Related to the subject of abortions ...

[Amelia]

What is the youngest (for want of a better word) preemie you've ever known?

My nephew was born at 23 weeks. He had a hard first year and has vision problems but he's a healthy, happy six-year-old now.

 

[Alan Stallion]

We have a boy at our church named Gideon. He was born prematurely, weighing in at about two pounds. I don't recall how many weeks into the pregnancy.

 

[Si modo]

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle'

By CATHERINE ELSWORTH, The Daily Telegraph | February 21, 2007


LOS ANGELES — The world's youngest surviving baby, born at 21 weeks and six days and weighing just 10 ounces, is due to be discharged from hospital this week after a battle for life described as miraculous.

With feet the size of an adult's little fingernail, Amillia Taylor measured 9.5 inches — not much longer than a ballpoint pen — when she was born at a Florida hospital on October 24.

The odds were stacked against her. Doctors consider babies who weigh less than 14.1 ounces to have no chance of survival. And no infant born before 23 weeks has survived until now.

But defying the odds, Amillia was breathing on her own when she was born by caesarean section and even made several attempts to cry.

Now, after four months in an incubator at Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Amillia has almost tripled in length to 26 inches, weighs 4 1/2 pounds, and is expected to go home with her parents before the end of the week. Doctors say that despite initial respiratory and digestive problems and a mild brain hemorrhage, they foresee no long-term health problems.​

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle' - The New York Sun

Based on improvements in the age of viability, I see little wrong with laws limiting elective abortions at 20 weeks.

 

[atlasshrugged]

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle'

By CATHERINE ELSWORTH, The Daily Telegraph | February 21, 2007


LOS ANGELES — The world's youngest surviving baby, born at 21 weeks and six days and weighing just 10 ounces, is due to be discharged from hospital this week after a battle for life described as miraculous.

With feet the size of an adult's little fingernail, Amillia Taylor measured 9.5 inches — not much longer than a ballpoint pen — when she was born at a Florida hospital on October 24.

The odds were stacked against her. Doctors consider babies who weigh less than 14.1 ounces to have no chance of survival. And no infant born before 23 weeks has survived until now.

But defying the odds, Amillia was breathing on her own when she was born by caesarean section and even made several attempts to cry.

Now, after four months in an incubator at Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Amillia has almost tripled in length to 26 inches, weighs 4 1/2 pounds, and is expected to go home with her parents before the end of the week. Doctors say that despite initial respiratory and digestive problems and a mild brain hemorrhage, they foresee no long-term health problems.​

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle' - The New York Sun

Based on improvements in the age of viability, I see little wrong with laws limiting elective abortions at 20 weeks.

Great link and great story! I agree with you on this one. In Roe v. Wade the SC Justices affirmed that abortion rights extended until viability and defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." It seems pretty clear to me that viability is moving toward 20 weeks.

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AmyNation]

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle'

By CATHERINE ELSWORTH, The Daily Telegraph | February 21, 2007


LOS ANGELES — The world's youngest surviving baby, born at 21 weeks and six days and weighing just 10 ounces, is due to be discharged from hospital this week after a battle for life described as miraculous.

With feet the size of an adult's little fingernail, Amillia Taylor measured 9.5 inches — not much longer than a ballpoint pen — when she was born at a Florida hospital on October 24.

The odds were stacked against her. Doctors consider babies who weigh less than 14.1 ounces to have no chance of survival. And no infant born before 23 weeks has survived until now.

But defying the odds, Amillia was breathing on her own when she was born by caesarean section and even made several attempts to cry.

Now, after four months in an incubator at Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Amillia has almost tripled in length to 26 inches, weighs 4 1/2 pounds, and is expected to go home with her parents before the end of the week. Doctors say that despite initial respiratory and digestive problems and a mild brain hemorrhage, they foresee no long-term health problems.​

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle' - The New York Sun

Based on improvements in the age of viability, I see little wrong with laws limiting elective abortions at 20 weeks.

Great link and great story! I agree with you on this one. In Roe v. Wade the SC Justices affirmed that abortion rights extended until viability and defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." It seems pretty clear to me that viability is moving toward 20 weeks.

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree, it is.

 

[AmyNation]

I personally don't think abortion rights should have any connection to viability, and that flows both ways.

 

[Luissa]

What is the youngest (for want of a better word) preemie you've ever known?

My nephew was born at 23 weeks. He had a hard first year and has vision problems but he's a healthy, happy six-year-old now.

This is why I think abortion should be limited to the first trimester.

 

[atlasshrugged]

I personally don't think abortion rights should have any connection to viability, and that flows both ways.

Yeah, I'm with you. Using the logic that life is connected to viability, how do people explain life support? I think we need proof that the aborted fetus does not feel the pain and I think the burden of proof should be on those who support abortion. If it can feel pain, how is it not a life?

 

[Valerie]

I personally don't think abortion rights should have any connection to viability, and that flows both ways.

Yeah, I'm with you. Using the logic that life is connected to viability, how do people explain life support? I think we need proof that the aborted fetus does not feel the pain and I think the burden of proof should be on those who support abortion. If it can feel pain, how is it not a life?

Not the best starting point... Birth is connected to viability.

 

[syrenn]

What is the youngest (for want of a better word) preemie you've ever known?

My nephew was born at 23 weeks. He had a hard first year and has vision problems but he's a healthy, happy six-year-old now.

I know two.. but not sure how far along they were when born. One is a bit off mentally and is small for an adult male, the other is legally blind do to the O2 in the incubator... but also holds 2 PhD's.

 

[syrenn]

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle'

By CATHERINE ELSWORTH, The Daily Telegraph | February 21, 2007


LOS ANGELES — The world's youngest surviving baby, born at 21 weeks and six days and weighing just 10 ounces, is due to be discharged from hospital this week after a battle for life described as miraculous.

With feet the size of an adult's little fingernail, Amillia Taylor measured 9.5 inches — not much longer than a ballpoint pen — when she was born at a Florida hospital on October 24.

The odds were stacked against her. Doctors consider babies who weigh less than 14.1 ounces to have no chance of survival. And no infant born before 23 weeks has survived until now.

But defying the odds, Amillia was breathing on her own when she was born by caesarean section and even made several attempts to cry.

Now, after four months in an incubator at Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Amillia has almost tripled in length to 26 inches, weighs 4 1/2 pounds, and is expected to go home with her parents before the end of the week. Doctors say that despite initial respiratory and digestive problems and a mild brain hemorrhage, they foresee no long-term health problems.​

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle' - The New York Sun

Based on improvements in the age of viability, I see little wrong with laws limiting elective abortions at 20 weeks.

Agreed. 20 weeks is where i put a cut off. AT 16 weeks a woman should have a handle if she wants to carry a baby to term or not.

 

[atlasshrugged]

I personally don't think abortion rights should have any connection to viability, and that flows both ways.

Yeah, I'm with you. Using the logic that life is connected to viability, how do people explain life support? I think we need proof that the aborted fetus does not feel the pain and I think the burden of proof should be on those who support abortion. If it can feel pain, how is it not a life?

Not the best starting point... Birth is connected to viability.

Birth is not exclusively connected to viability. Babies are viable long before they are actually born. I used it as a starting point because Roe v. Wade supports abortion laws being connected to whether or not the fetus is capable of surviving if born at that moment. I think that's a strange way to look at it, since most people have a hard time pulling the plug on elderly who can't live for much longer.

 

[Vidi]

Yeah, I'm with you. Using the logic that life is connected to viability, how do people explain life support? I think we need proof that the aborted fetus does not feel the pain and I think the burden of proof should be on those who support abortion. If it can feel pain, how is it not a life?

Not the best starting point... Birth is connected to viability.

Birth is not exclusively connected to viability. Babies are viable long before they are actually born. I used it as a starting point because Roe v. Wade supports abortion laws being connected to whether or not the fetus is capable of surviving if born at that moment. I think that's a strange way to look at it, since most people have a hard time pulling the plug on elderly who can't live for much longer.

Viability isnt if they ARE born then but CAN they be born then and survive.

If they CAN, then it would seem that logically they would be considered life.

That being said, its is my own personal belief that Life begins BEFORE viability.

 

[Valerie]

Not the best starting point... Birth is connected to viability.

Birth is not exclusively connected to viability. Babies are viable long before they are actually born. I used it as a starting point because Roe v. Wade supports abortion laws being connected to whether or not the fetus is capable of surviving if born at that moment. I think that's a strange way to look at it, since most people have a hard time pulling the plug on elderly who can't live for much longer.

Viability isnt if they ARE born then but CAN they be born then and survive.

If they CAN, then it would seem that logically they would be considered life.

That being said, its is my own personal belief that Life begins BEFORE viability.

The law does not judge whether life begins when, but draws a reasonable line at "viability" after the first trimester while prioritizing Citizen interest of personal privacy from overbearing Government intrusion.

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.


However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.






Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

 

[PoliticalChic]

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle'

By CATHERINE ELSWORTH, The Daily Telegraph | February 21, 2007


LOS ANGELES — The world's youngest surviving baby, born at 21 weeks and six days and weighing just 10 ounces, is due to be discharged from hospital this week after a battle for life described as miraculous.

With feet the size of an adult's little fingernail, Amillia Taylor measured 9.5 inches — not much longer than a ballpoint pen — when she was born at a Florida hospital on October 24.

The odds were stacked against her. Doctors consider babies who weigh less than 14.1 ounces to have no chance of survival. And no infant born before 23 weeks has survived until now.

But defying the odds, Amillia was breathing on her own when she was born by caesarean section and even made several attempts to cry.

Now, after four months in an incubator at Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Amillia has almost tripled in length to 26 inches, weighs 4 1/2 pounds, and is expected to go home with her parents before the end of the week. Doctors say that despite initial respiratory and digestive problems and a mild brain hemorrhage, they foresee no long-term health problems.​

Youngest Premature Baby's Survival Called a ‘Miracle' - The New York Sun

Based on improvements in the age of viability, I see little wrong with laws limiting elective abortions at 20 weeks.

Wonderful.


It is because of medical advances, that the question abortions may become merely peripheral, and be relegated to questions about partial birth abortions and the Born Alive Bill.....

Hopefully the Dems will have a candidate who doesn't endorse allowing infants to die.


"In 2008, the Democratic National Convention omitted the word “rare” from its platform language specifying that abortion should “safe, legal and rare,” the formulation that Bill Clinton once rhetorically embraced. The 2012 platform will retain the 2008 language."
Bauer: Botching the abortion debate - Conservative News

 

[PoliticalChic]

I personally don't think abortion rights should have any connection to viability, and that flows both ways.

Well, then....here are your guys.


President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators
Now, lest anyone believe that there is a nuanced explanation that would be acceptable to normal people....consider the fact that President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-Peter-Singer/657290

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.

 

[Vidi]

I personally don't think abortion rights should have any connection to viability, and that flows both ways.

Well, then....here are your guys.


President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators
Now, lest anyone believe that there is a nuanced explanation that would be acceptable to normal people....consider the fact that President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.

bah, its all a matter of timing isnt it?

Save the disabled baby so you can force that baby to starve in the streets 30 years later when they have no education, no job, no medical benefits, no social security benefits.

Sorry, but something a guy said 30+ years ago doesnt matter as much as what the Republicans are saying TODAY.

 

[jwoodie]

Birth is not exclusively connected to viability. Babies are viable long before they are actually born. I used it as a starting point because Roe v. Wade supports abortion laws being connected to whether or not the fetus is capable of surviving if born at that moment. I think that's a strange way to look at it, since most people have a hard time pulling the plug on elderly who can't live for much longer.

Viability isnt if they ARE born then but CAN they be born then and survive.

If they CAN, then it would seem that logically they would be considered life.

That being said, its is my own personal belief that Life begins BEFORE viability.

The law does not judge whether life begins when, but draws a reasonable line at "viability" after the first trimester while prioritizing Citizen interest of personal privacy from overbearing Government intrusion.

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.


However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.






Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

"...a pragmatic and ultimately principled decision..." Is that a German translation?

 

[Vidi]

Birth is not exclusively connected to viability. Babies are viable long before they are actually born. I used it as a starting point because Roe v. Wade supports abortion laws being connected to whether or not the fetus is capable of surviving if born at that moment. I think that's a strange way to look at it, since most people have a hard time pulling the plug on elderly who can't live for much longer.

Viability isnt if they ARE born then but CAN they be born then and survive.

If they CAN, then it would seem that logically they would be considered life.

That being said, its is my own personal belief that Life begins BEFORE viability.

The law does not judge whether life begins when, but draws a reasonable line at "viability" after the first trimester while prioritizing Citizen interest of personal privacy from overbearing Government intrusion.

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.


However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.






Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

I apologize. I took "viability" out of context.

I stand corrected.

 

[Vidi]

Viability isnt if they ARE born then but CAN they be born then and survive.

If they CAN, then it would seem that logically they would be considered life.

That being said, its is my own personal belief that Life begins BEFORE viability.

The law does not judge whether life begins when, but draws a reasonable line at "viability" after the first trimester while prioritizing Citizen interest of personal privacy from overbearing Government intrusion.

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.


However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.






Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

"...a pragmatic and ultimately principled decision..." Is that a German translation?

I invoke Godwins Law and hereby banish your opinion from holding any weight for a period no shorter than 15 minutes and no longer than eternity.