For Pro-Choice
 

This is only for pro-choicers (or mixed if you like).

If a nominee openly opposed Roe v Wade, but offered a well crafted constitutional arguement and reasoning, could you confirm him. Let us assume that overturning it would either send it to congress or back to the states (not outlaw it).

Edit: If constitutional, please outline.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

I could and would support the nominee if he was a sound conservative. Similar to how I could support Giulani

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

It would really depend on his reasoning for overturning Roe v. Wade, but I think that I would vote against on constitutional grounds. Roe v. Wade, while an important case on abortion rights, also addressed a lot of important issues regarding privacy and doctor/patient privilege that I think are too important to be tampered with.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

Wouldn't those issues be addressed in other legislation or rulings?

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

well those issues would be, and have been addressed in other rulings, but, and this is why I said that his reasoning would be very important, it could put those issues on shaky legal footing depending on the opinion that he set forward.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

Regardless of ones stance on abortion, the constitutional basis for the Roe decision should be considered weak at best.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of ones stance on abortion, the constitutional basis for the Roe decision should be considered weak at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]

If a nominee openly opposed Roe v Wade

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely irrelevant, as Roe has not been the controlling decision for years. Casey is what I'd be interested in now.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

What if the right to privacy was acknowledged, but the judge found there was insufficient judicial evidence to show that right was greater then the rights of the child.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

You have to make up the argument. Depends on how well that argument is written.

It is very hard to deny highly qualifed judges for the Supreme Court nominee.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

"It is very hard to deny highly qualifed judges for the Supreme Court nominee."

Scalia and Thomas both proabably wouldn't get confirmed today, even though thier writing on the court has been superb.

Hence, the attempt to label the new judge Scaliato.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

I say none of us can really answer this question unless we know the argument. I think the question was well intentioned, but without a specifc argument to look at its asking the wrong question.

For my 2 cents im curious to hear what exactly is a well constructed CONSTITUTIONAL argument against abortion. There are many religious and moral reasons, but dont't conservatives take a strict view of the constituiton? If we can regulate abortions, what is to stop us from prohibiting interacial marriages, sex changes, or other such matters? It is dangerous precedent to decide that the state should have an intimate involvment in personal matters of sex, reproduction etc.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

The simplest arguement to adopt is that there is insufficient legal evidence to determine if the child is alive or not. Or something in between. Roe v Wade never dealt with the issue of when life begins, and thus it has never resolved the debate.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

thats because there is nothing in the constitution addressing this issue. According to conservative philosphy, we shouldn't be allowed to make this kind of stuff up... and its the conservatives comlaining about liberals legislating from the bench :<

When life begins is a personal/religious choice... thats why in the abcence of anything to the contrary in the constitution the state should give free reign when it comes to personal rights and liberties. I personally believe that the government should be involved in people's lives to help them, but when it comes to CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS the government must stay hands off unless specifically allowed.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

as it stands - I'm pretty much pro-life -

but since we establish death as the cecession of brain activity, I don't know why we don't define life in the same way and just put a 5 week limit on abortions - (about the time the brain stem develops, I think) -

I don't see how life begins at conception and then takes 5 weeks to reach a point of formation where it's capable of clinically dying as we define death.- The Line for life/death should be the same - period.

mostly, if we just preached safe sex, the number of abortions would go way down anyways...but Republicans would rather have 10000 knocked up women a month who can't afford to have kids then to piss off their Religious Base and suggest good sex education would prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Having said that, any society that feels a need to prey on it's weakest members strictly on idealogical grounds is a society that will not last - I can totally understand certain situations where an abortion is practical - having one cause a baby will [censored] up your hollywood career is reprehensible to me.

RB

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

I think you have some good points here. I honestly think that an abortion really should be a last option, not an action taken lightly. It bothers me a great deal that many women who have abortions simply don't feel like they have any other choice, and are being attacked viciously for it. If we had good sex ed in this country, not abstinence only stuff, maybe we could lower the pregnacy rates in the first place. (my high school personally had a great sex ed/drug/health class that I think helped contribute to virtually no pregnacies or hard drug use.)

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]
my high school personally had a great sex ed/drug/health class that I think helped contribute to virtually no pregnacies...

[/ QUOTE ]

All boys school? Just because you didn't know of pregnancies doesn't mean there weren't any.

Re: For Pro-Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]

What if the right to privacy was acknowledged, but the judge found there was insufficient judicial evidence to show that right was greater then the rights of the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

My legal reasoning could be wrong here, but my understanding is that the rights of the child aren't at issue in Roe v. Wade, the quoestion is whether or not a woman has a right to have a voluntary medical procedure performed on her. The rights of the "child" (I only use quotations because the decision specifically states that the courts have not decided whether or not a fetus is a person) are irrelevant.