Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> 
>> By declaring abortion as a constitutionally protected activity, one is 
>> effectively ostrocising all pro-lifers from involvement in any kind of 
>> genuine legal debate.  Anyone who truly believes in choice should 
>> still be opposed to Roe versus Wade, even if they agree with allowing 
>> abortions.  It should not be a constitutional issue unless an 
>> appropriate constitutional ammendment can be passed.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that Roe v. Wade is ostracizing anyone.  It just limits 
> the authority of states to control women's reproductive choices.
> 
> How would you like to live in a country where, in some states, abortion 
> was perfectly legal and acceptable, maybe even paid for by the state, 
> while in other states, abortion was considered homicide, the most 
> serious crime, with the death penalty a possible punishment.  Without 
> Roe v. Wade imposing uniformity on state laws, I think the country I 
> just described was a real possibility for us.
> 


But such uniformity, if it is to be imposed, should not be decided by 
the whim of a Supreme Court 5-4 decision.  It should be decided by a 
national debate, ultimately leading to either a Federal Law or a 
Constitutional Ammendment.  That is the honest way.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion