Skip to main content

View Diary: Defending Roe (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  True democracy allows us to vote on it. (none)
    If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it will not make abortion illegal.  It will turn it over to the states to decide.  We, the people, will vote on the issue.  If, as you say, the majority wants abortion, then there'd be no problem if Roe vs. Wade was overturned.

    That, in my opinion, is the better route for democracy.  Whatever reasons people have, nobody who opposes abortion is allowed to have a choice on the issue.  In my opinion, that's not fair.  Even if the final result doesn't change, at least those who oppose abortion will have had the opportunity to vote on it.  

    •  you have a choice.... (4.00)
      ..if you oppose abortion: DON'T HAVE ONE

      Crime is contagious....if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

      by FemiNazi on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:46:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since when (4.00)
      do we decide what medical procedures are legal by voting for them? What next, no vasectomies because a majority of voters say the only reason to have sex is to procreate? Give me a break.

      The tragedy of science, a beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact. T. H. Huxley -7.38,-6.67

      by realalaskan on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:46:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fundamental rights (4.00)
      are not subject to a vote.

      That is what the Constitution is about.

    •  Choice? Choice? (4.00)
      You think the people being deprived of choice are the ones who want government to force a woman to bear a child?

      Look, that's no 'choice' you're asking for. That's a prurient busybody's demand to run other people's private lives. It's like the War on Christmas -- "Ooh, poor me, I'm being sooo bullied and ignored because I'm not being allowed to trample those people who won't live the way I think they should. It's just not fair. I'm, like, soo victimized."

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

      by Canadian Reader on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 05:57:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry Pal... (none)
      Recommended by:
      Wary
      you don't get a vote to determine someone else's private life.
    •  one's rights (4.00)
      Recommended by:
      musing graze, Wary
      belong to oneself. they are not granted by a vote of everyone else.

      "Dear Mr. Bush: Please obtain Tamifah's permission before invading any other countries. Love, Tamifah."

      by Tamifah on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:26:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then you don't understand the whole (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Maria in Pgh, julifolo, Wary

      Bill of Rights/Constitution thing.

      If you think it's fine to turn everything over to the will of the majority, you have a one-page Constitution.  

      The rights guaranteed in that document are there to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority.  For one obvious example, without the (what's left of) the 1st Amendment, you have Christianity imposed as the state religion.

      The excellent principles this country was founded on are not limited to democracy, not by a long shot.

      •  Agreed, except (0+ / 0-)

        Abortion is nowhere found in the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights).  The right to free speech, religion, firearm ownership, assembly, etc. are found in the Constitution, so I wouldn't expect a majority rule on whether it's okay to hold a rally, etc.

        But abortion appears nowhere in the entire Consitution.  People who think they have a Constitutional right to an abortion are misguided.  I don't believe abortion is a fundamental right, so I think it should be put to a vote.  If the abortion advocates are confident in legislative victory, then it shouldn't be a problem.

        And no, I don't think it's fine to turn everything over to the will of the majority, as you suggest.  But if you think abortion fits right in with the fundamental rights of speech, religion, assembly, etc., then perhaps it is not I who doesn't understand the whole Bill of Rights/Constitution thing.  
         

        •  You bet I do (0+ / 0-)

          Check your 9th Amendment, and remember the guiding principal of our form of government, which arose out of rebellion against an oppressive rule: The right of citizens to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusions.  It's been called the right to privacy, I prefer this way of stating it.

          It's as fundamental as rights gets.

          •  10th Amendment (0+ / 0-)

            "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

            That seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.  If it's not a power delegated by the Constitution, then it's reserved to the states.    

            The way it is now, 5 unelected, unaccountable justices super-legislated abortion into the Constitution, right up there with free speech, and now nobody has any say about it, period.  I'm pretty sure that an oligarchy wasn't exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they founded this country.

            I've never put too much stock into the SCOTUS.  After all, it was they who deemed slave ownership acceptable, and the concept of "separate but equal" as constitutional.  It was they who said that a private interest could bulldoze your house if it made money.  

            I think representation and accountability are a much safer bet than judicial legislation.  

               

    •  Agree strongly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ohshenandoah

      One of the major differences between Europe and the US in the abortion debate is that it just simply isn´t an issue here. Why? For a number of reasons, but one of the main ones has been that the legalisation of abortion happened through legislative change rather than through the courts. In that sense, there has always been a greater sense of democratic legitimacy about it.

      If pro-choice advocates honestly believe that their views are those of the majority, let them put it to a democratic test. The flip side is of course the problem and danger for women then in states where such legislation would not pass.

      Nonetheless, putting abortion onto the statute books by public plebiscites would surely be the best way to move on from this debate, and this would also have a healthy and positive effect on the polarising tendencies this subject has on judicial appointments.

    •  I oppose war (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      julifolo

      but I didn't get to vote on it.  We are a representative democracy.  We voted for the president and congress.  The president appoint the SCOTUS, the congress confirms.  THAT is how it works.  Can you imagine if we voted on every single issue?  

      I've never understood why so many people think that this one issue, abortion rights, demands a vote of the people when nothing else does.  

      Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

      by AMcG826 on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 05:46:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site