Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[CivilLiberty]

They have a right to pursue that but not at the expense of the rights of others. In this case reducing a human life to garbage in sacrifice to that right.

I read an interesting article today in researching some of my responses here.

The premise is this:


Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate. Some say the unborn is not a human being. They contend it's just a non-viable tissue mass, merely a part of a woman's body. Others say it's only a "potential" human, or a human that is not yet a person. If any of these options turn out to be true, then it's hard to imagine how any additional considerations could make a difference. No further defense would be necessary. Have the abortion.

On the other hand, maybe the unborn child is a bona fide human being, deserving of the same care and protection you and I enjoy. If that's the case, then abortion takes the life of an innocent child simply because she's in the way and can't defend herself. This is not a reason to kill another human being.

From:
http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9711.htm

It's an interesting paper, and it really boils it down to the SINGLE issue at hand.

And here's my point: At the zygote and embryonic stages, that insignificant lump of cells is not a human being. It has the potential to become a human being, but it is not a human being.

The Supreme Court has gone farther than I, in saying that even the fetus is not a human being till viable.




Having said all that, if you believe that even the zygote is a human BEING, what are you religious beliefs and how do they affect you perception?


Regards,


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

I noticed that I forgot to answer this one in my haste to defend human life.

The same way that we fund many other research areas. Through donations and the public funds available to those other areas of research. I cannot see why this would be the end of the idea. Even if it started small at least we would have a beginning.

I am all for such a termination option, which I see as really being available only in the 3rd trimester.

But such an option should not preclude the availability of first trimester abortions.


Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

I read an interesting article today in researching some of my responses here.

The premise is this:


Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate. Some say the unborn is not a human being. They contend it's just a non-viable tissue mass, merely a part of a woman's body. Others say it's only a "potential" human, or a human that is not yet a person. If any of these options turn out to be true, then it's hard to imagine how any additional considerations could make a difference. No further defense would be necessary. Have the abortion.

On the other hand, maybe the unborn child is a bona fide human being, deserving of the same care and protection you and I enjoy. If that's the case, then abortion takes the life of an innocent child simply because she's in the way and can't defend herself. This is not a reason to kill another human being.

From:
http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9711.htm

It's an interesting paper, and it really boils it down to the SINGLE issue at hand.

And here's my point: At the zygote and embryonic stages, that insignificant lump of cells is not a human being. It has the potential to become a human being, but it is not a human being.

The Supreme Court has gone farther than I, in saying that even the fetus is not a human being till viable.




Having said all that, if you believe that even the zygote is a human BEING, what are you religious beliefs and how do they affect you perception?


Regards,


Andy

I am a Therevada Buddhist, they effect my opinion hugely but I have avoided that in this particular thread.

My religion would tell me that all life is important and there is no excuse for this regardless of "human" status other than to defend the life of the mother.

My religion doesn't effect the idea that I think human life begins at the Zygote and cannot see why the way it looks is even an issue. I have made my position clear, a stage of development for a human life does not make it so you can define it other than human life.

 

[Bonnie]

Abortion CANNOT be performed at any time for any reason.

But they are in every state every day!!!

As far as size - of course size is a factor, and it's useful in the parallels we can see for other life. Simply having human DNA is not enough to "demand rights". A cancerous tumor has human DNA. Does it have rights?

A cancerous tumor is not the same as a human being, no matter how small it is. A cancerous tumore causes harm to a person, in most cases a baby causes none, and in the case the mothers life is in danger then abortion should be considered.

 

[no1tovote4]

I am all for such a termination option, which I see as really being available only in the 3rd trimester.

But such an option should not preclude the availability of first trimester abortions.


Andy

My point here is creating a new Medical Science that would work to keep the first trimester child alive as well, not what is currently possible but working towards what is not yet possible.

Thus working toward a solution where the death of a human life is not the goal of a "medical procedure" taking the right to life from a human should be the very last effort made not a simple procedure available at the convenience of anybody.

 

[Bonnie]

Andy who says the Supreme court was right in this interpretation or decision............And if other parts of the Constitution can be amended or overturned then why not Roe v. wade???

 

[5stringJeff]

A cancerous tumor is not the same as a human being, no matter how small it is. A cancerous tumore causes harm to a person, in most cases a baby causes none, and in the case the mothers life is in danger then abortion should be considered.

More than that... a tumor is part of the person in question, and all the cells in the tumor have the same genetic makeup as the host. Not so with a developing baby, which has its own unique DNA.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Andy who says the Supreme court was right in this interpretation or decision............And if other parts of the Constitution can be amended or overturned then why not Roe v. wade???

The right of the Supreme Court is defined in the constitution.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change this case.


Andy

 

[5stringJeff]

The right of the Supreme Court is defined in the constitution.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change this case.


Andy

Not true. The Court can overturn itself.

 

[Annie]

The right of the Supreme Court is defined in the constitution.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change this case.


Andy

Not if it was vacated by the courts.

 

[no1tovote4]

The right of the Supreme Court is defined in the constitution.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change this case.


Andy

Except if the Supreme Court decided to hear another case and changed the ruling.

 

[Bonnie]

The right of the Supreme Court is defined in the constitution.

This decision was made as an interpretation of the constitution, making it subject to fallability, I wasn't speaking in terms of the rights of the Supreme court but rather the correctness in their decision in interpretation, in my opinion rather loose and ill defined one at that, based on the biases of certain members at the time.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change this case.

True and I look foward to the day when this will happen or at least an opportunity to have a serious debate in the courts about the possibility of such an amendment.

 

[KarlMarx]

This decision was made as an interpretation of the constitution, making it subject to fallability, I wasn't speaking in terms of the rights of the Supreme court but rather the correctness in their decision in interpretation, in my opinion rather loose and ill defined one at that, based on the biases of certain members at the time.



True and I look foward to the day when this will happen or at least an opportunity to have a serious debate in the courts about the possibility of such an amendment.

This is why we need strict constructionists on the bench. There has been too much interpretation of the Constitution (where the term interpretation can be defined as "distorting the meaning of the document to fit a particular agenda"). Roe vs. Wade was a bad piece of jurisprudence.... same thing goes for Lawrence vs. Texas. In both cases, rights were invented by the court. The court should not have heard either case, instead, deferring to the decisions of the states' courts. The right to have an abortion, the right to privacy are not specified in the Constitution, therefore, should be left to the States to grant or deny (btw..... if a woman has a right to an abortion, where does that leave me? I don't have a right to an abortion? I thought there was equal protection under the law! So I should be able to get an abortion, too. Oh, wait I can't get pregnant. OK.... tell you what, I should have the right to force my wife, girlfriend to have an abortion even to the point where I get a court to order it for me. After all, if I don't want to be a father and get saddled with the responsibility, or if I don't want to be burdened with child support, I should have the same right as the mother to abort my child. Case closed.... male abortions should be made legal immediately!)..... do you see how ludicrous this is?

 

[Bonnie]

This is why we need strict constructionists on the bench. There has been too much interpretation of the Constitution (where the term interpretation can be defined as "distorting the meaning of the document to fit a particular agenda"). Roe vs. Wade was a bad piece of jurisprudence.... same thing goes for Lawrence vs. Texas. In both cases, rights were invented by the court. The court should not have heard either case, instead, deferring to the decisions of the states' courts. The right to have an abortion, the right to privacy are not specified in the Constitution, therefore, should be left to the States to grant or deny (btw..... if a woman has a right to an abortion, where does that leave me? I don't have a right to an abortion? I thought there was equal protection under the law! So I should be able to get an abortion, too. Oh, wait I can't get pregnant. OK.... tell you what, I should have the right to force my wife, girlfriend to have an abortion even to the point where I get a court to order it for me. After all, if I don't want to be a father and get saddled with the responsibility, or if I don't want to be burdened with child support, I should have the same right as the mother to abort my child. Case closed.... male abortions should be made legal immediately!)..... do you see how ludicrous this is?

absolutely!! And further the original litmus test for an abortion back when it was first legalized was that it was only to be in the event of harm to a womans well being healthwise, NOW that has come to encompass everything including the womans' lack of finances to mental anguish over telling her parents........Boo hoo On top of which many states now don't even need parents to give consent for their daughters to have abortions or even know about it.

 

[elephant]

Using Mental development as the litmus test for viability is flawed, too. How many people have been brain dead - kept alive by machines only to recover, and lead healthy lives after?

We don't kill our adults because they can't survive w/o signifigant medical help - why isn't that same courtesy afforded to babies?

...Americans use 'mental development' as a litmus test for just about everything actually. Just look up the average IQ of a high security prison. Or even better try the average IQ on death row.

Then look at the 'mental development' of the homeless for example. Then look at some other groups of adults that have been more or less thrown to the curb by American society.

So we actually do kill, or at least push people aside when they become too burdensome.

Just a thought.

 

[elephant]

absolutely!! And further the original litmus test for an abortion back when it was first legalized was that it was only to be in the event of harm to a womans well being healthwise, NOW that has come to encompass everything including the womans' lack of finances to mental anguish over telling her parents........Boo hoo On top of which many states now don't even need parents to give consent for their daughters to have abortions or even know about it.

Why should the parents have to know? Doesn't a teenager have the same rights as every other American as protected under the Constitution? If not, when should those rights begin?

 

[dilloduck]

Why should the parents have to know? Doesn't a teenager have the same rights as every other American as protected under the Constitution? If not, when should those rights begin?

when they are of legal age

 

[CivilLiberty]

when they are of legal age

Unless they appear before a court.


A

 

[Annie]

Why should the parents have to know? Doesn't a teenager have the same rights as every other American as protected under the Constitution? If not, when should those rights begin?

Nope. Not criminally, under ordinary circumstances. Not to drink, drive-till of age, vote-till of age, stay out past a certain time in most legal jurisdictions-till of age, etc.

 

[krisy]

Why should the parents have to know? Doesn't a teenager have the same rights as every other American as protected under the Constitution? If not, when should those rights begin?

Sure teenagers have rights,but I sure as hell don't want a doctor performing something like an abortion without my knowledge(I wouldn't let it happen anyway) If a parent is responsible for a child until they hit the legal age of 18,then why should that child be allowed to make her own decision about something like abortion? The law says they aren't even allowed to vote before 18,but they can have an unbrn baby taken form their body?!!! No way. The fact the kid is even being examined by a doctor without a parents knowledge is wrong. I want to know anything and everything my kid is doing,especially at the doctor's office. Also,abortions can be dangerous,and a kid has no business making that decsion.