Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade was supposed to settle the question of abortion’s legality once and for all, but the Court’s ruling has instead become a fulcrum of debate. Placed squarely at the intersection of civil rights, health, religion and law, abortion is one of America’s most heated controversies.
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
But
Actually, they do have that right
A human being has no moral obligation to another person to allow that person the use of what is theirs, even if that second person needs it to survive. If you disagree, I've got a really excellent proposition for you.
- quantummechanik
May 15, 2009 12:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life
Hi Cameron.
You are using a pretty sophisticated philosophical argument first made years ago in print, by a female philosopher. A friend of mine (a University Professor of Philosophy) wrote an entire book on this and a couple of other important, pro-choice of abortion , philosophical arguments.
You seem somewhat sophisticated, using the argument that you do. Are you also a Professor of Philosophy, or an interested philosophy student, or maybe just a very bright and thoughtful individual? Perhaps you might actually know my friend: Professor Steve Schwartz.
Cameron? I'm not sure that I spelled his first name correctly (maybe it's "Stephen"). Google his name and perhaps the title of his book will also appear.
I'm sorry. I'm a little old, now; and I can't remember the title of his book just now. It was more than a decade ago.
Let me know if you can/can't find the book. I'll try to get you plugged into it.
raymond
- raymond
May 15, 2009 1:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is he the Center for Islamic Pluralism guy?
If not, I've got nothing. You're going to have to give me a link.
And I'm a poli sci student.
- quantummechanik
May 18, 2009 10:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
URI Professor Steven Schwartz
Hi, Cameron:
I googled him for page after page, and came up empty. He's retired from URI and is working at another educational institution.
I have his phone number. I'll see what I can do.
- raymond
May 20, 2009 2:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That's one way to look at it
However, unlike raymond I find your argument simplistic, not sophisticated. Unfortunately when it comes to moral issues like abortion all logical arguments are useless. I could come up with all kinds of logical reasons to allow homeless and disabled people to die etc. A lot of my tax dollars go to help disabled people. I have no moral obligation to help disabled people yet the government uses my money to do it anyway. My solution has nothing to do with morality but instead recognizes that we have 2 opposing moralities that divide the population into roughly equal camps. Let the people decide on a non Federal level.
- tbcass
May 15, 2009 2:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is morality based on geography?
So abortion is okay in areas where more people like it than don't?
- quantummechanik
May 18, 2009 10:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ha Ha Ha
It amazes me that no matter how many times I say it that my solution is not based on morality people just don't get it. Aren't you reading what I say? What is moral is not something that is part of some cosmic truth. It is based on religion , culture, history, personal beliefs etc. What we have are two groups that are diametrically opposed on this issue. The reason being, I believe, is that the issue of abortion is a relatively new one. Greater scientific knowledge complicates the issue. What it boils down to is we have 2 groups, one who believes that the life an unborn child, the Fetus, takes moral president over the rights of the woman to have control over her body. The other group believes the opposite is true. The two groups are about equal in number. It is impractical, unconstitutional and undemocratic for the Federal Government to impose the morals of one group over the other. Consequently letting the states decide is the only fair and practical solution. As for it being "OK" as you put it, yes, to some people it is "OK", to others it is not. It's like alcohol laws. The Federal makes no laws restricting the sale of alcohol but leaves it up to states and local municipalities.
- tbcass
May 19, 2009 5:34AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about slavery
Why do you think that slavery became a federal issue? Would you have said that the southern states were fine to continue it as long as the northern states were allowed to abolish it, and vice versa? Abortion is a federal issue, and I know that because it was ruled on by a federal court. It's a constitutional issue. States cannot simply refuse to observe the wills of the Supreme Court or the constitution because most of their constituents dislike them.
- quantummechanik
May 19, 2009 11:52AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Overturn Roe vs Wade
By your reasoning it would be just as correct to make banning abortion a Federal Law if the Supreme Court so decreed. I believe that Roe vs Wade was wrong and politically motivated. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Abortion is legal or illegal. It should be overturned and probably will be by the Supreme Court. Remember, Court decisions can be superseded by subsequent decisions. That's the first step. Overturning Roe vs Wade would not make abortion illegal. It would just leave it up to the states. Slavery was an accepted practice and considered OK when the Constitution was written. By the time of the Civil War however the vast majority of people believed slavery was wrong so times had changed. That's why there was an Amendment to the Constitution Banning Slavery. If you want to make abortion Legal it should be done through a Constitutional Amendment, not Court Decree.
- tbcass
May 19, 2009 12:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes. That is what I think
The Supreme Court's review of something makes it a federal issue. The supreme court decides something, and by the act of deciding it, makes it a federal issue. That's why it's not state-by-state now--Because the Supreme Court said that banning access to abortion was unconstitutional based on the implied right of privacy in the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, as well as the thirteenth amendment regarding involuntary servitude and the fourteenth amendment regarding personal liberty. So there's the constitutional basis for abortion.
Now, on to the second part.
"Slavery was an accepted practice and considered OK when the Constitution was written. By the time of the Civil War however the vast majority of people believed slavery was wrong so times had changed. That's why there was an Amendment to the Constitution Banning Slavery."
So, I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems like you're fine with no real reason to ban slavery if the majority is fine with it. Regardless of a state-by-state issue.
Why do you think Roe v. Wade was wrong and politically motivated? Where do you get your opinions on abortion?
- quantummechanik
May 19, 2009 1:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yea they can
ie California, Colorado and weed
- keytud
August 3, 2009 12:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.