What if abortion is protected by the constitution

[jfoges]

The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right to have an abortion is protected by the Constitution. The argument was that because the 4th amendment guaruntees a right to privacy, this right to privacy extends to a right to choose.

Now, if this argument is correct, then wouldn’t it be impossible for any legislator or president to oppose the decision of Roe v. Wade, short of amending the Constitution to modify the 4th amendment?

 

[Andruschak]

The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right to have an abortion is protected by the Constitution. The argument was that because the 4th amendment guaruntees a right to privacy, this right to privacy extends to a right to choose.

Now, if this argument is correct, then wouldn’t it be impossible for any legislator or president to oppose the decision of Roe v. Wade, short of amending the Constitution to modify the 4th amendment?

No. A Supreme Court could, in some future decision, mandate that the “right to privacy” did not extend to abortion. The Supreme Court has the right, sometimes used, to reverse previous Supreme Court decisions.

 

[1ke]

In addition to the possibility of overturning Roe v Wade in its 4th ammendment argument, there is also the possibility that it could fall if unborn babies become legally defined as persons.

The 14th ammendment would then give due process rights to that unborn child. The Roe decision said as much at the time it was rendered.

 

[Corki]

None of the rights in the Constitution is absolute. You can not excercise the right to free speech for example, if your speech is to incite murder, riot or mayhem (the classic yelling “fire” in a crowded theater); if your right to exercise your religion involves human sacrifice; etc.

I heard on a liberal talk radio show the other day that the Supreme Court has reversed itself over 100 times in history and most of those original, now reversed decisions, were interpretations of the Constitution later understood to be faulty. The idea of “settled law” is not absolute either since at least one of those reversals was to overturn a ruling that had stood for over 100 years.

 

[dmelosi]

In many states people have been convicted of 2 counts of murder for killing a mother and her baby in the womb.

It is not disputed that a seperate and distinct life begins at conception.

If a law were passed that a human life begins at conception (as the Catholic Church teaches), it would end all argments.

The problem is that selfishness has been pretty successful in twisting this fact. The voting block of these most selfish people has enough to cause many lawmakers to sell their soul to the devil to become elected.

The bigger problem is that it is dumbing down the facts for those willing to listen for the sake of “their” party.

I see gloom and doom in these mass killings as there are very few that will buck the party they so loyally excuse for this travesty.

 

[royal_archer]

The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right to have an abortion is protected by the Constitution. The argument was that because the 4th amendment guaruntees a right to privacy, this right to privacy extends to a right to choose.

Now, if this argument is correct, then wouldn’t it be impossible for any legislator or president to oppose the decision of Roe v. Wade, short of amending the Constitution to modify the 4th amendment?

Using a right to privacy to defend murder is inherently silly. What reasonable person would say you have free reign to committ murder as long as it is not done publicly?

All who hold public office have a duty to uphold the constitution of the United States but it seems like to often they ignore the constitution in the face of public opinion. Sometimes they ignore the constitution in spite of public oppinion as what happened with the banking bail out.

 

[Wirraway]

Using a right to privacy to defend murder is inherently silly. What reasonable person would say you have free reign to committ murder as long as it is not done publicly? …

that is an example of the straw man argument that, while it sounds neat while preaching to the choir, will never persuade the people who have to be persuaded.

 

[royal_archer]

that is an example of the straw man argument that, while it sounds neat while preaching to the choir, will never persuade the people who have to be persuaded.

If they do not know that murder is wrong I don’t know how to persuade them other wise.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

No. A Supreme Court could, in some future decision, mandate that the “right to privacy” did not extend to abortion. The Supreme Court has the right, sometimes used, to reverse previous Supreme Court decisions.

Yes, but the courts RARELY do this. The courts actually put a great deal of weight on “precedent” which is exactly what Roe V Wade would be.

This is why an amendment, I feel, is in order that specifically spells out to whom the life to “life” extends. Such an amendment would obviously alter the playing field to such a drastic extent as to force the courts to review any precedents.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Here’s the text of the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn’t say anything about a “right to privacy” - and it definitely doesn’t say anything about abortion. It’s a big stretch by an activist judiciary to use the 4th amendment to legalize abortion. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to kill unborn children.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Here’s the text of the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn’t say anything about a “right to privacy” - and it definitely doesn’t say anything about abortion. It’s a big stretch by an activist judiciary to use the 4th amendment to legalize abortion. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to kill unborn children.

ANY extrapolation is conjecture (no matter which “side” does it) which is precisely why we need to amend the constitution to EXPLICITLY state that the fundamental “right to life” extends even to the unborn.

 

[Wirraway]

If they do not know that murder is wrong I don’t know how to persuade them other wise.

this is why you’ll never persuade anyone on this issue. do you understand why circular reasoning is flawed reasoning?

 

[fix]

that is an example of the straw man argument that, while it sounds neat while preaching to the choir, will never persuade the people who have to be persuaded.

You mean the truth will only be received to the degree one is open to receiving what is true? No argument will convince someone who refuses to accept what is true.

 

[Wirraway]

You mean the truth will only be received to the degree one is open to receiving what is true? No argument will convince someone who refuses to accept what is true.

that’s a cop out answer. plenty of social wrongs have been made right through persuasion.

you will never persuade the people you need to persuade by getting in their face with a take it or leave it kind of argument.

 

[fix]

that’s a cop out answer.

No, it is a true answer. They are all types of arguments that folks reject. That does not make the arguments necessarily wrong.

plenty of social wrongs have been made right through persuasion.

That is true and changing the law helps a great deal.

you will never persuade the people you need to persuade by getting in their face with a take it or leave it kind of argument.

Well, not sure what you mean here.

 

[Wirraway]

No, it is a true answer. They are all types of arguments that folks reject. That does not make the arguments necessarily wrong…

you don’t have to convince people on this forum that abortion is wrong. the argument is correct but you’re preaching to the choir. the method of persuasion is completely wrong and works against the prolife position.

 

[fix]

you don’t have to convince people on this forum that abortion is wrong. the argument is correct but you’re preaching to the choir. the method of persuasion is completely wrong and works against the prolife position.

Which method is wrong and why?

 

[Wirraway]

Which method is wrong and why?

let’s visit the real world for a bit, how’s that?

take your average american. maybe had an abortion as a young adult, maybe knows someone who had an abortion, maybe someone in the family had an abortion, possibily regrets the idea, maybe doesn’t think a lot about it …

YOU: “abortion is murder, and if you had an abortion you are a murderer. now vote against abortion candidates.”

this is not a means of persuasion likely to win many people over.

 

[Walden]

Here’s the text of the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn’t say anything about a “right to privacy” - and it definitely doesn’t say anything about abortion. It’s a big stretch by an activist judiciary to use the 4th amendment to legalize abortion. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to kill unborn children.

The “right to privacy” was created from a number of different amendments. The Fourth was one of those. Roe v. Wade uses another case as precedent for the right of privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut (which was about contraceptives interestingly enough) actually articulates the “right to privacy” for the first time. The Court drew from the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth amendments. Roe extended this right to abortion. The only surefire way of ending abortion is by constitutional amendment. Overturning Roe would just leave the decision about abortion to the states (like it was before Roe).

 

[fix]

let’s visit the real world for a bit, how’s that?

take your average american. maybe had an abortion as a young adult, maybe knows someone who had an abortion, maybe someone in the family had an abortion, possibily regrets the idea, maybe doesn’t think a lot about it …

YOU: “abortion is murder, and if you had an abortion you are a murderer. now vote against abortion candidates.”

this is not a means of persuasion likely to win many people over.

Well, if that is the sole message then I may agree with you. The problem is if abortion is not murder there is no reason to make it illegal. If it is murder, then it should never be allowed.

It is not simply the message and how it is delivered it requires that we as hearers have open minds and soft hearts. That may be asking a lot considering our culture is so soaked in relativism and hedonism. Yes, I know you will say those words are too strong but that does not make them any less true.

If your doctor finds cancer in you should he nuance it and claim it really is not cancer?

I am not arguing for being mean spirited or overly harsh, but often every single argument is termed uncharitable simply because the message is not wanted, period.