From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 10:47:06 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> The reservations that I have about "Roe V. Wade" are well
> summed up by Judge Bork:
>
> I objected to Roe v. Wade the moment it was decided,
> not because of any doubts about abortion, but because
> the decision was a radical deformation of the Consti-
> tution. The Constitution has nothing to say about
> abortion, leaving it, like most subjects, to the
> judgment and moral sense of the American people and
> their elected representatives. Roe and the decisions
> reaffirming it are equal in their audacity and abuse
> of judicial office to Dred Scott v. Sandford. Just
> as Dred Scott forced a southern proslavery position
> on the nation, Roe is nothing more than the Supreme
> Court's imposition of the morality of our cultural
> elites.
>
What does the above have to do with actual law governing the
freedom to chose such? Levaing it to the judgment and moral
sense of the people means that abortion should be legal as it is
the simple choice of the individuals concerned. Affirming this
under the Constitution is a reasonable thing for the Supreme
Court to do if asked. There is no imposition of morality
whatsoever in this that I see.
> Unfortunately, since that time Bork has become wildly anti-abortion:
> http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9612/articles/bork.html
>
> But his original reasons, above, to oppose the ruling
> still stand in my opinion.
>
> But sooner or later in the United States it seems, everything
> must be decided globally by the Federal Government and its
> "one size fits all" mentality.
When it comes to the freedom of individual choice one size does
fit all. All that was necessary at a Federal level and should
be done much more often and in most areas is to confirm such
freedom.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 10:44:12 MST