Roe V wade

[Ruskin]

I have a book of Supreme Court cases.  In it was Roe v Wade, a noted abortion case.

In the reasoning to arrive at a woman's right to abortion the judges noted that in the rights found in the Constitution the is the "right to bear arms."  I haven't heard this mentioned anywhere. 

If  our liberal press and those that want to deny gun rights knew what was said in the opinion then they would have to say a woman has no right to an abortion.

[dukkillr]

can you expand on that logic a bit?  I don't follow your reasoning.

[Dusty Miller]

It may come as a surprise to some of you but it was 17 years after Roe V. Wade that violent crime statistics started to drop in this country.  Was it perhaps a shortage of kids who were not wanted by their parents that brought that on? Just a thought.

[Tapper]

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#op

I just scanned/read the opinion and could not find any such mention. Could you please indicate where it is. The opinion is long and I could have missed it previously or today. It is available at the above link.

Thanks,

Tapper

[Casull]

Been awhile since I read Roe v. Wade, but as I recall, there was no majority opinion in that case.  There were a number of written opinions, but none which gathered five justices' agreement.  I believe the opinion you're referring is the one most quoted, and was joined by three other justices.  Therefore, any of the opinions cited would really just be dicta and not binding precident.  Dukkiller can correct me on that if I'm wrong (been about twenty years since I read the case, and I was at odds with the decision and my con. law professor).  As far as I'm concerned, it was bad law then and its still bad law (regardless of which side of the abortion issue you're on).

[dukkillr]

Been awhile since I read Roe v. Wade, but as I recall, there was no majority opinion in that case.  There were a number of written opinions, but none which gathered five justices' agreement.  I believe the opinion you're referring is the one most quoted, and was joined by three other justices.  Therefore, any of the opinions cited would really just be dicta and not binding precident.  Dukkiller can correct me on that if I'm wrong (been about twenty years since I read the case, and I was at odds with the decision and my con. law professor).  As far as I'm concerned, it was bad law then and its still bad law (regardless of which side of the abortion issue you're on).

Agreed.  I'm pro-choice and think it's terrible law.  I think it should be based on a freedom of religion grounds similar to some of the language coming out of the intelligent design in schools cases.

I'll root around in my office and find my Con Law book. 

[Mikey]

Hmmmmm, I thought row versus wade was a fishing controversy...............................Mikey.

[Dusty Miller]

Snicker! Snort!!

[WylieKy]

I think a woman has the right to do what ever she wants to her body.  Problem is, the baby is not part of her body.  Period.  If you don't believe me, do a DNA test.  Different DNA=Different individual.  Funny thing, every part of a "womans body" that doesn't look like another little person has the same DNA as her.

WylieKy

[Casull]

Right to choose, roe vs wade, etc., does not consider the 'standing' of father' s rights. Fathers are not considered as citizens in the area of procreation. They are only considered citizens insofar as support arrangements are concerned, and even then questionably.

No arguments here TM7.  Men have no "choice" but do have the obligation.  The whole abortion issue is strange when you consider that a women can kill her unborn child, but if she does drugs or something else that endangers it while in the womb, she can be tried for that.  Go figure.

[Ruskin]

I have a book of Supreme Court Cases on  2 Amendment issue.  It is by Kopel and Halbrook, page 369.  I blelieve you see it in the Rifleman sometimes.

The Justices were reasoning and listed the rights that are in the Constitution among them are the right to keep and bear arms. 

I agree a woman can do with her body whatever she wants; however, when a baby has set up shop she is the nest giving life to the child.  More than one to consider.  It should not be a form of birth control.  Check the Bible for Blood and read what it says.  The life is in the blood.  If one can abort without shedding blood then it would be ok.  However, the baby's life is taken.

[Skunk]

" Hmmmmm, I thought row versus wade was a fishing controversy...............................Mikey." - Mikey

Oh Mikey, now that was a darn good one...

As far as abortions go, I'm against them.

Too many folks out there that cannot have children and would be ecstatic to adopt those little kids that would otherwise get aborted. Plus, like it has been said many times before, this is not a "thing" that is growing inside of the mother, he/she is a living being that has the same rights that all of us have been given. I believe in an individuals rights, but not the right to commit murder, which is what an abortion is in my opinion.

Skunk

[Dusty Miller]

I'm sorry Skunk but the fact of the matter is there is no line of folks waiting to adopt children who are not wanted by their parents.  If that had ever been the case then it goes without saying the whole isssue would've never gotten to the SCUS. 

[Skunk]

Dusty, good point and sadly I must agree that children who are in foster care, unless they (the children) are very young, do stand a slim chance of being adopted.

However, it appears that when it comes to the infertile sect of adopters looking for adoptions through surrogate mothers, adoption is in high demand and becoming big business here in the states. Following is an excerpt by Nancy Ashe written for About.com:

********************************************************
BIG BUSINESS:
 
Adoption Services Valued At $1.4 Billion

Report by Nancy Ashe Copyright  © 2001 About.com, Inc.

"An industry analysis of Fertility Clinics and Adoption Services by Marketdata Enterprises of Tampa, FL, has placed a $1.4 billion value on adoption services in the US, with a projected annual growth rate of 11.5% to 2004. According to a report from PR Newswire, this is the only analysis of this business sector ever undertaken.

Some details:

In 1999, there were 138,000 US adoptions; 

There are 4,500 adoption services providers in the US, which include 2,000 public agencies, 2,000 private agencies, and 500 adoption attorneys; 

The number of attorneys involved in adoption has doubled over the past 10 years; 

Gross income for small agencies can come to $400,000 per year, and $10+ million for large agencies. 

Much of the present and future growth is attributable to the rise in international adoptions. 

Marketdata's analysis places adoption costs between $15,000 - $30,000, and describes adoption as 'complex, and stories of unscrupulous operators abound in this loosely regulated field.' " 

From "About.Com:  About Adoption"

Reprinted with Permission of Author
***********************************************************

My hope in the above post was that some of these children up for abortions could just as well be placed into adoption instead of just being aborted. There is probably way more to it than my simple mind is seeing though.

Skunk

[ironglow]

  Perhaps the line waiting to adopt children would be even longer if it didn't cost $15,000 to $30,000 just to get started..

   Can we assume that the govt agencies and greedy lawyers are contributing to the demise of many pre-born girls and boys ?

    BTW: I am very much PRO-CHOICE...I believe that every boy and girl should be allowed to live long enough so they can at least make their own CHOICE, whether they are to live or die !

[mk454]

funny, there is a huge line to adopt, the problem is the majority are going to foreign adoption b/c the laws and funds required to adopt are insane.  my wife and i have checked out adopting to have a couple more along with the four we've already had and along with a "base price" of nearly 30,000 to start anywhere we've checked you also open your home to the scrutiny of cps for years and have to meet a number of ridiculous requirements regarding the kiddo having his own room, etc.  funny thing is that there's no shortage of people wanting to, but it's actually cheaper to go the surrogate or afi route. 


for more sobering stats, read "death of the west" by buchanan.  a real eye opener.  our own greed will take us down.

[elmer]

When I was younger I looked into adoption and another issue besides the cost is that children in foster care aren't eligible for adoption. Many of them have been taken "temporarily" from their unfit parents, but the parent's rights weren't terminated.