It's about to hit the fan. (Page 4)

Hmmmm... Pro choice and Pro Death penalty here, so I guess I am consistent.... :^

The SD law was a stupid move to get SCOTUS to act, which it won't.  Law is immediately challenged in federal court, lower fed courts are bound by SC precedent so strike it down, SCOTUS lets those rulings stand since it appears there is still a 5-4 in favor of Roe.

I have a problem with SCOTUS ruling on local issues such as abortion.  The feds also got into murder with the federal carjacking statute.  I think abortion, like crimes against the person (not equating them) are state issues that should be left to the states.  Local control is certainly best.  Although I am pro choice (but not unfettered, I don't think it should be used aas birth control, e.g.), I have a hard time finding a federal right to an abortion under the right to privacy (which is implied into the Constitution anyway).  I think in general the feds should stay out of our bedrooms.  As should the state.

Is it murder?  I don't think so, but reasonable minds will differ.  I do not believe viable that life begins at conception.  However, as technology marches forward, the question of what is "viable" gets murkier and murkier.

Touche!

That was the best  counterpoint since "your mama."

<heh. so much for the civility> 

[QUOTEc]cerveloP3 - 2006-03-07 6:47 PM

 Yeah...that's a great idea in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Humans are sexual; celibacy isn't part of our design.

Better to teach responsible sex. 

You and Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.

I love you, man. (but you knew that anyway, I hope)

I don't think I've ever talked to someone who is pro-choice, but also believes that it is a states rights issue.

What is it about Roe that you find lacking?

Also, do you think there is anything to the notion that without Sandra Day O'Connor on the court, Justice Kennedy may be more apt to side with Scalia and Thomas, and we assume Roberts and Alito although we don't know, on certain issues like abortion law?

 What, you didn't my Roe-as-a-state's-rights-issue post earlier?

Jim, you mean this one?

I didn't read that as saying that you supported states rights regarding Roe.

But if you do, I love you too.

I take your point, John.

I'll have to think this through a bit more to see if I can make my case stronger.

I recognize that, Tyler.  Sorry, I should have been clearer in my other post.

What if someone presented a compelling arguement that infanticide creates the greatest good for the greatest number.  If you are opposed to this practice, what would a utilitarian arguement against it look like? 

Nothing wrong with Roe in particular.  I don't think abortion is a federal issue (nor is murder, or gay marriage, or any other number of things over which the state, as opposed to the federal government, has an interest. 

I would hope that Kennedy is his own man and votes accdg to precedent (which Roberts affirmed in his hearings) and the law, and that he does not feel the need to be on anyone's team.

Call me naive, but I don't think anyone on the Court is itching to overturn Roe.  It's a hot potato that they can easily avoid by denying cert.  With a case such as Roe, the SC precedent is very clear.  To get review, the conservatives will need an appellate court dispute (or a ruling clearly adverse to precedent).  I'll bet that next term no abortion rights case is heard.  How's that?

Umm, not quite.  Your premise is correct but the right to be protected against illegal searches is expressly stated in the 4th amendment, right not to have to quarter soldiers is express in the third amendment. 

Roe arises from an implied right of privacy that is not expressed in the Constitution.

Totally...just playing along... 

I'm with you. It's one of those terms constructed to make the other side seem monstrous. It would be like describing war supporters as being "pro dead soldiers."