quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

and i see that the question goes unanswered again =p
nobody will ever just say if they think women should abstain. =p of course they don't. but they think men should. =p
"hey i can do this and you can't! nyah nyah nyah!"
seems a bit childish to me. oh well. =p
another man who kills a pregnant woman will go to jail for killing two people, while women sit in a clinic and purposefully kill a "non-person" =p
life goes on. get over it yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The child didn't ask to be born: the parents both have to take responsibility, don't you agree?

And if this is truly about equality/inequality under the law, then why do men still have to pay child support in most states, even if they have equal visitation time with the child? 

Hmmmm, smells of that legislated equality which you were deriding in an earlier post, eh?

Firstly, I am not responsible for individual States' legislations regarding the matter, and neither am I familiar with them: I am new here. Secondly, visitation time has no incidence on child support (and neither should it: kids are not 'pay per view'). Thirdly, these posters who brought this ridiculous idea of 'Roe for men' argue that men should have a say in whether they should support their offsprings or not. Guess what? Let them not breed if they do not wish to support them!

quote:

Facts of the Case Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.

Question Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

Conclusion The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

quote:

Associate Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. Justice White wrote:

“ I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[2] ”