The reason Roe vs. Wade should be overturned is that it is the right of the citizens of individual states to make laws governing abortion. The majority opinion said that the 14th amendment prohibited states from banning abortion, but Rehnquist dissented, arguing that 36 states had laws restricting abortion that remained in force before and after the 14th amendment was ratified. There is no logical reason to assume that those who wrote and ratified the 14th amendment intended to prohibit citizens from exercising their rights to create laws restricting abortion. I think Emilio Garza sums it up the best:

"Two essential facts seem apparent: The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion and ... the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted abortion to be legally proscribed," he wrote. "Because the decision to permit or proscribe abortion is a political choice, I would allow the people of the state of Louisiana to decide this issue for themselves."

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2005...4_person.shtml

Roe vs. Wade did not legalize abortion, it prohibited states from banning abortion. With this decision, the Supreme Court set itself up for becoming an unelected nine-member dictatorship: making up meanings in the Constitution in order to fit their own personal convictions.

The reason it is incredibly stupid to let the states individually decide to make abortion illegal would be the results of this. Some states would ban it while others wouldn't.

This would create a situation where women would have to travel to receive care, and those too poor or ashamed to get care would receive dangerous care in the back alley so to speak.

It is a silly notion, this law needs to be on a federal level.

The point is that it is not the court's place to fix our laws. This is where the judiciary becomes dangerously close to usurping the power of the legislative branch. In Roe, the court was not supposed to decide what it belived was best for the country, it was supposed to decide whether or not it was constitutional for states to restrict abortion. This is where the court failed.

I see your point but this is not the case to use to try to reign in the courts, it would be much too dangerous for the American people, and at the end of the day the job of the government is to do what is best for the people.

I think things like gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, should all be decided by the states.

I think it should be consistent through the states on these issues.

If we do not hold the government to an established standard such as the Constitution, they will be able to do whatever they like in the name of "doing what is best". This is what our founders feared; in the PA colony, the majority was able to decide "what was best" and oppressed minorities like Catholics and Quakers. It would be more dangerous if we allowed the court to continue overstepping its bounds.

No, what would be more dangerous is to have states where Christianity is the majority influence ban abortion and create an unsafe environment for women to live. I find the notion disgusting to allow religion to affect our constituients in such an unconstiutional manner.

I think it has to be consistent, given how mobile people are these days...

WRONG! When the highest court in the branch of the judiciary does not respect our Constitution, an "unsafe environment" for both women and men is created. And what does religion have to do with whether or not the Constitution is violated? I smell a red herring...