Comments on: Roe v. Wade, A Redux http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Stephen Haise http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-20840 Stephen Haise Mon, 08 May 2006 10:12:45 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/#comment-20840 where are my Katrina trailers going to in NE Amergotten/America...??????????????????????????????????????????????fsddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddiag where are my Katrina trailers going to in NE Amergotten/America…??????????????????????????????????????????????fsddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddiag

]]> By: Stephen Haise http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-20839 Stephen Haise Mon, 08 May 2006 10:07:29 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/#comment-20839 1 million babies per year are killed by abortion...all of these babies are USA citizens and have passports and social security cards...we have b@eten the synogoge kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 1 million babies per year are killed by abortion…all of these babies are USA citizens and have passports and social security cards…we have b@eten the synogoge kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

]]> By: wj http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-20671 wj Fri, 05 May 2006 15:36:38 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/#comment-20671 Perhaps those who favor abortion (at least in some circumstances) are finally realizing that, absent Roe v. Wade, they would have long since had abortion legalized in most of the country. And avoided, or at least much reduced, the rise of the would-be theocrats. We can pray that it is not too late to cram that particular genie back into the bottle. Perhaps those who favor abortion (at least in some circumstances) are finally realizing that, absent Roe v. Wade, they would have long since had abortion legalized in most of the country. And avoided, or at least much reduced, the rise of the would-be theocrats. We can pray that it is not too late to cram that particular genie back into the bottle.

]]> By: Blue Neponset http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-20667 Blue Neponset Fri, 05 May 2006 15:27:36 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/#comment-20667 According to the link noted above the 1985 numbers were 50% supported Roe v. Wade and 47% opposed it. It seems support for this decision ebbs and flows, and in that regard the 2006 numbers aren't that unusual. If you look further down in the WSJ article you will see the answers to this question: "In general, do you favor permitting a woman who wants one to have an abortion in all circumstances, some circumstances or no circumstances?" The results: Favor permitting abortion in: 1985: All circumstances 26%; Some circumstances 53%; No circumstances 20%; Not sure 1% 2005: All circumstances 23%; Some circumstances 55%; No circumstances 21%; Not sure 1% 2006: All circumstances 24%; Some circumstances 53%; No circumstances 20%; Not sure 4% (not sure why but the results add up to 101%, but they do) The percentage favoring abortion in either all or some circumstances was 79% in 1985 and 77% 21 years later in 2006. It seems to me not much has changed in regard to the public's opinion on abortion. If pro-lifers are finding traction in their efforts to bash Roe v. Wade, it doesn't appear to be helping their anti-abortion efforts. According to the link noted above the 1985 numbers were 50% supported Roe v. Wade and 47% opposed it. It seems support for this decision ebbs and flows, and in that regard the 2006 numbers aren’t that unusual.

If you look further down in the WSJ article you will see the answers to this question:

“In general, do you favor permitting a woman who wants one to have an abortion in all circumstances, some circumstances or no circumstances?”

The results:

Favor permitting abortion in:

1985: All circumstances 26%; Some circumstances 53%; No circumstances 20%; Not sure 1%

2005: All circumstances 23%; Some circumstances 55%; No circumstances 21%; Not sure 1%

2006: All circumstances 24%; Some circumstances 53%; No circumstances 20%; Not sure 4% (not sure why but the results add up to 101%, but they do)

The percentage favoring abortion in either all or some circumstances was 79% in 1985 and 77% 21 years later in 2006. It seems to me not much has changed in regard to the public’s opinion on abortion. If pro-lifers are finding traction in their efforts to bash Roe v. Wade, it doesn’t appear to be helping their anti-abortion efforts.

]]> By: Daniel DiRito http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-20659 Daniel DiRito Fri, 05 May 2006 14:14:41 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/05/roe-v-wade-a-redux/#comment-20659 Roe v. Wade opponents argue the ruling should be overturned since it was wrongly wrestled from the appropriate legislative grip of a state by state resolution whereby the people, through majority vote, elect legislative bodies to then pass laws that reflect the will of the majority. This approach, although feasible and consistent with much of our historical process, runs counter to the growing conflation of the states. Legal and constitutional principles notwithstanding, the results of a state by state definition and determination of abortion rights become the necessary focus. Ultimately, by whom and how would the mechanics be applied and administered? Would a woman impregnated in Utah, where abortion is illegal, who travels to California, where abortion is legal, be charged upon returning to Utah with a crime if she had an abortion? Would a doctor with a practice in multiple states be charged with a crime in a state where abortion is illegal if he in fact performed abortions in another state where abortion is legal? Granted many of these details have or can be sorted out and legislated as needed…but if one clearly listens to the goals of those on either side of the issues…this patchwork resolution wouldn’t be satisfactory. To presume that anti-abortion activists living in a state where abortion is illegal would be content to disregard the abortions happening in an adjacent state is absurd. The same is true for abortion proponents. What this analysis seeks to illuminate is that the legality of abortion, despite being considered nationwide settled law by its proponents, will remain an unsettled issue by both sides regardless of the origin of that legality or illegality (Roe v. Wade or state by state). To assume the foment wanes once each state is given authority is antithetical to the issues. If an anti-abortion activist succeeds in his or her state, it doesn’t follow that their belief in an obligation to make abortion illegal everywhere else subsides. Were that the case the longstanding argument that says if you oppose abortion, don’t have one would suffice. The bottom line is that this issue will not remain confined to state boundaries and those who refuse to acknowledge this are either in denial or merely looking to change the dynamic in hopes of a different final outcome. What this means when one looks at the issue of Supreme Court appointments is that while great focus is placed on these appointments, a far more important consideration is not discussed. While the two sides bask in the hope or presumption of victory, the consequences of that victory remain unexplored and absolutely unarticulated. The shimmer of noble nostalgia generated by a return to states rights that is envisioned by many or the vindication and upholding of a judicially settled policy imagined by the other side will likely result in nothing more than heightened conflict and controversy. Hence, the oft protected ideological leanings of appointees is all absorbing but dangerously absent any forthcoming discussion of the possible real world outcomes of their potential decisions. Victory will not be won with the next appointment to the Supreme Court. History tells us abortions will persist despite adjudications. Its time we accept this reality and begin the actual process of an honest debate. more observations here: <a href="http://www.thoughttheater.com//2006/03/judicial_activism_exposed.php" rel="nofollow">www.thoughttheater.com</a> Roe v. Wade opponents argue the ruling should be overturned since it was wrongly wrestled from the appropriate legislative grip of a state by state resolution whereby the people, through majority vote, elect legislative bodies to then pass laws that reflect the will of the majority. This approach, although feasible and consistent with much of our historical process, runs counter to the growing conflation of the states.

Legal and constitutional principles notwithstanding, the results of a state by state definition and determination of abortion rights become the necessary focus. Ultimately, by whom and how would the mechanics be applied and administered? Would a woman impregnated in Utah, where abortion is illegal, who travels to California, where abortion is legal, be charged upon returning to Utah with a crime if she had an abortion? Would a doctor with a practice in multiple states be charged with a crime in a state where abortion is illegal if he in fact performed abortions in another state where abortion is legal?

Granted many of these details have or can be sorted out and legislated as needed…but if one clearly listens to the goals of those on either side of the issues…this patchwork resolution wouldn’t be satisfactory. To presume that anti-abortion activists living in a state where abortion is illegal would be content to disregard the abortions happening in an adjacent state is absurd. The same is true for abortion proponents. What this analysis seeks to illuminate is that the legality of abortion, despite being considered nationwide settled law by its proponents, will remain an unsettled issue by both sides regardless of the origin of that legality or illegality (Roe v. Wade or state by state). To assume the foment wanes once each state is given authority is antithetical to the issues. If an anti-abortion activist succeeds in his or her state, it doesn’t follow that their belief in an obligation to make abortion illegal everywhere else subsides. Were that the case the longstanding argument that says if you oppose abortion, don’t have one would suffice.

The bottom line is that this issue will not remain confined to state boundaries and those who refuse to acknowledge this are either in denial or merely looking to change the dynamic in hopes of a different final outcome. What this means when one looks at the issue of Supreme Court appointments is that while great focus is placed on these appointments, a far more important consideration is not discussed. While the two sides bask in the hope or presumption of victory, the consequences of that victory remain unexplored and absolutely unarticulated. The shimmer of noble nostalgia generated by a return to states rights that is envisioned by many or the vindication and upholding of a judicially settled policy imagined by the other side will likely result in nothing more than heightened conflict and controversy. Hence, the oft protected ideological leanings of appointees is all absorbing but dangerously absent any forthcoming discussion of the possible real world outcomes of their potential decisions. Victory will not be won with the next appointment to the Supreme Court. History tells us abortions will persist despite adjudications. Its time we accept this reality and begin the actual process of an honest debate.

more observations here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

]]>