HELP! Arguing Roe v Wade with a fundie....WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

[K8-EEE]

MAKES MY HEAD SPIN....

Barb, do you believe the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act should have been up to the states? These are Federal Laws and have been upheld in the Supreme Court also. So Roe v. Wade would be no different than those that involve personal freedoms such as the above. The Supreme Court has visited this area before. If they changed it now would they be considered "activist judges"?

Ahh, but Roe v. Wade WAS different because the court decided it. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. With Roe v. Wade, the court stuck its nose where it didn't belong. It was doing the legislative branch's job.

Plus, IMHO, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts affected people who had a voice. Roe v. Wade affects many who do not.

[Stand and Fight]

1. ...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

2. There are many civil rights cases decided by the Supreme Court

For example, Brown v. Board of Education, the right to an equal education for black children.

Roe v. Wade is part of the right to privacy cases which started with Loving v. Virginia which outlawed anti-interracial marriage laws. The next one was Griswold v. Conn., which had to do with allowing married couples contraception. Then Eisenstadt v. Baird, which upheld the right to privacy of unmarried people to obtain contraception. Then Roe v. Wade.

Right to privacy trumps "not having a voice". Woman's right of privacy in determining reproduction is more important than the life of the zygote/embryo/fetus, in the first trimester.

In the 2nd trimester, the right of privacy and the society's interest must be balanced.

Third trimester, no abortion except in the case of severe deformity or the life and health of the mother.

[K8-EEE]

7. Thank you, perfect...!!

[Hamlette]

10. not exactly right

right to an abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester can't be denied by law because it is a privacy issue to be decided between woman and doctor.

states can limit 3rd trimester to life or health of the mother but don't have to. Some states allow 3rd term abortion for any reason.

(I frankly think the court should have decided on civil rights grounds, the civil rights of a woman to make decisions about her body and her life. While I "get" the privacy argument, I don't think its as strong of an argument as a straight up civil rights argument. but I'm glad we have the right none the less.)

[ROh70]

11. That response doesn't directly address the Roe critique vis a vis Voting Rights Act.

The freeper is arguing that Congressional intrusion into state sovereignty is okay, but Court intrusion is not. It's the standard argument against the Court - that decisions like Roe v. Wade are inherently undemocratic in nature, especially since the right of privacy is not in the text of the Constitution, but one "made up" by liberal justices.

Freepers give lip service to Brown, but they hate Brown, too.

They do have a point. In the best of worlds, if Congress passed a statute protecting the woman's right to choose, that would be ideal. But, the reality is, Congress would never be able to pass such a law, which is why Court intervention was the only practicable way to protect the right to choose, at least at the time Roe was decided.

[Hissyspit]

3. Court was deciding on issues of law and their relationship to the Constitution in both cases.

Typical right-wing nonsense-argument. The other stuff is just stupid.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. Case law overturns statute law, if it is unconstitutional.

An appellate court can overturn statute law. Case law can change the existing law, because the society changes and our understanding of peoples' rights changes.

In the US we have had judicial review of statute law since 1803, Marbury v. Madison.

That's two hundred and five years. The term "activist judges" is BULL. Appellate judges overturn bad statute law all the time. Judges must re-interpret the law to fit changing circumstances.

[sandnsea]

5. Supreme Court strikes state laws

and then Congress writes new laws to adhere to the Supreme Court decisions. We're still battling over the laws due to Roe v. Wade striking states' ability to intervene in a woman's private medical decisions. I am one who happens to think the right to medical privacy is a fundamental right and that the Supreme Court was exactly right in its decision.

[Indenturedebtor]

6. It is the court's Constitutionally prescribed duty to interpret law

and to make sure that laws are in line with the Constitution.

The concept of "voice" has no merit in the argument as fetuses aren't citizens or even humans yet... but that's another story.

The REAL ISSUE here is the fact that under the Constitution the government has no right to tell people what to do with their bodies. Perhaps you and your friend could agree to work towards both mandating a one child policy (to protect the as yet unborn people from the coming environmental armageddon), along with an anti-abortion policy.

Or perhaps if we want to get literal with the bible we could also lobby Congress to pass a law that mandates forced removal and storage of all American testicles. After all we wouldn't want any seed to be spilled, and that single act could save gajillions of unborn babies :eyes:

-----

Answer the rediculous with the rediculous says I. Don't let them pretend to have anything but an irrational fascist viewpoint.

[Dark]

8. What about Brown vs. Board of Education? Would you say "the court stuck its nose where it didn't

belong?"

[krispos42]

9. The Courts interpret the laws and the Constitution

If Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the Courts overturn it. In other words, Congress sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong, and the Courts spank them over it.


Remember, the Courts cannot rule on something unless a case is brought before them. So there's already a conflict that needs to be resolved.

In the case of Roe vs. Wade the issue was whether laws restricting or outlawing abortion violated the Constitution rights of the women involved.

Turns out, yes, they do. It's part of the broader right to privacy, which is a Constitutional right and subject to "strict scrutiny". In other words, Congress can't pass a law restricting abortions unless they have a really, really good and compelling reason to.

Congress has broad discretion on non-strict-scrutiny laws, so if Congress wanted to ban something because they "think" it will help, they can do that. But with strict scrutiny, they have to really prove some greater good is being accomplished that overrides individual rights.





Besides, ask your buddy how would he/she feel if the Congress passed a law mandating, without exception, organ donation because it "saves lives". After all, if the Government can take control of a woman's uterus, why not a man's kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyeballs?

[Hamlette]

12. Courts are only "activist" when it comes to enforcing the constitution

and if congress passes a law that violates the constitution, it is the DUTY of the courts to overturn the law and enforce the constitution. It's called the separation of powers. Three branches of government. Prez runs the executive branch, congress passes laws and the courts decide if the laws passed by congress are "legal" (constitutional).

That is what the courts do every day. When a republican doesn't like the decision, he or she calls it an activist judge. When a democrat does not like a decision, we call it a badly reasoned decision but we do NOT attack the judge/s. It's the whole victimization thing republicans do. Resentment and victimization are all the GOP knows how to do anymore.

[Dems4me]

13. As a Christian, I might add...

That one of the outcomes of Roe v Wade, was that it had to consider the
life of the unborn. It had to figure out just when this fetus became an actual
living human being. The scientific community has told us that no fetus has
ever lived outside the womb prior to 24 weeks. Doctor's determination of weeks
of development is a little different than our typical thought on that.
I don't think that the Supreme court could overturn that part of the decision
because it was based on scientific data that has been unchanged.
No new data says anything different. Thats probably one reason Roe v Wade will never
be overturned unless science discovers something that it doesn't already know.
Very unlikely.

I'm Pro Choice to a certain extint. I personally believe that after 24 weeks a
fetus is considered human and has some rights. The science supports that.
But I also think a mother's health should always be taken over the unborn in an medical situation.

[No Elephants]

14. Why are arguing over this with a neo theo? Do you believe you will convince her that her pastor is

wrong about what the Bible says? That is the bottom line, not the role of judges. That is a straw man.