Much of this thread STRANGELY ENough is based on the result fo the argument Men dictating to women not comfort with the RIGHT WING and their Radical killing of Doctors blah blah blah HYPOTHETICAL: If a doctor could take a fetus out 2 days after conception .. . . . and take it to term [If you can have on in a test tube . . . ] would u still be ok with Abortion? I mean the baby no longer needs 'mom' and has a viable alternative. What rights would a mother have to said child .. If any? Hypocracies I hate: Women choose not to have a child. . she exercising her rights Man chooses not to have a child. . . he a dead beat dad Women can choose up to three months men's choice ends in the bed [If she has control over her body . . how come men have no control over their wallet .. they both made a choice . . .they both decided AFTER the choice they did not want this baby . . ] I'm tried of women have a choice over my financial future They choose if I pay child support or not . .. I know u will say YOU MADE THAT CHOICE WHEN U LAYED WITH HER Well . . . Then I have the right to say if she can have an abotion or not? SHE MADE THAT CHOICE WHEN SHE LAYED WITH ME . . . RIght? Can I get a lil consistancy Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness not unlike murder for money I have yet to hear a reason for an abortion that isn't just pure selfishness Some of it I can make my peace with . . but hell i knew a girl had 4 abortions before she was 16 I could go on a rant. . but i won't Rocket River
Re: The "It's her body, and men shouldn't have the right to make determinations for her body." argument. I'd agree...if it were only her body we were making a decisions for. But consider the argument broken down: 1st Element: It is her body. Without getting into too much biological debate, consider this: If it being ina woman's body makes it her moral domain, then why do we quibble about tri-mesters? It is in her body until the moment of birht, and as such, according to that argument, she should have the right to decide what to do with it up to the very moment the ambilical cord is cut, as that is the moment, semantically speaking, when the baby is seperated from her body. If you are going to try and shade the argument by saying that 'before X amount of time, the fetus isn't an independant creature, but after X it is, so that's where the distinction between it being or not being her body is, I would respond with these points: A) We have absolutely no concensus on when that time occurs, biologically or psychologically. As such, we have, have have to err on the side of protecting human life, if that's what it might be. If you are going to demolish a building, and the security sweep tells you that you're 70% sure that there are no people in the building, there is no way in hell you can go ahead...and this issue isn't even representative of 70% of the scientific community, who are almost evenly divided on the current distinction. B) Independance is in no way a sign of 'life' we otherwise consider valid as a means of qualifying as human. We do not consider siamese twins non-human, nor do we give each one domain over the life/death decisions of the other,just because they are physically dependant, and could easily argue that the other person is 'their body'. We also do not consider babies unable to sustain themselves to be below the radar of human condition....this depsite the fact that their dependance is so well documented that in history, the most common means of eliminating an unwanted child was to leave it on a hillside, and thus let 'the Gods' decide their fate. The argument in this case being along the exact same basis; the baby cannot survive without the assistance of person9s) X, and person(s) X do not want to give said assistance, therefore it is up to them to not do so, it being there's to give. 2nd Element: That only those who can realistically be in a certain situation should have the right to legislate what others can/cannot do in that situation. So only Doctors should be allowed to decide what is right and wrong for a doctor to do? Only parents can rule on what kind of parenting is legal and illegal? Only the police should decide what the plice should do? Only politicians should decide what politicians should be allowed to do? Only crack addicits should rule on whether crack addicts should be given crack? Only pedophiles...etc. We make all kinds of legal decisions for those we cannot possibly empathize with...we do not even give people the right to legally commit suicide, despite the fact that it is their body, simply because we are aware that some feelings are passing, and influenced by all kinds of circumstances, whereas the result id permanent. I your child came to you and announced that he/she was going to kill his/herself, would those of you saying 'it's her body' about abortion say the same to that child? Would the law support you if you did? We do not allow children to have sex...with their bodies. There are all kinds of places where we draw lines for other people based on moral priorities, and I can think of no greater moral priority than that to live, and to be quite honest, as much sympathy as I have for the women whose lifestyles, careers, and relationships, not to mention physical comfort and emotional well being could be seriously disrupted by an unwanter pregnancy, it ain't even close. There are also parents out there whose lives are made much, much worse by having children...there are parents whose entire lives crash down because they have to make an inconveninet child their priority...in ways most of us cannot possibly imagine. Can it then be argued that, as we are not ourselves in that situation, is is morally arrogant of us to rule that these people cannot leave their child on a hillside? It si, after all, their child, their lives being disrupted, and unlike abortion, this doesn't even involve an active process of elimination; this is merely leaving the child to it's own devices...and by our earlier criteria, if it's a human, it should be independant.
Sorry about the times of outright ugliness... those are the times in which you should imagine the chimpanzee cackling and jumping on his toes and thrashing the bushes. One of these days, perhaps I'll stop being an ass. I'm always going to be lurking... but my posting will take a dive this fall when I have to sell my ugly, age-d mug to a bunch of graduate schools. Hmmm.... an application from an energetic 21 year old, or an application from a 30 year old... who might be too tired for the 18 hour days anymore... tough call.
Just a guess here...but I'm guessing that this debate is far more sophisticated than it was around the time of the ruling in Roe v. Wade. Those of us who have kids remember that incredible moment of seeing our babies inside their mother's womb through the magic of ultrasound. I have to tell you...after you see that, it's real hard to imagine an argument for abortion. I remember my son responding to outside stimulus, particularly at a Sting concert, before his birth. I wonder how much technology has influenced this debate....seems the more we learn, the less likely we are to say, "oh, it's just a mass of cells." of course, i guess we're all just masses of cells.
In N.C., where I live, ultrasound was new in 1986 (please don't tell me you were still in junior high or something okay?). My wife had a full placenta previa and was on bedrest and/or hospitalization for the last two months of pregnancy. Even then our daughter was born almost a month early. So little was known about ultrasound that they would only submit her to it for a couple of minutes. No one was sure about potential side-effects. So yes, your point is absolutely right on.
oh course now folx can say . . . OH IT'S A GIRL . . THROUGH HER BACK AND LET'S TRY AGAIN What kills me about abortionist is. . . THEY WANT 16 YR OLDS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ABORTIONS WITHOUT TELLING THEIR PARENTS?!?!?!?!?!?! Thanks for the help . . . village Rocket River Rocket River
Every human being throughout history has had a unique, individual genetic code stamped on every cell in his or her body. Both the mother and the fetus she carries have a genetic code stamped on their genes and chromosomes. Are they the same? No, the fetus's genetic code is different from the mother's. To say a woman can do whatever she wants with her body may be true. But it is not true that a fetus is merely part of the mother's body. At the exact time of conception, a new human being is created. I am FIRMLY against abortion. If a woman messes around and doesn't use protection, it is not right to get an abortion. If she's raped, I think abortion is understandable. However, I know someone who was the product of a rape, and he's an awesome dude, so I kind of sway on that topic.
Fed Court Declines to Reopen Roe V. Wade By LISA FALKENBERG, Associated Press Writer DALLAS - A federal district court dismissed a request by the one-time plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 30 years ago. The court said late Thursday that Norma McCorvey's request wasn't made within a "reasonable time" after the 1973 judgment in Roe v. Wade http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=10&u=/ap/20030620/ap_on_go_su_co/roe_v__wade
Rocket River... as a legal matter... it was purely procedural I read the complaint and in my opinion this case Could have been...dismissed.. on any number of grounds. And whether you are for or against abortion, this was the correct result. Any number of ways exist to change or challenge settled law. This is not the way to do it.
I'm sorry -- I'm just reading the topic and the thread now, but I can't believe nobody is really getting into what it must be like to be Roe here... Can you imagine thinking that modern medicine can reverse an abortion 30 years after the fact? That's so sad. I'd hate to be the doctor that had to break the medical reality to her.
I know. . my thing is that it is all political It is like Palming in basketball or Holding in Football . .. Pretty much every case has a grounds for dismissal but they pick and chose what they want . . .to SET Precendent and to pay off political pork The court is suppose to be APOLITICAL The checks and Balances It is as bad as congress now. . . .just smaller and no one voted them in . . .and they their for life. Rocket River
The thing is, he is right. Although I don't know all the details, this case really had no basis to go further. What Sam Fisher doesn't tell you is that Roe vs. Wade was decided wrong in the first place. Instead of letting the country steadily move towards a consensus, a socially activist court decided to pre-empt a normal democratic dialogue and make abortion a "right" on specious reasoning. It'll probably take a legislative act to change things. A lot of people, though, don't see it as an issue over whether the fetus is a human life. They see it as a women's liberation issue and as freedom from oppressive government interference.
definitely, i think that if bush wins a 2nd term then roe v wade will be fought more agressively. But with an election near you don't touch it
How about a Right to Life Amendment? Did anybody read Newsweek a couple of weeks ago about "Fetal Science?" The following week (with Al-Qaeda in America on the cover) was full of letters about the abortion issue. It was compelling. One woman pointed out how the ability of the fetus to survive outside of the womb keeps shrinking with advances in medicine and technology. Laws allowing abortions through X weeks are in danger of getting antiquated and counter-productive in short order.
Nope, they didn't have it then or else the framers would almost certainly have codified it more closely. Look at the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance. When the framers saw conflicts between the privacy of an individual vs. the needs of the government, they sided with the privacy of the individual. You don't have to take my word for it, READ THE CONSTITUTION. Of course there is development before 20 weeks. My point is that the fetus does not have the capacity to live without the mother's support until VERY late in the pregnancy. Once the baby can survive on its own, OUTSIDE the womb, that is the point that it is a viable life (IMO). The fetus lives in a very secure, unstimulating, "caged" environment. Forgive it for it's lack of awareness about the outside world but don't execute it for that naivete. Are you kidding? [/B][/QUOTE] And a woman is not "executing" the fetus, she is choosing not to use her life force and body to support that baby. This choice can be made in a number of ways like through using dangerous drugs; exhibiting risky behavior; going to a back alley abortionist. I would rather that if a woman makes that choice, she is treated like any other patient going in for surgery and has the option of a clean, sterile environment along with sound medical advice along the way. What about the error in judgement YOU could be making. Don't you think it is just as aggregious to summarily remove the right of a woman to control what goes on with her body given the ASSUMPTIONS y'all make (namely, that a fetus is a life AND that abortion is some kind of mortal sin)? You, if you continue to try to force YOUR MORALITY on someone else. Didn't we get enough of that in the Spanish Inquisition? If someone else doesn't follow your morality, you DO NOT have the right to use legislation to force it on them. Fetuses do not have Fourth Amendment rights as they are still part of their mother. Until that baby can survive ON ITS OWN, it is not a life. Make no mistake about it, if it were my choice (if I were a pregnant woman) I would not have an abortion. At the same time, I know that I have NO right to force my morality on anyone else (unlike people like you who think it is their duty to force morality on people). All women have (and should continue to have) the right to make that choice for themselves.
It could eventually be a human, but it CANNOT live without the support of its mother. There are behaviors other than getting an abortion that could terminate a pregnancy, but that are MUCH more dangerous to the mother. It will be necessary for abortion to be a valid choice for a woman because IT IS HER FRICKEN BODY and if she decides not to have the child, we need to make that choice as safe as possible. Huh? What a silly argument. You seem to be assuming that your view of reality and the universe is the only one. See my forst post in this thread for an explanation of why God might have WANTED a woman to have an abortion. No, we have contraception and abortion. God gave us the capacity to figure these things out and therfore they are valid choices for us to make. This made absolutely no sense. Once a child is born, killing it is (and should be) a crime. I am talking about zygotes and fetuses that do not have the ability to live outside the womb.
No contradiction that i can see, if you take into account the rest of the statement in context. She HAD the right to push her case through court, and did it in the '70s. She showed the court cause for abortion prohibition to be overturned and as such, it was. She lost the right as soon as the Supreme Court decided her case. If a man shoots his wife and is convicted of attempted murder, the woman does not have the right to go to the court a few years later and say "I changed my mind, will you overturn your decision?"
