Just wondering, does anyone think Roe v. Wade with its penumbras and emenations (sp?) was properly decided anymore? I haven't heard a defense of its reasoning in decades.

It was Griswold with the penumbra...

---

_______________________________________________

Asserting that the right to privacy grants one the right to a medical procedure doesn't really make sense to me. From another of my post's on a different thread:

I still haven't been able to figure out how a right to privacy equates to someone having the right to get a medical procedure performed. Using that logic wouldn't assisted suicide be covered under your right to privacy?

Just wondering, does anyone think Roe v. Wade with its penumbras and emenations (sp?) was properly decided anymore?

From what I can tell, there's near-universal agreement that the case was decided improperly. They just had a witness in front of the committee who said that it was decided wrongly, but that it's become a "superprecedent," and therefore should not be overturned.

You have to love that kind of reasoning. We used flawed reasoning to decide one case, then used that wrongly decided case to influence lots of other cases, and therefore, we're stuck with it.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."