forshadowing the reversal of roe v wade? (funerals, choice, abortion)

[robtex]

Two cnn links:

1)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/23/ab....ap/index.html

2)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/....ap/index.html

The agenda appears no longer to be subversive. With the USA preforming 1.3 million abortions on average per year according to the first footnote and adoption rates being a small fraction of this what are adopted is there a feasible contingency to the banning of abortions and if so what are the alternatives? Do you think Roe V Wade will be reversed or upheld and if so why?


footnotes:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abo...rtionstats.htm
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp
http://statistics.adoption.com/
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/res...resstates.html

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that the overturn or overhaul Roe v Wade is its final destiny and I think that it will be at least 30 years before it's out. I think that surgical abortion will go out of style with the advent of early term chemical abortions, which will eventually cause R v W to be amended, overhauled, or overturned because surgiacal abortions will be unneeded. Color images of the fetus and the development of fetal care will cause people to place greater value on the fetus. IMHO, the fetus will become human, and receive more protection.

The pro-life group will never be able to convince "non-believers" that life begins at conception, so forms of abortion will always be with us. As medical science improves, non-surgical abortions will be "all the rage."

[Faminedynasty]

The overturn of Roe v Wade would be political suicide for whatever faction was stupid enough to carry it out, at least any time soon.

[Faint]

Interesting read, Robtex. "In Michigan, a group of ministry leaders launched a new anti-abortion organization, Michigan Chooses Life. The group wants to change the state constitution to legally define a person as existing at the moment of conception." Do you think if that passed, people would need to get a death certificate and start having funerals for their miscarriages?

Personally, I don't expect Roe to be overturned, despite Bush's bold claims. People are sick of his administration and attempted theocracy...the next election will have us swinging back to the left, I guarantee it. Your footnote stats seem to confirm that the majority of women are still pro-choice, and I have a feeling that the people who truly run this country would quickly oust (as Faminedynasty mentioned) "whatever faction was stupid enough to carry it out". We hear more from the pro-lifers because they are not the status quo, and ignorant people tend to get very loud and vocal when things aren't going their way. But I can imagine a much louder outcry if abortion was outlawed.

One other thing to consider...as global population reaches crippling proportions, Roe is much less likely to be overturned. Even "believers" will feel the crunch when they can no longer afford their Thomas Kincaid paintings (let alone another mouth to feed) due to the cost of survival.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Faint

Interesting read, Robtex. "In Michigan, a group of ministry leaders launched a new anti-abortion organization, Michigan Chooses Life. The group wants to change the state constitution to legally define a person as existing at the moment of conception." Do you think if that passed, people would need to get a death certificate and start having funerals for their miscarriages?

Personally, I don't expect Roe to be overturned, despite Bush's bold claims. People are sick of his administration and attempted theocracy...the next election will have us swinging back to the left, I guarantee it. Your footnote stats seem to confirm that the majority of women are still pro-choice, .

If I could make three comments about this post:

1) Our judicial branch is not a democratic process but a republic one. What this means is cases that are heard by the highest court in the land are not voted on by the public but judicially reviewed by the 9 members on the supreme court. The noteworth point of this is that the judges themselves are not elected by the public but instead are appointed by the president (a processs i personally don't agree with) and the check and balance is the congress and senate must approve the president's choice. Furthermore, the judge appointed is appointed for life. This means that "public opinion" has a dimished importance in the eyes of the judges once they are elected.

2) Roe V Wade is not supported by a large section of the voters. I make the distinction of voters because politicans and lobbiests do too. A would probaby guess that you are correct when you say that the majority of people are opposed to an abortion ban, however a really impressive percentage of the people WHO VOTE, which I should mention are of increased imporatance, are opposed to roe v wade.

3) I am skeptical that you are really from neptune....I just wanted to articulate that.

[robtex]

Roe v Wade Overturned?

This was a really good debate on the topic recently.

[Flappycat]

I see the issue stabilizing. In the past, people have been either for abortion or against it. A few polls I've seen suggest that the middle is growing pretty rapidly. Most seem to favor the legality of abortion at this point, and there is as strong a current against fully elective abortion at all stages. No, Roe will not be overturned because an increasing number of people have read the actual text of the ruling and know that the state has the power to regulate all but first trimester abortions and is equipped to ban third trimester abortions outright. This is a fact.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0113_ZS.html

No, as long as Roveywade offers some possibility of protection of third trimester fetuses, they won't risk destabilizing it.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by robtex

The noteworth point of this is that the judges themselves are not elected by the public but instead are appointed by the president (a processs i personally don't agree with)

Personally, I don't like it either. However, a really interesting and cool thing about this is that nominees (or justices, rather) are not held accountable in any way to any political platform. They can change their minds at any time and determine cases according to their interpretation of the law. I'm not a legal scholar, but I know that justices have historically decided cases that were against the rationale for their appointment, and it has happened in abortion cases. Regan appointed Justice O'Conner (if I remember correctly) as a pro-lifer, and she famously ended up voting pro-choice.