Roe V Wade

A

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
I thought i had already posted this thread but i cant find it

Apart from the oviouse findings to do with abortion what have been the legal implications of Roe V Wade?

I ask because as part of law and ethics i have come across Roe V Wade quite frequently in cases that have nothing to do with abortion.
 
A womans right to decide what the hell she can do with her own body without being told by someone else what to do.
 
Asguard said:
I thought i had already posted this thread but i cant find it

Apart from the oviouse findings to do with abortion what have been the legal implications of Roe V Wade?
Click to expand...
Roe v Wade may be, in large part, responsible for the whole conservative movement. It took what had been a local issue decided by the state and local government, and rammed the most extreme pro-abortion position down everyone's throats.

This has served as a rallying point for conservatives ever since. It "woke up" the silent majority

Many have also postulated that it is responsible for the US becoming more and more conservative. The logic being that people who support abortion rights are much more likely to have abortions. Each generation post Roe v Wade is composed of people whose parents chose to not have an abortion, and the politics of your parents is the best predictor of your politics.

Others have attributed the drop in crime we saw in the 1990's to a generation of unwanted babies that was never born.

Still others point out that blacks are much more likely to abort their babies than other races (2-3 times more likely, I think) and that the generation of unwanted babies that was never born was mostly black. (if not for abortion, blacks would still be the largest minority. Instead, it's now hispanics)
 
On a personal level, Roe v. Wade is also responsible for my birthday being a much less happy occasion than it once was (well, that along with my age ...) My birthday is January, 22.
 
My wife was conceived on my in-law's first date. I think it was his prom, she was in college as she's a year older. If abortion had been legal at the time, her mother has said she would have had an abortion. Instead, they got married and she dropped out of college. Her dad went on to become an accountant and made a very good living until he retired this year. Now they spend most of their time on their yacht.

So it all worked out pretty well for them, and for my wife.
 
Orleander said:
OMG!!! Who puts out on their first date?!
Click to expand...
Come on! It was prom, and it was the late sixties!
woodstock69.jpg

hippienude.jpg
hippiebus.jpg

Free Love, baby.
 
madanth said:
Many have also postulated that it is responsible for the US becoming more and more conservative. The logic being that people who support abortion rights are much more likely to have abortions.
Click to expand...
The only problem with that argument is that the logic doesn't check out in reality: people who are politically against abortion are, demographically, more likely to have one.

That is especially true since Roe vs Wade, when lower income and inner continental people suddenly had the same access to safe abortions that the rich and traveled had always enjoyed.

cosmic said:
Plus free sexualy transmitted diseases that have taken millions of lives.
Click to expand...
The "free love" didn't invent death by disease, and to the extent that it reduced prostitution probably reduced the spread of STDs.

Up until the '60s plagues of syphilis killed millions world wide, US and everywhere else. It killed far more US and European people then than AIDS does now.
 
Can i please point out this thread WASNT about abortion. I have read Roe V Wade used in ALOT of medical cases. Cosmic it has implications that cross the sex's you know, for instance i have herd Roe V Wade quoted in forced medical treatment cases ect. So APART from abortion what has it changed
 
iceaura said:
The only problem with that argument is that the logic doesn't check out in reality: people who are politically against abortion are, demographically, more likely to have one.
.
Click to expand...
Did you just pull that "fact" out of your ass? It's a fact that there are fewer abortions in conservative areas than liberal ones.
http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf
The "free love" didn't invent death by disease, and to the extent that it reduced prostitutio probably reduced the spread of STDs.
Click to expand...
Right. Sexual promiscuity decreases STDs. Another "out of your ass" fact. You're on a roll now!
Up until the '60s plagues of syphilis killed millions world wide, US and everywhere else. It killed far more US and European people then than AIDS does now.
Click to expand...
Those diseases don't kill the way they used to because we developed cures, not because they were somehow wiped out by sexual promiscuity.
 
Hopefully, it's a start

Asguard

I hope the question doesn't sound rude, but have you ever read Roe v. Wade?

I ask because I'm having a hard time understanding the specific nature of your question. To take one of our neighbors as an example, the argument I usually hear about the decision goes something like,
The classic example of the "right to privacy" was Roe vs Wade, where they said that murdering your own children was a "privacy" matter. (#1712255​
To the other, though, our neighbor surprised me when he wrote,
You are going to try and tell us that the 10th Amendment hasn't been repealed by liberals in light of unconstitutional cases such as Roe v Wade? (#1709878)​
However, in the case of your question:

Asguard said:

I have read Roe V Wade used in ALOT of medical cases .... [It] has implications that cross the sex's you know, for instance i have herd Roe V Wade quoted in forced medical treatment cases ect.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I hoped to find some context on your question by Googling the terms roe v. wade forced medical treatment ....

​

Anyway, I did find this, and hopefully it's a start:

Clearly the impact of Roe goes far beyond the issue of abortion. Courts have used the rights of privacy and bodily integrity established in Roe to support the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment and for psychiatric inmates to refuse antipsychotic drugs. It also informed the Court's decision on physician-assisted suicide.

Some courts have relied on Roe to determine that men have the right not to reproduce by having their frozen embryos implanted after a divorce. Roe has been used both to force some women to have Caesarean sections to assure that a healthy baby is delivered, and alternately, to prevent such unwanted intervention.

(American Bar Association)
Click to expand...

Returning to the question I started with, here is a link:
Reading through Supreme Court decisions can be an exercise in melting your brain, but it's always good to keep a link like this around for reference. Such as in the second of my examples above regarding our Sciforums neighbor, it was easy enough to go peruse the decision with an eye for the Tenth Amendment, so that I might advise him of his error.

If you come across any specific case law, by all means drag it out and we can always try to figure out how the two cases are related. But for the time, I don't know quite what to tell you, except for those brief paragraphs from the ABA article.
____________________

Notes:

Hontz, Jenny. "25 Years Later: The Impact of Roe v. Wade". Human Rights. Spring, 1998. See http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring98/sp98hontz.html
 
to be honest no i havent read the case the reason i ask the question was that it was mentioned at all in our half year subject. Not to be insulting but Australian courts wont use American cases as surporting evidence. This may seem like a no brainer but they WILL use English, Canadian and NZ case findings as surporting evidence for cases here. So we studied alot of case law from those 3 and oviously Australia. Now the text book was also an Australian book (i have quoted it here before but im not sure which thread it was). Actually the when our lecture was asked WHY US case law cant aplie in Australia we were told it was because its to inconsitant, that you could find a case in the US to surport ANY position. Sorry if thats offencive but thats the way lawyers and judges here see it

The reason im telling you all this is to show you how little impact your court decisions would actually mean to a writer in ethics and law here. Yet Roe V Wade is quoted through out the book (i cant be sure but i THINK it is the ONLY american case quoted in that book). If it only had implications for abortion it would be only one chapter in a fairly large text yet its sprinkled through out the book.

Your quote is a good one that proves my point about it going well behond abortion. I was interested to see how far it did strech.
 
madanth said:
Did you just pull that "fact" out of your ass? It's a fact that there are fewer abortions in conservative areas than liberal ones.
http://www.thirdway.org/data/product...f_abortion.pdf
Click to expand...
You can't go by state - you have to correct the figures in that link for availability and internal demographics of each state.

madanth said:
Right. Sexual promiscuity decreases STDs.
Click to expand...
No. Some kinds or ways of promiscuity spread disease less than others. Illegal prostitution spreads disease much more readily than group sex among friends, for example. The "town sluts" pattern spreads disease more readily than the "girlfriends put out" pattern.

Humans have been promiscuous since hell thawed in the first place. The question is when and how.

Likewise with abortions. The fuss didn't start with Roe vs Wade - it started with anesthesia and safe medial procedures.
madanth said:
Those diseases don't kill the way they used to because we developed cures, not because they were somehow wiped out by sexual promiscuity.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the point. The point was that plagues of sexually transmitted diseases - worse plagues than anything we have now - have been a common feature of human civilization. Whatever were the actual novelties of the 60s, sudden plagues of STDs were not among them.
 
Last edited:
Orleander said:
a great argument for prostitution and drug use.
Click to expand...

Drug users can affect people around her, and if the woman has dependents, then it can physically harm them, therefore she doesn't have the right to use drugs freely.

Prostitution, however dispicable, doesn't harm anyone immediately if proper safeguards are taken.
 
iceaura said:
Whatever were the actual novelties of the 60s, sudden plagues of STDs were not among them.
Click to expand...
You really don't think that the sexual promiscuity that started in the 60's and reached a frenzy in the 70's had nothing to do with AIDS that popped up in the 80's? The timing suggests otherwise.
 
Well, my two cents on the legal ramifications of Roe v. Wade are quite simple. It helped to establish what lawyers refer to as the substantive rights of due process. In layman's terms, it help to establish the right to privacy, which in its purest essence, is the right to be left well alone. Political philosophy aside, the decision was a landmark case in establishing privacy rights of individuals, from consensual gay sex in a private place to the right to privacy in and of itself.

Learned
 
Learned Hand said:
Well, my two cents on the legal ramifications of Roe v. Wade are quite simple. It helped to establish what lawyers refer to as the substantive rights of due process. In layman's terms, it help to establish the right to privacy, which in its purest essence, is the right to be left well alone. Political philosophy aside, the decision was a landmark case in establishing privacy rights of individuals, from consensual gay sex in a private place to the right to privacy in and of itself.

Learned
Click to expand...
Why was Roe v Wade needed for that purpose? Doesn't the tenth ammendment say that all rights not granted to the government remain with the people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top