveness and love. Those are what I was taught.

I would never presume to tell you what to do or judge you for such a personal choice.

I focused on the argument and did not try to insult anyone. Is the terminology incorrect? How else do you classify the action, except by calling it murder, if life does begin at conception?

If life does not begin at conception - no murder has occurred. The door of course swings both ways. Do you have a counter-argument, devoid of insults, upon which to prove this point?

I would suggest that the aggravation stems from an emotional reaction to the possibility, however remote, that maybe I'm right. That means that abortions those people know of might have been murders after all. That's a tough thing to accept.

The insult didn't win the argument for you - you didn't expect it to I'm sure.

We've gone over this before. And everytime we do I try and remind you that it is not the black and white issue you try and make it. There is a lot of gray area to look at.

I guess my question is why does it matter to you what someone else does with their body if you aren't impacted by it financially?

oh yeah, i'm sure that's exactly what it is. it's purely visceral. :rolleyes:

as for 'counter-argument', you've yet to produce an argument. one would be hard-pressed to actually logically argue something based on opinion only. and even tho the supreme court presented the first trimester as a measuring stick, so to speak, i'm sure that would hold no more water with you than to mention viability.

It's a complex issue - of course.

The black and white part comes from trying to make a decision between two outcomes: to terminate or not. We have only two options, so to make that decision eventually dark gray is called black and near white is called white. With broader options than two such polar opposites, it would not be so black and white.

As to why I care: I'm not trying to sound like a "altar boy" here - but it's just concern for innocent life.

Different situation, but for capital punishment, now, in 2012, I believe that DNA evidence should be used to make sure that an innocent person is not executed. Similar reasoning - we have the ability to take a life and we need to NOT do that to non-capital offenders.

Lots of words and you said nothing.

If you have such a concern for life, why do you arrogantly dismiss the realization that a lot of babies born are born to parents ill-equipped to care for a child? And in turn what happens is the children are brought up in terrible situations and the cycle continues.

Look, in a perfect world, everyone would practice safe sex and we wouldn't be having these discussions. That isn't reality. You can tell kids until you are blue in the face to practice safe sex and they are still going to make bad decisions because that is what humans do. We're imperfect creatures, not robots.

Just so we're clear, I'm not in favor of abusing the abortion process. It isn't birth control. But it is a necessary process for some people because they just are not ready to be parents.

I don't believe it's right to demonize these people. The decision to abort seems like one that is very difficult for the people involved to make. Probably one of the hardest decisions to make and one that they carry around with them forever. Isn't that enough?

It's the other way around - it is arrogant to presume that the only solution for "ill-equipped parents" (gee, how did that happen? :rolleyes:) is to kill (or render lifeless if you prefer) the living, growing organism that will be a fully developed human being.

And if I haven't been clear - it is the current state of the law that I find objectionable. That law - decided by nine unelected Supreme Court justices in 1973 - has led other citizens down this path. In other words, there was no legal abortion before 1973. In times past, people would have found a way to have the baby and make it work. Or they would have planned better.

But when the law says something is OK, and then people pursue the action, it's the law that is to blame. Someday if they regret what they've done, it was the legality of abortion that misled them.

I'm sure history has many names of unplanned children who later went on to achieve great things. It doesn't always end in a tragedy.

I never said abortion is the only choice and I also never said all unplanned children end in a tragedy.

Not sure why you feel the need to be so disingenuous, but it doesn't win the argument for you. Just the opposite actually.

I don't know you, but I've always found the people who are hellbent on telling others how they should live their lives are usually the most morally bankrupt people around. I would suggest they are emotional reactions stemming from a lot of guilt. Probably a tough thing to accept, isn't it?

There was legal abortion before 1973. It was up to the state before the 1973 decision. Abortion was legal in several states and it was illegal in other states. Some of the people in the states where it was illegal sued. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that no state could outlaw abortion. That was the ruling, that no state can ban abortion. So all the states where it was illegal had to change their laws. In all the other states, where abortion was already legal, it obviously stayed legal.

So if Roe v Wade is overturned, all that will mean is that states will once again have the right to decide for themselves. If that happens, some of the really conservative states may once again outlaw abortion. Which states are the most conservative? A couple of the states that come mind are states like Wyoming and Mississippi. Those two states would be two of the most likely to pass laws outlawing abortion.

If our tax dollars paid for abortions maybe we would save money in the long run. Think about it.

joey, i think part of why some have an issue with your posts on this subject. you expect complete respect for your position on this issue-yet you have absolutely no respect for people with an opposing point of view.
you blame the scotus for what you construe as an unconscionable act-you are aware, are you not, that ever since the dawn of time, people have found ways to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy?
and you say it 'will become a human'. perhaps, perhaps not. my mother suffered three miscarriages, my friend had a stillborn child. i could go on and on in that vein, but what's the point? you have absolutely no ability to feel empathy for anyone who you feel is completely wrong, thus there is no way you could ever see this subject in any way other than your own.


'In other words, there was no legal abortion before 1973. In times past, people would have found a way to have the baby and make it work. Or they would have planned better.'

the first sentence is incorrect. the last...what? so, you actually think people don't bother, or don't care, to use prevention because they can just go to a clinic? that's absurd-and flies in the face of the fact i posted earlier. birth rates are down, as are abortions. what does that tell you? well, you'd probably think it means less sex-but that's not the case. one thing it points to is that people, especially students, are more educated about using bc, rather than just being told 'don't have sex'.

gotta love that google. some excerpts on the history of abortion in the u.s.:


Abortion Was Legal
Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed.

Making Abortion Illegal
In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women.
and

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.


1.2 million a year before roe v wade. the current estimate? 1.2 million a year, with a higher population than what was in the late 60's.


so, blame scotus if you wish. or recognize that the only thing that changed pre-roe to post-roe, is criminality. oh, and safety of course. but who cares about safety, we're talking about women here.

didn't know about this case:

1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives.


that is crazy!! it was illegal for unmarried folks to use bc. my my oh my. yeah, we're the 'intelligent' species alright. :rolleyes:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird


there's the link to the article about the ruling. and beware, those of you who say that the right to privacy isn't an enumerated right-the equal protection clause is what was used to produce this ruling, and others, as well. anyone want to go down that slippery slope? we yelp about losing rights-but i guess some are trying to make sure others suffer exactly that!

No, they had self-induced abortions by jamming a coat hanger into their uterus, often perforating themselves and dying very grim deaths. Or were cut to bits by back-alley abortionists. Or stuck an electrical cord into their uterus and electrocuted themselves. Or drank bleach. Or... there is ample documentation of the numerous, gruesome ways women killed themselves in attempts to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies. Many of these women left children and spouses behind.

I had a friend who was in ballet school in the late 1960's and she told me it quickly got around the school that there was a doctor who would provide abortions to any girl who needed one, no questions asked. Because his own daughter had gotten pregnant, was too afraid to tell him, and died from a back-alley abortion. He wanted to make sure no other parent lost a daughter the way he had.

Roe v Wade, by the way, does not guarantee a right to abortion at any point; it says states may make no law unduly limiting access during the first trimester and permits increasing levels of difficulty during the second and third trimester, which is why it is extremely difficult to get a late-term abortion. The awful thing about that being that late-term abortions are very rare, and are sought out by people who want the child but have discovered that there is something seriously wrong with the fetus. As in, brain outside the body level of wrong. So our current government sees fit to make an awful, painful decision for parents even harder, and to limit women's access to safe care in such situations. Yay small government! (weeps)

Government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus and legislate government-forced childbirth, but not to take away the right to have AK47's and multiple-round ammunition.

Yeah. Yay :(

Fair enough - if I come off that way, I apologize. It's an extremely polarizing issue for everyone concerned, and if it were not life and death, I would not react as strongly, nor would others.

I do mean to attack strongly the position of pro-abortion, but I do not mean to attack the people holding that position. I seek to frame the argument and flesh out the logic to change minds.

As to the last point - of course people take precautions, but no precautions (save abstinence) are 100% effective. And people should be educated on what all the precautions are. But - here's the thing - you did everything you could. You took precautions, but through bad luck or some bizarre circumstance, a pregnancy occurred. There is, somewhere, an answer to "Where does life begin?" If that answer is "conception", then it would be morally very wrong to destroy the developing life that started at conception. When any of us (I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here) engages in behavior that MAY cause a pregnancy - that is a risk we undertake. We try to reduce that risk as much as possible if we are not planning to expand the family. But should it occur, the responsibility for it is ours, and nobody should die as a result.

The issue and all it encompasses, along with it being a "allow to live and develop or terminate" decision is going to maximize the passions on both sides. Any lesser issue with a broader spectrum of options could not bring all this emotion.

No, you want everyone to think like you do.

Don't you think peoples minds are pretty made up about this issue? I mean, are you unearthing some new argument here?

Polls have shown it hovering around 50/50 for decades. Likely means that people stick to their point of view - it's been remarkably constant.

New? Probably not. But different than how the media treats the issue, and different from the 1973 court decision's supporting philosophy, maybe.

yes, it is a risk. but not everyone looks at things the same way when it comes down to cold, hard reality. it's why i suggested people have some empathy in regards to people making choices. i know you think that everyone makes the decision lightly, without care. that's simply not the case. nor is every action that results in pregnancy the same.
as i've shown in the excerpts posted above, abortion is no more common after roe/wade then it was before. your comments otherwise are incorrect. the morality of the issue hasn't changed one bit in this country over the years, over the centuries actually.
what it comes down to, as with so many other things in life, is that each individual must decide for him or herself. and i promise you, there are people who are pro-choice who would never seek an abortion, and there are people who are pro-life who would. because when it comes down to it-reality is much different than talk. actions taken are far different than hypothetical situations discussed.