Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    610
    Post Thanks / Like

    Abortion is not a constitutional right

    Since the Roe v. Wade decision abortion has been considered by most to be the law of the land and a constitutional right. Here is some information about the decision that most people are unaware of.

    Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

    A simple majority vote in both houses of Congress is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.

    When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.

    Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.

    Instead the Supreme Court said:

    "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

    Then the High Court made a key admission:

    "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

    That's exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

    A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate. It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.
    http://prolifealliance.com/end_roeVwade.html

    The decision can be overturned by enacting a law that defines life as beginning at conception.
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    Blog

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion is not a constitutional right

    This article contains some inaccuracies/omissions. The right to privacy was first enshrined by the supreme court in a case from 1965, not in Roe vs Wade. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut ) The finding was that the right to privacy is the principle behind the fourteenth amendment in the bill of rights.

    "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws,"

    The idea being that your personal privacy against government intrusion is one of those privileges and immunities that comes with being a citizen. I find the idea of arguing that the constitution doesn't set forth that its citizens have some notion of autonomy and independence from government as highly suspect. Clearly there is a strong theme that there are limits the the powers and scope of government in dictating the actions or knowing intimate details about its citizens.

    That said....

    I do believe the idea behind the initiative makes sense. If the state enshrines in law that personhood is established at conception (or any other point) then the law would clearly protect the life of those individuals so defined and the state would be obligated to take pains to protect them. It is a good legal approach. That said I think it's likely to fail which is why it is not a tactic commonly used.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2010, 11:39 AM
  2. Home schooling not a constitutional right in California
    By MindTrap028 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  3. Another Constitutional Convention?
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 04:07 PM
  4. Goldphoenix, on Constitutional Issues
    By Netopalis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 18th, 2007, 10:01 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2004, 06:47 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •