Do any pro-life advocates believe that Roe v. Wade has Constitutional merit?

Question

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.

cvq3842, good point about Kelo v. City of New London. That's worth its own question.

Answer 1

I am pro-life except when the mother is in significant danger or the baby is severely malformed. I believe Roe Vs. Wade has a place in our governmental laws. We whom believe abortion is wrong should strive to lower the rate of abortion, work towards providing assistance, and promote adoption as a more viable alternative than abortion.
Government MUST remain secular for the higher good. The higher good being our right to practice freedom of religion. We should not impose our religious values onto the government. We must protect freedom of choice in doing so we protect our freedom to choose which spiritual path we wish or are directed to take by our higher power.

Answer 2

Good point. Leaving aside whether the RESULT was a good one or not, there is a pretty broad consensus that Roe v. Wade was a very poorly reasoned decision.

The question of what abortion law should be - a political question - and whether the Constitution reqiures a certain result are two very different issues.

If the Court takes it upon itself to reshape the law in this instance, what's to stop it from doing so in others? The Kelo decision on eminent domain, for example.

That's the danger of this case, whatever one thinks of the result.

Answer 3

Roe Vs. Wade was bad law. Pretty much any honest student of the constitution will admit that. There was a liberal court that was just begging someone to bring them an abortion case so they could legislate from the bench. In the Roe case, the woman has subsequently gone public. The whole case was false.

A new court could overturn Roe but then abortion would simply be a matter for states to decide. Just like before Roe, some states allowed it, some banned it and some limited it.

A constitutional amendment would ban it outright.

.

Answer 4

Roe was a bad way to make law in this nation.

Those who believe Roe is more important than the Bill of Rights.

Yet we still have the firestorm of abortion and since the ruling it hasn't gotten any better.

If people who would be willing to comprise on both sides and write laws that make sense it would do better than depending on the courts.

The reality is that most people don't want to have abortion completely outlawed or without any kind of restrictions.

When that gets drill into both edges of this debate abortion won't be the problem it is for this country.

Answer 5

The constitution says nothing against abortion, but it doesn't have to, Roe v. Wade ruled laws AGAINST abortion were unconstitutional (which is nonsense). As the Constitution says nothing about that either, then by default abortion SHOULD become an issue left to the states. Either legal or illegal. Now a constitutional amendment SHOULD be neccesary to make it a nationwide law one way or the other, but in it's current form Roe v. Wade is a prime example of the courts taking extra-constitutional and judiciary powers they don't have. I say "should" in capitals of course because our government ceased giving a damn about the constitution a long time ago in my opinion.

Answer 6

I am not arguing for or against Roe vs. Wade. However, it seems to me that if you go back and start rewriting Supreme Court decisions, you are in danger of taking away a very important process that is used in every decision....that of precedent.

Almost every lawyer goes back in time to find some case or other to bolster his own case. If you are asking the court to rely on past decisions in order to make a new decision, you are risking future cases if an older decision is then rewritten. In that case, the opposition would then ask that the older decision be reviewed and rewritten, in every instance, thus destroying the process of using preceding cases as a guideline for decisions.

The effort to destroy Roe vs. Wade usually fails because each effort leaves no clause protecting the mother who, let's face it, was here first. If a pregnancy endangers her life, if it is the result of incest or a rape, her human rights are being ignored if she is forced to give birth despite the assault against the safety, either mentally or physically, on her own welfare.

Answer 7

I doubt that any agree it was a good judgment. It is a case that never should have been taken up by the court. The court made a big error in taking it up so, the ruling is flawed. It is and should be a States rights issue.

Answer 8

My problem with the issues is that neither group is talking about the rights the fetus has. I have a friend who had her kids permaturely, week #25, and they survived. Therefore, you can say that the baby can survive even without the support of the mother at that point. So, should not the baby have rights since they can survive outside of the womb that early?

Answer 9

Norma McCorvey's tale is amazingly nicely ordinary and has been coated significantly by skill of the media. I even have not considered her villianized and deemed psychologically volatile by skill of professional-selection supporters.