Friday, October 9, 2009

Overturning Roe

This entry is purely intended as a reminder to readers that the abortion discussion at Loyal to Liberty continues with the addition of two new lengthy comments (double posted under the thread) by Chiu Chunling.

On one side of the question we have Dr. Keyes who disparages the states' rights argument because it allows for the continuation of the legal practice of abortion in America. On the other side we have Chiu Chunling who denies the validity of the federal argument because it ... allows for the continuation of the federally mandated legal practice of abortion in America. (I hope my summation of the argument is factually correct.)

This is such an important and thought provoking discussion, and given that it has moved several posts down the page both at Loyal to Liberty and with my reference to it here, that I'm going to do that which I normally wouldn't do, which is to say I'm going to jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to embed, in the following words -- a direct link to the entry in question.

End of initial entry.


Anonymous said...

Actually, I'm in favor of basically legalizing homicide in most cases. My reasoning is that, given that the most effective deterrent to heinous and completely unjustified murder is the realistic possibility of being killed in return, homicide could be pretty much self-policing if it were legal in most cases.

So no, I'm not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade because it mandates Federal protections for abortion. I think it's just a really blatantly unjustifiable decision which has no basis in the Constitution. Penumbra of an inferred right to privacy...I'd say that also gives me the 'right' to perform Satanic ritual murder of little children, except that's pretty much what they were talking about.

How do you come up with something to top that?

Still, the reasoning applies even if it isn't being used to justify the shedding of innocent blood. If Roe v. Wade had been about state laws restricting sale of leather underwear, I'd still have the same position. Even if it were a state law against cotton underwear, I'd say "that's up to the voters in that state, isn't it?" The Constitution doesn't specify a right to wear cotton underpants.

It would have given an interesting twist to the Civil War rhetoric if it did, but it doesn't.