Pro-lifers could you give us a brief outline of what the case that overturns Roe v Wade would look like ?

Question

Thanks for doing that

Answer 1

It would almost be impossible to overturn..... people have tried the first heartbeat scenario but that didn't qualify the infant as human.

So the likely hood that it would ever be overturned is nil.

This is why I don't think the abortion issue is really an issue at this time....at least in the near future or our lifetime.

And yes I am against abortion...I am iffy on rape victims...and it should be left up to the mother if her life is in danger..not doctors.

Answer 2

I'm pro choice but if you need a reference....   See: 1950

Answer 3

I love being called a pro-lifer because the opposite of that would be a pro-deather.  

The case that will eventually overturn the flawed decision in Roe v. Wade is one that will adhere strictly to the Constitution and recognize the Tenth Amendment thereof.  

The Tenth Amendment states that, in summary, any power not specifically granted to the United States is a power reserved to the states.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to choose or a right to an abortion.  Very simply, the Federal Government has no power to speak on this issue because it is not a power granted to it by the Constituion.  Therefore, it is a right reserved to the states.  Thus, whether it is legal is a decision for the individual states and not for the Federal Government.  If a state wants to have legal abortions, that is fine.  If a state doesn't want to have legal abortions, that is also fine.  Nonetheless, it is up to the states and not the federal government.  

Roe v. Wade created the "right to choose" under the penumbra of the judicially created "right to privacy" (also not found in the Constitution).  Thus, it is an imaginary right predicated on another imaginary right.  In essence, it is a house of cards.  

This is not to say that these rights cannot be created.  However, they must be created under the mechanism that is in place to alter the Constitution and vest in the federal government these rights.  In other words, an Amendment.  My question is, why are "pro-deathers" so afraid of undertaking to have a Constitutional Amendment passed?  Obviously, because it would reveal that the vast majority of the support in the country would be against it.  Thus, they pursue in the courts what they cannot obtain under the Constitution.  

Furthermore, Pro Death advocates, when confronted with Pro choice logic, always ask "what about rape?".  Well, that is the exception to the rule and I don't think you can address the exception until you have a consensus on the rule.  If you phrase the question "should abortion be available as a means of birth control?" you will find that the vast majority of people, even supposed pro-deathers and women, would  agree that it should not be in that case.  The reason why the question is phrased as it is is to not permit the baseline from being established and, until you establish that, you cannot address any potential exceptions.    

Answer 4

life begins at conception...

but the states will always have the last say....

As a matter of fact the Roe v Wade decision never mentioned it as a womans right....that is a metaphor found among feminists along the way.

the decision only implied that there was no certainty of when life began and until science could prove otherwise then it should be legal.

Since then Science has proven life begins almost immediatley....a heart is beating within a few weeks. the brain is formed in days....

Answer 5

It would mean that federal funds could not be used to pay for an abortion.

And that it would leave it up to each state to decide if it was to be legal or not.

As far as the "case" for it. Simple.

We believe that all humans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.