Yes, Roe does not allow for unregulated abortion, it just precludes a heavy-handed ban on abortions. I have argued this point many times---I don't believe in a ban on abortions, but I still find abortions negative overall (well duh). And if people aren't convinced by these arguments, they're barking up the wrong tree. besides, the only minds that need to be convinced are the nine Supreme Court justices---and until pro-life people craft a dialogue based on the legal reasoning employed, Roe v. Wade will stand. in fact, I'm doing them a favor. Some need to get informed legally and scientifically before they jump into debates about crushing children.
Oh but doesn't that go against all your social service cry babying? LOL. Too easy oh ye destructor of anuses. Still waiting on Pontius.
Appreciate your passion on this topic, but your equipment is absolutely focused on seeing what fits your belief and seeing that only. A lot of posters in the thread keep mentioning a beating heart (or really, proto-heart.) So this early development fetus can have a partially formed heart that beats, but literally no eyes or ears, with a central nervous system just starting to wire together... if you fast forward, that is the sort of "human" "life" in the ICU where people start pulling the plug. No brain waves, no ability to live without massive life support equipment, etc. Just thought I'd point that out. Looking at the development chart, 24 weeks seems totally reasonable to me. There's no perfect point to determine. It's like so many other policy issues, you have to pick a fuzzy point somewhere on a spectrum (in this case between fertilization and full-term.) Most people agree that both ends of the spectrum are a little extreme. Peace.
But that is pure interpretation of a law. The Right to Privacy is basically the Supreme Court making up a law. Since the vast majority of us feel that should be a law, it really hasn't been a problem. On top of that, why are drugs illegal? Why can they drug test you? Why is the Patriot Act legal? Late-term abortions? All of these things are a violation of a Right to Privacy by how we would typically define it. Seems inconsistent. How would making abortion procedures/prescriptions illegal be a violation of a Right to Privacy anyway? I could see how there would be a difficulty actually prosecuting those who performed the procedure or who got the procedure done, due to a Right to Privacy, but actually making it illegal? No.
NS, you seem to be under the impression that viability defines our humanity. That is not my standard. The fact that a child can't survive without support from another doesn't mean its life can be destroyed. That circumstance exists well after birth (and at the end of life as well). Posting a bunch of charts to decide when a developing child can and can't be killed is so creepy and disheartening. Where is the love of life? why do you find them negative?
See, that first criticism can run both ways, but.... it's not about what I see. That thing growing in there will be a human being-- never a toaster or an iPod. Everytime. Sometimes it does not survive or survive for long but it is still a human being. Err on the side of caution. No one can say for certain when Life begns or that it does not begin at conception. A microscope sees evidence of life not Life itself. Limits of the best equipment. It's dependency should be an inspiration for responsibility not a wedge issue for irresponsibility. Nursing homes are full of dependent people. In fact, toddlers are still very dependent people. Since when did a dependency phase become such a bad thing? I see EVERYTHING the other side argues. I understand it. But I see a bigger Life/Death issue that they don't even recognize because the only life they acknowledge is the Mother. Fact is, they see NOTHING of what I see!!
legal precedent through case law is the basis of a common law system. The "creation" of a right to privacy, or really a right to anything through the decisions of judges is a hallmark of the American judiciary process. With that said, one of the criticisms applied to the Controlled Substances Act is that at the lower tiers of drugs whose effects are less harmful (mar1juana most prominently)---competing state interests of privacy and stopping drug usage fall on the wrong side. And the Patriot Act is suspect for 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment violations---too bad the Court didn't have its' head on right every time it confronted it. ex: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project here's how it works for the 14th amendment--- Arbitrary defined by when rational state interests do not exist, or are out-balanced by the other side of the argument. In this case, viability is fixed to when rational state interests on the side of a heavy-handed ban on abortions that violate a woman's right to privacy on decisions affecting her own womb, and her right to due process of liberty, as well as her right to life are outweighed by the rational state interest in preserving what is now near-certain to be human life. Pay attention to this; it's a vitally important part of American jurisprudence. The same principle applies to, for example, DOMA Section 3 being flagrantly unconstitutional, though that deals with the Fifth Amendment because DOMA is federal and not state law.
uhhhh man. here we go with the Crying & Weeping rather than the Debate & Discussion. I don't want to crush baby skulls. But viability defines when the rational state interest in protecting life of the fetus overrules the state interest in protecting a woman's right to privacy, liberty, and her own decisions over her own life. Banning abortions isn't going to protect lives, anymore than banning drugs will protect drug users. I think abortions are negative because of the terrible effect they have on the mother. They are also obviously terrible for the fetus. It is also a reflection of a society that still does not care for its' members. Your attitude towards the human life of the uninsured, and the downtrodden is exactly the kind of thing that creates the despair and conditions for these (disproportionally poor) mothers to realize that their lives, and their babies' lives have no hope. Abortion is a drastic step that scars a woman. You think they go through that lightly?! Two can play at this game---where is your love of life? Oh sure, you can try to get edicts to whitewash your feelings for life if it doesn't cost you anything---but a 3.8% surcharge on your taxes, and suddenly sustaining life is slavery? principle without conviction. no respect for your "life card" argument, so long as you think of most living persons as parasites trapping you into slavery.
The very definitions of the words "baby," "embryo," and "fetus." ba·by /ˈbābē/ Noun A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born. fe·tus /ˈfētəs/ Noun An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception. em·bry·o /ˈembrēˌō/ Noun An unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development. An unborn human baby, esp. in the first eight weeks from conception, after implantation but before all the organs are developed.
Since the Poor Laws of England, and probably much earlier. only accentuated by the fact that Rand went from labeling dependents as "losers"---to them being "parasites".
Roe never defined though when life begins and if the court did accept the argument that personhood begins at conception that would most likely overturn Roe. Anyway my point was and is that arguments about when life begins are ultimately unproductive toward reducing abortion, especially from the pro-life side. The law is the law but in the meantime there are a lot of things than can be done to reduce the number of abortions without changing the law.
Just pointing out there is a key semantic difference. As other posters have noted "Baby" is defined under the dictionary as being outside of the womb. So really if we could go back in time and prevent Hitler and one of this country's worst serial killers from being born you wouldn't do it? I will give you credit to your dedication to your principle but I doubt most people would.
Actually, Roe did define when personhood began---after birth. I don't agree with you on that last point. If somehow, the definition of life were extended to pre-birth, and fetuses were defined as persons, than Roe v. Wade would be on VERY shaky ground. period. This is basically one of the key two cogs in the argument behind Roe v. Wade, the other being a woman's right to liberty and privacy.
That quote though isn't Roe defining personhood just a restatement of the 14th Amendment which does use the term "born" in regard to rights. Roe can be said to agree with the 14th but not preclude another definition. The argument then would be the right privacy supersede the right to life of the other person, in this case the fetus. I think that would be a very difficult argument to make.
In following and reiterating that the rights of the Constitution are only assigned to those born, the Supreme Court reiterated the definition of personhood established by the founders. By not choosing an alternative definition, the essential holding that a fetus is not privy to the same rights as a child held. Well, yes, if fetuses were defined as human life in the legal sense, then the argument would be different. that's kinda what I've been trying to explain to people here. but it's been a tradition for many that life be defined after birth---in fact---
So you agree that it is just the SCOTUS creating law, and that they are wildly inconsistent with how they interpret the law?
SCOTUS interprets laws---if you want to debate whether or not the founders set a foundation for the right to privacy through the enumerated clauses, you can nitpick here and there. Regardless, the American evolution of a right to privacy came from a non-plain text reading of the Constitution---so did judicial review in the first place. But these ideas did not just come from thin air (why I put "create" in quotation marks). The origins of judicial review per Hamilton--- How SCOTUS has interpreted the law with regards to privacy for procreative activities and dealings with children has been pretty consistent. SCOTUS isn't infallible. But Roe v. Wade has been challenged something like five or six times.
Why? So that the debate can be controlled by you? Nothing wrong with starting over.... if ya got it wrong! Medically? Just a bunch of subjective defining of terms that have no absolute meaning or certainty. Don't get me wrong: it great for just about everything else but this debate. Legally? There was law pre-1973...
except people clearly have no idea about prenatal development which does have meaning and certainity, and which is pretty important in terms of defining this debate---unless you want to argue for an all-or-none approach based on crushing baby skulls. There was also law pre-mid/late 1800s. Abortion laws are not rooted in the common law tradition at all, and they are not significantly present in ecclesiastical law. Nothing less than the Bible regards causing a miscarriage as less of an equivalent than murdering a man.
