Voting about abortion and Roe v. Wade.

There seems to be far too much pressure for voters to vote based on that one and only issue of abortion and so people really need more information about this subject.

President Bush has been against abortions for eight years and yet the abortions are still continuing as before and after Bush. Some opponents want the Supreme Court stacked so that the 'Roe v. Wade' decision will be overturned and abortions made against the law. Of course other things like narcotics are illegal and yet the drugs keep going on. So if abortion were to become illegal then the USA will have to put mothers into jail as murderers, and the abortion Doctors will need to be prosecuted as murderers too. Of course the richer people can travel to other Countries to get a 'legal' abortion so only the poorer mothers and the American Doctors will face the prosecution of murder- by-abortion changes. And when a military female gets raped in a war zone then that new law will require the soldier-mother to not only have the birth but she will also be required to provide for the baby of rape until 18 or 22 years old. She could possibly give the baby up for adoption but that still means the mom must provide for the child up to maturity. And there are fertility clinics so a patient mother might have 6 baby embryos and under Roe v. Wade the Doctors can abort 3 or 4 of the embryos so then the other 3 or 2 might survive to birth, but no abortion would put all 6 embryos at risk and it puts the mother's health and life at risk too. Some people want the USA to be turned into a super moral Country or even into a Christian Country and so that one issue of abortion is seen as sending many of us on to Hell.

For me, I find the self-righteous claims of the abortion opponents to be hard to accept. It is okay to execute prisoners, they can kill Muslims in an unjust war based on our Presidential deceptions, they can execute foreigners based on tortured confessions, but they do not want abortions because they see murder as so wrong.

The text of the 'Roe v. Wade' decision and the Rehnquist dissent is available with an easy Internet search, and I find the biggest mistake is in blaming the women - mothers for the abortions since the Supreme Court said otherwise when it said as follows; '...the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician.' per Roe v. Wade, section XI 2., http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html , therefore it says that it is the Doctor's decision that the abortion is performed and the mother does not have the final decision. So blaming a woman in need is wrong when it is the Doctor doing the deed. We would do better by creating laws against the Doctors that perform unnecessary abortions and not create laws that will put mothers in jail.

Another far more ethical affront to abortion would be to give health care to all Americans so any expectant mother would not be afraid or pressured by the health care cost of pregnancy and child birth. There are self serving Republicans like President Bush that decry abortions but do not want to give health care that the mothers need. If we changed that kind of self righteous contradiction into helping the mothers then the number of abortions would decrease. We also have rules that if a welfare recipient has another child then their welfare benefits get decreased as their punishment, and even if there is no truth in that threat then it is still an immoral pressure being on the poorest of mothers to get an abortion. And if abortions are made illegal then the law will start putting those mothers into jail for murder, which would mean prosecuting mothers for being poor and ignorant.

So if voters are going to vote for or against a politician based on that one particular issue of abortion then they are making an unethical vote.

Well, all moral/immoral arguments aside, some of us simply want the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision removed rather than changed. As the Constitution grants the ability to pass laws regarding abortion to the states, some of us just want it back in the hands of the people. Really, all we want is a president, Congress, and Supreme Court who know the Constitution and follow it. So it is a big issue considering it is an indication of how knowledgable a presidential candidate is in regards to the Constitution.

Are you claiming the arguement is just for State's rights and not about abortion?

I do not believe many people would agree with you on that.

The "Roe v. Wade" decision was an appeal from the Texas Courts so the Supreme Court has decided the State was wrong.

And I might point out that the Civil War has been mis-claimed as just wanting State's rights when it was really about some thing more.

The contenders of "Roe v. Wade" do not seek the decision to be nulified - they seek it to be reversed and for the Supreme Court to declare abortions as illegal nationwide.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028
d71df58.htm

That is my understanding of it.

And I would even add - IMO - the Courts are to legislate from the Bench as a separate but equal branch of our gov. The Courts are not just the enforcer of legislations.

My argument was not that everyone against Roe v. Wade is against it Constitutionally. I simply pointed out that "some of us" who are against the decision are against it for the right reason, namely the unconstitutiional nature of the judgement. I agree that there are people who believe it should be banned nationwide but they are not the ones I'm arguing for. My argument is actually for the supporters of the Constitution Party who believe that it should be as the Constitution has dictated. Your understanding of it is not wrong, what is wrong is the wide umbrella that anyone who is against Roe v. Wade wants abortion to be illegal across the board. Again, some of us simply want to see the Constitution for the law of the land that it is supposed to be. And Roe v. Wade is quite simply unconstitutional.

I suppose I am not real certain as to how I personally feel about Roe v. Wade.

I do not like nor approve of abortions at all, but I say a gov must not impose that tough of a morality without granting realistic support so people can comply without compulsion.

So you could be technically correct in wanting it as a State right but I am not convinced.

There is the problem of driving across the State lines to do stuff against the State laws and thus the Feds have to step in.

Like illegal drugs being State rights or not? was slavery a State rights or was it a Federal issue? an abortion legal in one State and not the next State makes for a confusing Country - does it not?

The US Constitution is not perfect, and that is why the Courts define the Constitution and the laws, and so I believe the evidence shows that the Supreme Court has acted within its authority.

The ideas of stronger States over weaker Federal authority seems logical and practical in 1776, but the US Civil War redefined our Constitution and it seems best that it did.

The concept of State's rights is always confronted and over-ruled by the Civil War.