If the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, would pro lifers be satsified?

Question

Or would they continue to protest outside abortion clinics? Remember, overturning Roe would not eliminate abortion, it would return it to the states, and most states would keep it legal...

In other words, do you seek to overturn Roe, or would you seek a constitutional amendment to outlaw it?

just the 'innocent babies'? Or the 'guilty ones' too? lol.

anyone who is anti choice is extreme. Just read the responses here...they don't care about Roe, they care about taking away women's rights. Just as I suspected, the 'over reaching Supreme Court' has nothing to do with it. it is about eliminating women's access to safe healthcare. Thanks guys! You make the fight so much more important.

yet, states who have passed euthanasia have been shot down by the supreme court . Also, just because two peole disagree, doesn't mean ONE of them is responsible for the division in america. I could just as easily say 'if you don't agree with me, you are splitting america.' I see a lot of this lately from the right...liberals are responsible for the division of america for not agreeing with Bush. BS!

Answer 1

I doubt that pro-lifers will be satisfied until we stop killing the innocent because they are inconvenient.

Personally, I would like to see a definitive judgment by the Supreme Court as to when life begins (i.e when does to Constitution begin to apply to a person). Viability is not an answer since that changes with every medical breakthrough.

Answer 2

Many would. I suspect that many, many more would not, and don't even realize it.

I think the Supreme Court has, unwittingly, put itself in the driver's seat on the "overreaching" issue. Sometimes an arguably flawed opinion is favored by liberals because the RESULT is what they want. Other times (maybe not as much), conservatives are pleased with the result. So there's not enough incentive to get the courts to really stay within the lines, always. Someone is always secretly pleased that they did not.

Yes, the issue would return to the states. Many large, populous states - NY, California, Illinois, NJ, etc. - would keep it legal. Overturning the case would not reduce the number of abortions greatly.

There would be struggles and disputes in other states.

I think it would be hard to get any kind of constitutional amendment either way, given the split in public opinion.

Not everything that is immoral - much less what you, or I, or anyone else happens to think is immoral - is illegal. Or should be.

I have many, many concerns about abortion, which I've already shared. But I think the best solutions here will not be legalistic ones.

PS I was cranky this morning and fired off a bunch of questions. I'm getting that "internet disease" - the more partisanship I see, the more partisan I become - sometimes. I'm trying to resist. You know how it gets! Nothing involving male genitals and a meat cleaver, though. (Said with a big smile.) Hard to get that image out of the mind! All the best - fight the good fight! :)

PPS Someone else said something about contraception - good point! The "right to privacy" line of cases that ended in Roe and arguably the recent sodomy case started with Griswold v Connecticut, a 1965 (I believe) decision saying there was a constitutional right for married couples to buy contraceptives. Overturning Roe would probably, logically, call for this case to be overturned, and go back to the states, too! Yup, you read that right. There is a big difference between what is "a stupid law" and what is prohibited by the Constitution, but people would react viscerally to overturning that case long before the law professors - the ones who haven't signed on to Griswold - got to make their point.

PPPS: Wikipedia confrims my take on it. Also, they even have the oral arguments on audio. crank up the iPod! (sarc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Answer 3

properly first, could human beings overlook that the U.S. had a conservative majority larger than they do now, whilst the Roe VS Wade determination replaced into first made. back then, the conservatives had a 6-3 majority on the court docket. Now conservatives have a 5-4 majority on the courts. Secondly, the court docket can not basically determine on thier own, to over turn a regulation. There must be a particular case earlier the court docket, earlier they could make this way of ruling. so some distance as i be responsive to, there has not been any case earlier the U.S. simply by fact the Roe VS Wade ruling, the place the court docket might have even had of venture to over turn the previous ruling. maximum court docket challanges to the U.S., ensure around an extremely slender area of the regulation. So i don't see it occurring every time quickly. Plus, Justices by no potential certainly vote the way each and every physique thinks they'll. they have a tendency to take thier responsibilites alot greater heavily than maximum folk supply them credit for. in spite of everything, whilst they are there, they don't seem to be beholding to every physique anymore.

Answer 4

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be thrilled. If there has ever been a issue properly left to the states to decide, this is it. I will cotinue to protest, as I have the same First Amendment rights as do the anti-war people, the PETA people, and the global warming people. That being said, I could swallow Massachusetts (for example) eliminating all controls on abortion if Utah were free to ban it.

Answer 5

You call other people extreme yet it is you that mentions the word fight.

I am not against abortion. I used to be, that is, until I had a daughter that was raped. When something like that happens it tends to make you re-evaluate how you feel about things.

I am against minors being able to get abortions without their guardians input. I am against partial birth abortions.

I wonder why men don't fight for their rights in this issue.

Would I be satisfied if it was overturned. No. But what I would be is saitisfied if people like you didn't try and stir up unwarranted hostilities between people and try to create friction at a time when our country needs less friction, not more.

Answer 6

For me, the subject of abortion is a tricky one. I personally would love to live in a perfect world where abortion were illegal. However, I feel there should be a stipulation to the law that says if there is medial evidence that the mother is in danger of losing her life during the pregnancy, abortion can be considered as an option.

I personally think adoption should be more of a focus for these women who constantly turn to abortion as the answer. I am a adoptive mother of 3 and thank God everyday that the mother of my children chose life. I think abortion is too easy for many people. I went to high school with a girl who had 3 abortions. Instead of these woman using birth control, they just get pregnant and get abortions, it's an epidemic.

So, you ask if "it will make me happy" if Roe v Wade were overturned. My answer is, "yes, it would be a step in the right direction".

Answer 7

I think abortion is an issue the states should decide. People should be allowed to vote on it. It is possible to have privacy and have abortions decided by the state. The supreme court could do it all in one ruling.
Euthanasia was once called a privacy issue, yet it is now illegal.

Answer 8

Well, protesting is constitutionally protected---directly, not obliquely---so I don't see any problem with their protesting as such. I think Roe v Wade SHOULD be overturned as abortion law SHOULD be a state law issue under the constitution. I HATE the whole "creative" interpretation of the Constitution. It gives me a queasy feeling. I don't particularly feel that abortion should be illegal, but I do feel that each state legislature should decide that for themselves.
**************
Your premise started off so rationally and now in additional comments you have gone off the deep-end. That's why it's so hard to have a rational discussion and present a rational viewpoint to ANY of you extremists (and that is exactly what the questioner has shown himself to be) on either side of the issue. Neither of you want to see reason. I think you will find that the majority of people in "real life" are much less rigid on either side.

Like most people on these boards, you don't want a well thought out and supported "answer", you want validation for your own viewpoint.

Answer 9

yes, but only on a basic level. It would only be the beginning of correcting a great wrong. The protests would continue. The pro-life groups would continue to put pressure on state legislators to outlaw abortions in any given state. They won't be happy until their goal is completely achieved. In a way, yes...and in a way, no.

Answer 10

I think many would be happy that at least it was a state by state vote and the feds would be out of the picture... but the more extreme people would not be satisfied.. they want the feds in the picture and to make it illegal in all states.