On the question of abortion in the United States, for the most part, pro-life advocates decry the result of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, while pro-choice advocates welcome the result. However, a number of pro-choice advocates, notably Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argue that Roe v. Wade is faulty on Constitution grounds, stating that while they approve of the result, they disagree with the means by which the result was achieved, preferring a more democratic process. I was wondering if the converse is true, that there are pro-life advocates that agree with the Court's decision is valid, even if they do not like the result, and argue that a Constitutional amendment is required to overturn Roe v. Wade, or at least a change in legal statutes.
I'm not advocating any position here, and I would ask that answers refrain from at least overt arguing of either side of the debate. I'm simply looking to satiate my curiosity. Thank you in advance.
2007-05-31
02:50:08
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Ѕємι~Мαđ ŠçїєŋŧιѕТ
6