Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[historia]

More precisely: Should the current Supreme Court precedent on abortion -- first established by Roe v. Wade, but later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- be overturned?

My question here is not so much whether abortion should be legal or not, since overturning Roe would not, in itself, make abortion illegal, with several states having laws that explicitly allow for abortions.

[Miles]

It's frightening, mostly because it would appear to go against much of the well thought out reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision.

At the risk of repeating our earlier comments in this thread, Miles, what exactly do you find to be the "well thought out reasoning" behind Roe?

Far too many cogent reasons to even attempt listing them, so I'm not going to---not even one or two.

It will be interesting to see the court's majority argument. I expect quite a bit of rhetoric supported by hyperbole, verbosity, distortion, and outright lies.

Why?

Because in the past this is how many conservatives have responded to touchy liberal issues. So it will be amusing to see what they come up with this time.


.

[historia]

Do you not think that the abortion debate has been divisive and damaging to American politics?

The abortion debate has been, but Roe didn't create the debate.

Sure, but I suspect that what Alito is referring to here in saying that Roe itself was "divisive" and "damaging" is that it took the abortion debate out of the normal democratic process.

Unless one thinks that they have a moral duty to revisit any decision that was incorrectly made in the past when such an opportunity arises, this one should have been left alone, too.

Let me pose a hypothetic question to you: Had the Supreme Court ruled the opposite way in Roe, and decided instead that abortion should be illegal nationally, would you still say that the current Court should have left it alone?

[historia]

At the risk of repeating our earlier comments in this thread, Miles, what exactly do you find to be the "well thought out reasoning" behind Roe?

Far too many cogent reasons to even attempt listing them, so I'm not going to---not even one or two.

If you aren't willing to explain yourself, Miles, why are you engaging in a debate forum at all?

It will be interesting to see the court's majority argument. I expect quite a bit of rhetoric supported by hyperbole, verbosity, distortion, and outright lies.

Why?

Because in the past this is how many conservatives have responded to touchy liberal issues. So it will be amusing to see what they come up with this time.

By "many conservatives" here do you mean conservative political commentators? Your comment about "rhetoric supported by hyperbole, verbosity, distortion, and outright lies" appeared to be in reference to the Supreme Court's majority decision.

Perhaps you can explain your comment more clearly, assuming that's something you're interested in doing.

[JoeyKnothead]

An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.

Alito is an old guy.

Unless, I guess, you're even older.

[Difflugia]

Let me pose a hypothetic question to you: Had the Supreme Court ruled the opposite way in Roe, and decided instead that abortion should be illegal nationally, would you still say that the current Court should have left it alone?

Of course not. Legal access to abortion should be enshrined in the Constitution, but it's not. That doesn't somehow mean that it should also be prohibited.

[Miles]

At the risk of repeating our earlier comments in this thread, Miles, what exactly do you find to be the "well thought out reasoning" behind Roe?

Far too many cogent reasons to even attempt listing them, so I'm not going to---not even one or two.

If you aren't willing to explain yourself, Miles, why are you engaging in a debate forum at all?

Is that how debates are suppose to work around here, every question requires an explanation that rises to the questioner's satisfaction? Of course not. Heck, not every question requires an explanation, Period. And you should know this, having no doubt not explained every question put to you, or have at least found many of your questions gone unexplained. So let's not be snidely assuming rules about "How to debate on the DC&R web site" that are not in place.

It will be interesting to see the court's majority argument. I expect quite a bit of rhetoric supported by hyperbole, verbosity, distortion, and outright lies.

Why?

Because in the past this is how many conservatives have responded to touchy liberal issues. So it will be amusing to see what they come up with this time.

By "many conservatives" here do you mean conservative political commentators? Your comment about "rhetoric supported by hyperbole, verbosity, distortion, and outright lies" appeared to be in reference to the Supreme Court's majority decision.

My comment was broadly in reference to conservatives at large, but more particularly to the conservative members of the court itself. I still recall its 2008 ruling on the Second Amendment where it all but threw the Constitutional Second Amendment qualifier "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," into the trash can.

Perhaps you can explain your comment more clearly, assuming that's something you're interested in doing.

I could, but because it's not anything I'm not interested in doing . . . . . . . . . . .


.

[historia]

An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.

Alito is an old guy.

Yes, that was the only portion of your comment that was accurate.

[historia]

Let me pose a hypothetic question to you: Had the Supreme Court ruled the opposite way in Roe, and decided instead that abortion should be illegal nationally, would you still say that the current Court should have left it alone?

Of course not. Legal access to abortion should be enshrined in the Constitution, but it's not.

Right, so, in other words, your concerns above about what cases the Court should or should not be hearing are driven purely by your own personal political preferences.

In contrast, Alito's argument would be roughly the same regardless of which way Roe had been decided. It's really a point about process rather than politics: the regulation of abortion is properly the responsibility of the Legislature not the Court.

It seems to me, then, that your criticism of the Court above is misplaced. We may not all agree on what laws we want to see enacted (or reviewed), but we should all agree on the role and responsibility of the various branches of our government. And, to that end, as tough as some may find it, see this current decision, should it come about, as a welcome restoration of the constitutional order.

That doesn't somehow mean that it should also be prohibited.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this.

[JoeyKnothead]

An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.

Alito is an old guy.

Yes, that was the only portion of your comment that was accurate.

That, and the trying to tell the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

You seem to wanna avoid considering that bit.

[AgnosticBoy]

An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.

Alito is an old guy.

Yes, that was the only portion of your comment that was accurate.

That, and the trying to tell the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

You seem to wanna avoid considering that bit.

Alito's opinion, even if ruled in favor of by a majority of the court, would not ban abortions. You're just repeating a slogan Joey. It doesn't appear that you have given ALito's opinion any serious thought.