The key questions are:

1) When Does the Right to Life (liberty and happiness) Begin?
The Constitution makes no mention of when the right to life begins. The Supreme Court came up with its own opinion and then codified it into their decision. But their opinion is just that..an opinion- with no more merit than anyone else's opinion. There is nothing in the Constituion that speaks to, or has any jurisdiction over, the question of when life begins- therefore the federal gov't should have no opinion.

and

2) Who Gets to Decide?
At some point during the pregnancy, most of us believe there is a point when aborting an unborn baby is murder. The Constitution is clear in that criminal law and police powers fall under the jurisdiction of the states. Roe v Wade should be overturned and the issue returned to the states where it belongs. Let each state decide on when life begins. Some states will have stricter rules regarding abortion than other states, just as they have different rules on other crimes.

12/18/2006 11:44:25 PM

If you let states decide abortion laws, in essence, the state with the most "liberal" abortion laws would be law for the nation.

12/19/2006 12:19:09 AM

^^ True, but we can't just start honoring the tennets of the constitution today. If the SCOTUS started striking down laws just because they are unconstitutional we wouldn't have a Federal Government left besides social security, the IRS, and the military.

12/19/2006 1:13:09 AM

Quote :

"we can't just start honoring the tennets of the constitution today."

It might be fun to try.

The Court reversed other errors such as segregation. Why not abortion?

12/19/2006 1:23:10 AM

Because it is a catch-22.

Let us assume there are two types of judges: type A believes in an evolving constitution and therefore the constitution just happens to say whatever they think it should. type B puts his personal beliefs aside and follows a rigid framework based upon legal interpretation.

Type A has no problem introducing new rights or curtailing old rights because, well, the constitution must evolve with the changing standards of society (personified by the judge). So, if they believe it is necessary to curtail political speech during election time then it doesn't matter what some old-white guys wrote/believed/said either last year or 200 years ago: the time to evolve is now.

However, while type B has managed to put his personal preferences aside, he still has a problem; he cannot simply vote in accordance with the wording/intent of the constitution because due to Stare Decisis he is legally bound to uphold rulings that came before him, regardless of who wrote them, type B's or type A's.

If you want to restore constitutional interpretation along either originalist or textualist lines then what you need is a type C: someone who is willing to overturn precedent and replace it with his own personal beliefs, which just happen to be in agreement with the constitution.

12/19/2006 1:55:26 AM

At the time of the US Constitution, abortion was left up to the woman whether or not she should take action to destroy the baby. I forget the term that was used, but it was never an issue the founders would have deliberated since during the age of enlightenment it was a non-issue.

12/19/2006 12:53:48 PM

Abortion is a public health issue, which puts it well within the scope for regulation and/or banning by the respective states. There are no grounds for a federal judge to interfere either way, pro or con.

Of course, since the constitution evolves to meet the changing standards of society (personified in the judge's moral standards) then the SCOTUS can rule all anti-abortion laws are a violation of privacy. Or, with the same logic, rule that an abortion is a violation of the fetus' civil rights and punishable under federal criminal statutes.

Why can't we all just be textualists or originalists? Why would anyone want the SCOTUS acting as a legislative body?

12/19/2006 1:17:50 PM

because the constitution does not address all the issues of today if it is strictly left in terms of the original text. As society and technology change so should the laws of the land and the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Britian for instance has avoided this issue all together by having their laws conform to a thousand years worth of common law, which the constitution primarily is. The founders attempted to create a starting point for American common law by producing the constitution.

Then again, I don't understand why everyone thinks the founders are infallible beings who developed an infallible document.

Quote :

"Abortion is a public health issue, which puts it well within the scope for regulation and/or banning by the respective states. There are no grounds for a federal judge to interfere either way, pro or con."

Abortion is no more of a public health issue than the common cold or birthing. Let's not make it into something it isn't.


p.s. equal protection

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 4:35 AM. Reason : .]

12/20/2006 4:33:49 AM

Quote :

"Then again, I don't understand why everyone thinks the founders are infallible beings who developed an infallible document."

The document is infallible. It can be changed and ammended to fit our current preferences.

12/20/2006 7:48:39 AM

Nutty, the laws are perfectly changeable to conform with societies demands: all you have to do is say "There aughta be a law" then get the legislature to pass one.

Society is perfectly capable of changing under the strictest of constitutional interpretation. The only restriction is abortion must be banned/regulated/legalized at the state level. You know, they call it a Democracy because there is a damn Democratic Process for changing the laws. But no, it is too hard for society to actually pass laws, so we need to have 9 justices pass our laws for us.

And Nutty, the common cold AND birthing are both public health issues! You go to a damn hospital to do it, how can you not believe it has to do with public health? We rely upon the state governments to regulate the whole birthing practice as they see fit (must have 2 nurses present/etc), why is it so far-out that they should be allowed to regulate abortion clinics?

And what does equal protection have to do with anything?

12/20/2006 8:58:29 AM

I think he was showing us that he knows what equal protection means, even if he refuses to extend it to everyone.

12/20/2006 9:28:50 AM

i dont agree with our birthing policies.

and this is way off topic and about john stewart but.....

he made a comment the other day about how believing we can turn Iraq into a democracy is a very optimistic liberal way to think. To think we can "throw magic beans and get a flowery awesome democracy in Iraq" is completely liberal in principle. Kind of like thinking welfare will reduce crime among the poor or that communism will some how work. Reality tells us other wise.

THAT is some freakin evolution in the conservative way of thought. Or maybe its the neocons getting old are retarded.

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 10:46 AM. Reason : edit]

12/20/2006 10:45:30 AM

Quote :

"The document is infallible. It can be changed and ammended to fit our current preferences."

how is a document that includes 3/5 infallible? If it were infallible, nothing would ever need to be changed.

Quote :

"Nutty, the laws are perfectly changeable to conform with societies demands: all you have to do is say "There aughta be a law" then get the legislature to pass one."

How can the laws change if the basic law the country functions under is strictly left in its origins?

Quote :

"And Nutty, the common cold AND birthing are both public health issues! You go to a damn hospital to do it, how can you not believe it has to do with public health? We rely upon the state governments to regulate the whole birthing practice as they see fit (must have 2 nurses present/etc), why is it so far-out that they should be allowed to regulate abortion clinics?"

No, birthing and the common cold are not public health issues. Public health issues are items like Avian Flu, West Nile Virus. Shit that happens everyday and are not out of the norm like the common cold and being pregnant are not public health issues. Public Health issues are items that affect the entire public.

Quote :

"And what does equal protection have to do with anything"

Because one state would not be able to have abortion illegal and another have abortion legal. Since someone could easily travel to the neighboring state. Likewise because of equal protestion, their home state would not be legally allowed to prosecute them for the abortion because they legally did it in another. Therefore making abortion illegal on the state level would accomplish nothing.

12/20/2006 12:11:19 PM

Quote :

"How can the laws change if the basic law the country functions under is strictly left in its origins? "

Have you read nothing written by the founding fathers? A Constitution is merely a framework within-which government operates. This is why we say the Constitution has nothing to do with these issues: It is just a framework for how to make decisions, not to answer what the decision will be. It is up to Congress to make the law and there is no need to modify to Constitution to do so. Name any issue and I will tell you which Representative to go see about it, and they will be able to do whatever the voters want without modifying a single constitution.

But, like I've said, that was the ideal. But the Supreme Court has taken liberties with interpretation to the point that it is not Congress that makes laws, it is sometimes the Supreme Court making the laws, an unelected body of nine.

Quote :

"Because one state would not be able to have abortion illegal and another have abortion legal. Since someone could easily travel to the neighboring state."

So what? You can easily go Canada or Mexico for an abortion if you feel like it, does that mean the whole of the United States cannot make abortion illegal? What about the rights of the voters in pro-abortion states to make it legal? If you decide this decision must be made at the highest level then you will have abortion clinics on every street corner (California alone has more votes in congress than most southern states). At least if we obey the Constitution then you can make it extremely difficult to get an abortion in your home state (as has already been done in Alabama).

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/20/2006 2:41:47 PM

Quote :

"nutsmackr As for mathman, I do not see where you say a specific time frame in which a fetus is a life."

I was referring to the statement,

"It's not just a lump of flesh, its a human, with time it will develop into a full-functioning human just on the basis of its own genetic content ( and nutrition from mom ). This is true from the point of conception onward."

In short, life begins at conception.

Quote :

"kwsmith2 I think there is a big difference between what is immoral and what should illegal. I stipulate that abortion is immoral but to outlaw it would defy our basic right to liberty."

I agree that civil law should not directly mirror moral law, however it should not be outlawed by fiat of the court that certain moral laws cannot be legislated. That is, if the will of the people says some particular action is immoral then we ought to be able to get our representatives to pass a law mirroring our sentiments. This is afterall a democratic republic. However, what has happened lately ( well quite a while now actually ) is that we go through all the proper channels only at the end for some judge to knock the law down through some twisted view of the constitution.

Frankly, I'm quite pessimistic when it comes to this issue. While I'd like for my side to get a few more conservative judges to effectively legislate my view from the bench, I hate that the ultimate laws of the land should be so far from the control of the people. Perhaps we should get rid of lifetime appointments for judges. If judges are going to make laws then they should be elected, and they should clearly lay out their views for all to hear before they get to judge us.

Quote :

"kwsmith2 Ultimately the woman's right is to demand vacation of the womb. If the fetus is leaving then you can not kill it on the way out."

If this is a fundamental liberty then it ought to be written explicitly. As EarthDogg said,

Quote :

"There is nothing in the Constituion that speaks to, or has any jurisdiction over, the question of when life begins- therefore the federal gov't should have no opinion."

So if the babies are human then they ought to have equal protection under the law. Just like black people, or any other particular subcategory of humanity.

I'm glad we can agree on the third trimester.

[Edited on December 20, 2006 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2006 3:27:28 PM

Quote :

""It's not just a lump of flesh, its a human, with time it will develop into a full-functioning human just on the basis of its own genetic content ( and nutrition from mom ). This is true from the point of conception onward." In short, life begins at conception."

so then because semen has the potential for life that we should protect semen from being vacated from the body via masturbation?

Just because something has the potential to become life does not mean it is life.

12/20/2006 3:48:34 PM