The point of THIS thread is whether one of the parties in the Roe v. Wade case has a right to ask for such a review. They do not. I don't have a problem with a significant abortion case being heard by the Supreme Court, I have a problem with anti-abortionists trying to do anything, pervert any law, to make an end run around the constitutional right every woman has to be secure against government interference. It is not an infant until the woman DECIDES to take it to term and bear it. If she chooses not to do that, it is a zygote or fetus, not a life. Zygotes and fetuses do not have rights (as they should not). I agree. We should let the government observe from afar and not interfere with medical procedures that should be overseen by licensed medical practitioners. The medical practitioners who are against abortion have the freedom to CHOOSE (the same freedom every one of us has, the freedom of choice) to work at facilities that do not perform abortions. That is a far cry from an outright ban. Where are you pulling this factoid from? Not only that, but what does it matter what the reason is? The real point is that women in this country DO have the RIGHT to CHOOSE what happens to their bodies. The reasons women get abortions are varied, from career choices to rape victims to maternal endangerment. Whatever the reason, that woman has the fundamental right to decide what happens to her body and the government should butt out. Most of the people I am talking about are starving to death while the leaders of their countries feast on US foreign aid. That is not a natural death. Aborted fetuses are a question for a woman to work out between herself and God. Do you think before you type this tripe? Again, that is YOUR extremely liberal definition of life. Once that 16 week fetus can live outside the mother (test tube or otherwise), then you can talk about saving thise "lives." While the fetus is still dependant on the woman, she should have the right to choose what happens in her body. In cases where the mother does not believe that abortion is right for her, adoption is a godsend. For women who do not share their morality, there are other choices that God has seen fit to allow us to discover. If He did not want us to be able to perform an abortion, He would have made it much more difficult. The point is that people in this country WILL have abortions no matter what the laws on the books say. This is the primary reason that it is not responsible of the government to prohibit this procedure. Everything must be done to protect the life of the woman, the life she is entitled to. The infant will have rights once it can survive without the mother (not necessarily without HELP, but without the mother). YOU do not have any right to tell anyone else what is right and what is wrong. Saving someone who is currently alive, oppressed, starving, homeless, poor, or similarly afflicted. All of these things are more noble because YOU are also trying to FORCE a woman who does not share your morality to do something because YOU think it is wrong. That is not noble, it is excrable.
It is not a child, look at a child development book, it is a fetus or zygote. It isn't even an infant until birth.
OK, you go ahead and find that book that fits the agenda you have. Leave the rest of us to discuss the REAL issues, you know, about the RIGHTS that women have in this country. If you want to live in a place where women don't have rights, go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan. The United States is the land of the FREE, not the home of the Fascist.
Worst case scenario for Pro-Life: Life really doesn't begin until birth or whenever. Woman is forced to undergo the hardship of doing the most natural thing a woman can do and has done for thousands of years (carry a child to term). Child is unloved by the mother and given up for adoption, goes unadopted and is a ward of the state until the age of 18, but still has a chance at a perfectly normal life. Worst case scenario for Pro-Choice: Life really begins at conception. Millions of innocent children are executed because the mother found pregnancy to be an inconvienence. It seems like the pro-abortion crowd is taking a far bigger chance than the anti-choice crowd. (Anyone ever notice how uncomfortable abortionists are with the label of pro-abortion, yet pro-lifers are much less concerned, not unconcerned but much less concerned with being called anti-choice. There is really nothing you can call a pro-lifer that equates with baby killer or whatnot. Just an observation that relates to my point above.)
Not even close. I can't imagine a "worse case scenario" for pro-life, like you have so effortlessly realized. But I can imagine one worse than yours.... Scared, hopeless, manipulated woman (something that has existed for a really long time) feels pressured to have abortion even though it is criminalized. Woman tries to self-induce abortion. Woman is successful, but harms herself and ends up in emergency room with serious medical condition. Woman comes close to death. Woman reported to authorities for performing abortion. Woman arrested and convicted of murder. Woman executed. What did you look like before your conception?
It doesn't matter because in either case, it will be dealt with between the woman and God. It is a private matter that the state must not interfere with because a woman has the right to consult with God, come to a decision, and deal with the consequences.
Andy...ypu consistently approach the debate with an unassailable assurance that an unborn child doesn't qualify as a human life until the mother CHOOSES to make it so. There are, of course, several probelms with that stance, but before I deal with your arguments, please clarify, for my benefit: How are you so sure that life begins where some of the scientists on the subject now say it does, as opposed to those who say otherwise?
So if life begins at conception, it doesn't matter that the US government is condoning the wholesale slaughter of children because the people doing it have to answer to God? Why even have laws then? Don't murderer, rapists, and theives have to answer to God as well?
I think it is rediculous to base laws on what people chosing to break the law will do. We don't say, "Well since serial killers have nothing to lose by continuing to murder more and more people, we shouldn't make it illegal. That will just allow them to continue their killing ways. Let's make it ten years per victim." After all, allowing abortion to remain legal could result in both mother and child being killed when the abortion clinic gets bombed. We don't take that into consideration when debating the pros and cons of keeping abortion legal.
For most of my adult life I would have sided with the pro-choice pro-abotionist on this issue but in the past couple of years I have decided that legal or not , choosing to have an abortion is probably the worst scenario for all concerned. If some people are convinced that abortion is the murder of an unborn child no amount of legalise will change their minds. They will be as committed to that idea as the proverbial pig is to breakfast. Majority view , minority view, it doesn't matter for my argument. Being a man I can only imagine what kind of psychic damage it must do to a woman to have an abortion; to face even privately the thought that a significant percentage of your neighbors consider you a murder. I have witnessed the profound effect losing a fetus has on some women and I can't believe even the most ardent pro-choice beliver doesn't have second thoughts. What I would propose in lieu of abortions ,is that we all assume more responsibility in the situation. We need to have a comprehensive program of sex education in our schools early enough and often enough that there can be no misunderstanding of the consequences of unprotected sex. We need to acknowledge that teenagers are bombarded by their own hormones, peer group pressure, and Madison Avenue imagery and sex acts will happen. So, we need to make birth control easily available. We need to provide living support, medical care and counselling for all out-of wedlock mothers that choose it. We need to provide a free adoption service and work to remove any stigma associated with it. And. we need to require sterilization for adults who repeatedly sire or bear children they do not provide for i.e. child support payments, clean and loving homes the kind of determinations CPS services have to make everday. So , pro-lifers, step up and assume the care of the lives you profess to cherish. Pro-choicers, step up and require people to be responsible for the choices they make. Or you can just continue to butt heads. Jeep
I'm surprised no "old-timers" haven't dropped in with tales of the "shotgun marriages." No need for an abortion when the Daddy is saying "I do" in fear of his life.
The fetus will become a life once the mother chooses to bring the child to term and bear it. Until it is kicking and screaming in this world, it it not a life. Again, I maintain that until it can survive sans the mother's biological processes, it is not its own life. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether it is a life or not. Either way, it is a choice whose consequences will be dealt with by the mother and God and the government does not have any place in that equation. God and the mother have to come to an agreement about what will happen and once they make that choice, the government does not have any right to interfere.
Difference is, in those cases, we KNOW for a FACT, that one person is harming another. In this case, there is a mighty big assumption that has to be made to say the same thing.
This is a stupidargument to go with your stupidmoniker. Again, in the case of the murder of someone already alive, we KNOW that there is harm inflicted by one person on another where you have to make a big assumption to make that true with abortion. No, but we do throw the murdering son of a b**** who bombed the abortion clinic in jail, and rightly so. If life is so sacred to you people, how can you condone this?
Hogwash. I am the one conserving life, yet you call my definition of life liberal. My definition of life is based on nothing but common sense. You have to contort your cause with definitions of stages of maturity to justify your actions. You posit humanity when and where it suits you. Give me a break, you deconstructionist!
agreed....here's my favorite charity and a great example of what you're talking about: http://care-net.org/ they provide free medical service during pregnancy....then help with baby clothes, food, items...help with job training or help to fund the mother's education. that's a real solution for people...not talking down to people...but meeting their needs with love.
