In response to:

Making the Case For Life

Robert1824 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 5:51 PM
To comapre Roe v Wade to the Dred Scott deciciosn is absolutely idiotic . This is a blatantly false, unfair, and intellectually dishonest comparison . Contraceptives PREVENT abortions . To be opposed to both abortion and contraceptives is idiotic . Until America greatly decreases poverty it will never be possible to cause the baortion rate to plummet . The republican party has consistently blocked these necessary measures and yet has th e nerve to demand that abortion become illegla again. How hypocritical can you get ? Even if Roe had never happened, there still would have been countless illegal abortions .
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 10:53 PM
Robert, Dred Scott and Roe were both decided on the same basis.
Basset Hound Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 6:18 PM
One MORE time....

Easy access to contraceptives actually INCREASE abortions, as they provide a false sense of security for people who would otherwise not be having sex in the first place...

After Roe, the number of abortions doubled in five years' time. Restrictions to abortion actually provide a disincentive. According to your "logic", we should make DUI legal, since it is occurring despite the law.

As to poverty, completing a high school education, getting married and THEN having sex minimizes the chances considerably of ending up in long term poverty.

In an ideal world, Roe v. Wade -- perhaps the most insidious Supreme Court ruling since the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 -- would be overturned. And contrary to what most leftists assert, however, this does not necessarily mean that abortion would be universally prohibited and illegal. For example, before Roe became the law of the land in 1973, abortion was permissible in certain states. The legality of abortion, then, should be decided by individuals at the state level -- at least in the short-term -- not by a High Court of un-elected, unaccountable judges in Washington. This would...