Quote:
I dont really understand why abortion is ALWAYS a topic during the election(i dont recall it ever coming up in the 7 year riegn dictator bush). You wont hear about it untill 4 years down the road, and i for one think there are a lot more important issuses to be discussed. Personally i dont believe in it, but i dont have the right to tell other people what is right or wrong. We are supposed to be living in a free country, and if they can live with that descision so be it.
Respectfully, here is my answer as to why... A few other nations have laws against, or severely restricting the availability of abortion on demand. Others don't. But one of the unifying themes in both sets of countries - the U.S. excluded - is that the citizens of those nations were given the opportunity to vote on the issue. In those nations where abortion is illegal - Ireland, for instance - they voted in majority not to have abortion allowed. The side that lost the election moved on because the people had spoken. Similarly, in other nations where abortion is legal - France, for instance, the pro-abortion side won the referendum. Again, the people had spoken, and the right to life crowd was able to accept it. (
Here is a link to the worlds current abortion law status as of 2007.)
In the U.S., the right to abortion (in the first trimester only, incidentally) was decided by the Supreme Court on a national level (based on the existence of "penumbras and emmanations" which are not in the text of the Constitution, for you constitutional purists), and the people as a nation were never given a chance to vote on the issue (through their representation). In fact, at the time of Roe, it was judged to be a states' rights issue. At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was already legal in a number of states. The Roe decision immediately struck down existing abortion laws in those states where it was still restricted, even though those laws expressed the will of the people in those states. Roe even prevented Congress from rendering a national decision reflecting the will of the whole people. Consequently, it has remained a contentious issue. The blame for this lies squarely at the feet of the Blackmun court, which VASTLY overstepped its bounds.
This is one of the reasons that defeating the Dems in the presidential election is so important. It is critical that we have a president who will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, or at least as close to that as we can get. If the court overturns Roe, all that will happen is that the right to decide the legality of abortion on demand will be remanded to the several states, where it belongs. Those states that had already legalized abortion at the time of Roe, California, for instance, will continue to allow abortion on demand. Those states where it was not specifically permitted by law will have to address the issue, although I believe that those states will quickly decide to codify the right to abortion on demand since they already have that right under Roe.
As to the morality of it, well, in my view it is murder. People can argue all they want about whether it is or it isn't, but those who believe that it isn't also don't believe that the baby (I refuse to use the dehumanizing word "fetus") is a human until after it is born. Famed "ethicist" Peter Singer believes that a mother ought to have the right to kill her child up to the age of two. Past immorality prescribed that Jews weren't human either, or Gypsies, or any other "inconvenient" class of human beings.
But that's just me....
