Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[krisy]

I can't seem to find a good story about this,but I saw "Jane Roe" on Hannity and Colmes last night with her lawyer. She says she is having a press conference today to announce that they are going back to the Supreme Court to ask for R v Wade to be overturned. It was a big deal on Hannity and Colmes and is the only place she announced it until the press conference today. I know it won't happen,but it seems she may have a darn good argument. I have seen her on t.v. before saying she never fully understood what she was doing when she went through all this. If anyone has a good link-go for it!! I have looked on different news websites,but can't find much.

On a side note,I also saw Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter on O'Reilly last night. She is pro life as well. She had an interesting story to tell. SHe had an abortion years ago and was dealing with a lot of pain. She also said she would overturn R v Wade.

 

[Mr. P]

I dated a girl years ago that put her baby (not mine) up for adoption, and she was dealing with a lot of pain also.

 

[no1tovote4]

I can't seem to find a good story about this,but I saw "Jane Roe" on Hannity and Colmes last night with her lawyer. She says she is having a press conference today to announce that they are going back to the Supreme Court to ask for R v Wade to be overturned. It was a big deal on Hannity and Colmes and is the only place she announced it until the press conference today. I know it won't happen,but it seems she may have a darn good argument. I have seen her on t.v. before saying she never fully understood what she was doing when she went through all this. If anyone has a good link-go for it!! I have looked on different news websites,but can't find much.

On a side note,I also saw Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter on O'Reilly last night. She is pro life as well. She had an interesting story to tell. SHe had an abortion years ago and was dealing with a lot of pain. She also said she would overturn R v Wade.

My sister went through an abortion as a Teenager. Later in life she was raped and got pregnant. Because of the guilt she felt from the first abortion she would not get another and gave birth to a wonderful young man that is currently my Nephew. She too would overturn Roe V Wade.

 

[Mr. P]

The problem I would have here, is overturning Law based on feelings..
Isn't that what the liberals practice, law based on "feelings"?

 

[Gem]

Mr. P Wrote:

The problem I would have here, is overturning Law based on feelings..

I agree with you, and to be honest, I do not feel that there is any basis to overturn Roe V. Wade, even though I am pro-choice-but with major stipulations.

RoeV.Wade is a ruling that said what happens between a woman and her doctor is a private matter and not the business of outside sources. Well, I, for one, still agree with this.

We can make abortions safer and rarer by creating laws to regulate RoeV.Wade more effectively...but taking away my right to be able to speak about personal matters with my doctor privately isn't the right way to do it.

As far as feelings are concerned...isn't the abortion debate almost entirely about feelings?

One person feels its a baby, another person feels its tissue that belongs to the woman carrying it.

If we were actually looking at FACT...pro-choicers would have to deal with the fact that in order to convince SCIENCE that the "tissue/fetus" a woman is carrying is "her body" and she can "do with it what she wants" and she will have to explain
- having two entirely different types of DNA in her body
- having two entirely different bloodtypes in her body
- occassionally having two entirely differnt sets of functional sexual organs in her body while not considering herself a transsexual

The bottom line is that science knows its another person. The pro-choice movement has had to lie about that in order to further their agenda...and more and more people, because of scientific developements like 3d ultrasound or because of negative experiences like a previous abortion...are starting to realize that it IS another person, or at the very least the start of another person...

Now...whether or not that other person has the same right to life as its mother is where the debate SHOULD begin.

 

[Bonnie]

I can't seem to find a good story about this,but I saw "Jane Roe" on Hannity and Colmes last night with her lawyer. She says she is having a press conference today to announce that they are going back to the Supreme Court to ask for R v Wade to be overturned. It was a big deal on Hannity and Colmes and is the only place she announced it until the press conference today. I know it won't happen,but it seems she may have a darn good argument. I have seen her on t.v. before saying she never fully understood what she was doing when she went through all this. If anyone has a good link-go for it!! I have looked on different news websites,but can't find much.

On a side note,I also saw Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter on O'Reilly last night. She is pro life as well. She had an interesting story to tell. SHe had an abortion years ago and was dealing with a lot of pain. She also said she would overturn R v Wade.

Jane Roe was used by the pro-abortion nags back in the early 70's. She was their poster child for abortion rights, claiming she was raped and so on. She was never really raped although she kept up the charade for the sake of the Supreme Court ruling. To this day she marches at all the pro-life marches in Washington, and goes to church everyday to pray for forgiveness for what she helped to make happen. I giver her a lot of credit...........The big annual Pro-Life march will be happening on the 21st of this month as this is the anniversary of the ruling, so I would guess that's why the timing on this now.

 

[krisy]

I just caught something I put in my thread that was wrong. It was Martin Luther King's niece,not daughter on O'Reilly last night.

 

[krisy]

Mr. P Wrote:


I agree with you, and to be honest, I do not feel that there is any basis to overturn Roe V. Wade, even though I am pro-choice-but with major stipulations.

RoeV.Wade is a ruling that said what happens between a woman and her doctor is a private matter and not the business of outside sources. Well, I, for one, still agree with this.

We can make abortions safer and rarer by creating laws to regulate RoeV.Wade more effectively...but taking away my right to be able to speak about personal matters with my doctor privately isn't the right way to do it.

As far as feelings are concerned...isn't the abortion debate almost entirely about feelings?

One person feels its a baby, another person feels its tissue that belongs to the woman carrying it.

If we were actually looking at FACT...pro-choicers would have to deal with the fact that in order to convince SCIENCE that the "tissue/fetus" a woman is carrying is "her body" and she can "do with it what she wants" and she will have to explain
- having two entirely different types of DNA in her body
- having two entirely different bloodtypes in her body
- occassionally having two entirely differnt sets of functional sexual organs in her body while not considering herself a transsexual

The bottom line is that science knows its another person. The pro-choice movement has had to lie about that in order to further their agenda...and more and more people, because of scientific developements like 3d ultrasound or because of negative experiences like a previous abortion...are starting to realize that it IS another person, or at the very least the start of another person...

Now...whether or not that other person has the same right to life as its mother is where the debate SHOULD begin.

I think it is a morality issue as well as a legal one. We all have feelings as far as laws go. Our laws seem to be based loosely on the ten commandments,therefore they are based on morality. Not directly,but the basics...don't kill,don't steel,don't commit adultery. For me,abortion isn't natural,not supposed to happen unless a woman's body rejects a baby.

I don't think this will be overturned,but the vioce against abortion seems to be getting louder. I didn't know that so many women were commiting suicide after having an abortion until recently. Not to mention depression and a never ending feeling of guilt. I have to admire "Jane Roe" for having the guts to do this.

 

[Bonnie]

I think we as a society need to think what the real implications of abortion really are namely that it is the taking of a human life, although many wish to parse this into months, molecules, and the babies reaction to pain, whether it's actually a human or just a lump of tissue. Until we do that, abortion will go on unabated, and teenagers will kill their babies with baseball bats to the mothers stomach because hey it's not really a baby right?

We need as a society to decide that a human life is worth more than the doctor patient privacy relationship. And we need to ask oursleves why some are fervently against killing a known and convicted murderer, but without a moments pause would support killing a baby just because the baby is an inconvenience. There is nothing civil about that. It's not that outlawing abortion will in the short term stop abortion, it's that outlawing abortion means the law and society recognizes killing an unborn baby is not civilized, nor is it OKAY, nor is it right.

Until then all we can do is pray that people realize this on their own and think before they do it.

 

[CivilLiberty]

One person feels its a baby, another person feels its tissue that belongs to the woman carrying it.

If we were actually looking at FACT...pro-choicers would have to deal with the fact that in order to convince SCIENCE that the "tissue/fetus" a woman is carrying is "her body" and she can "do with it what she wants" and she will have to explain
- having two entirely different types of DNA in her body
- having two entirely different bloodtypes in her body
- occassionally having two entirely differnt sets of functional sexual organs

Where do you want to draw the line? An unfertilized egg has "different" DNA in it, as does each of the millions of sperm. Does that make the egg or sperm a baby? And the blood type is not necessarily different, and the sexual organs are not fully functional till puberty.


But lets step back a bit and address your first statement, "tissue or baby":


I was recently at BodyWorlds at the Science Center - plasticized dead humans, and of course, it includes some embryos as well.


At 4 week the embryo is smaller than a common FLY

At 8 weeks it's no bigger than my thumbnail.

At 3 months, it's about the size of a mouse, with a brain the size of a hazelnut.


It's not a human being - it's a potential human being. Carrying it full term will result in at least some health consequences for the mother - and it is certainly her choice if she wishes to bear this burden or not.


At 6 months it's the size of a rat, and this fetus is still not a human being, but a potential one. But at 6 months, the viability of the fetus becomes more clear. And at 6 months the mother has had plenty of opportunity to terminate the pregnancy.

From 6 months on, a termination can not be a casual decision.

Nevertheless, if a woman may die or suffer serious health consequences as a result of carrying the fetus full term, of if the fetus develops serious defects, then the woman still has the right to terminate, unless the fetus can be successfully delivered prematurely by cesarean.

While rare, these late term complications still must be dealt with, and that's the domain of doctor/patient discussion.



Regards,


Andy

 

[Adam's Apple]

Where is Speederdoc when you need him? Calling Speederdoc...

 

[musicman]

Civil Liberty:

At what precise moment of pregnancy does human life begin?

 

[no1tovote4]

Where do you want to draw the line? An unfertilized egg has "different" DNA in it, as does each of the millions of sperm. Does that make the egg or sperm a baby? And the blood type is not necessarily different, and the sexual organs are not fully functional till puberty.


But lets step back a bit and address your first statement, "tissue or baby":


I was recently at BodyWorlds at the Science Center - plasticized dead humans, and of course, it includes some embryos as well.


At 4 week the embryo is smaller than a common FLY

At 8 weeks it's no bigger than my thumbnail.

At 3 months, it's about the size of a mouse, with a brain the size of a hazelnut.


It's not a human being - it's a potential human being. Carrying it full term will result in at least some health consequences for the mother - and it is certainly her choice if she wishes to bear this burden or not.


At 6 months it's the size of a rat, and this fetus is still not a human being, but a potential one. But at 6 months, the viability of the fetus becomes more clear. And at 6 months the mother has had plenty of opportunity to terminate the pregnancy.

From 6 months on, a termination can not be a casual decision.

Nevertheless, if a woman may die or suffer serious health consequences as a result of carrying the fetus full term, of if the fetus develops serious defects, then the woman still has the right to terminate, unless the fetus can be successfully delivered prematurely by cesarean.

While rare, these late term complications still must be dealt with, and that's the domain of doctor/patient discussion.



Regards,


Andy

While a fetus is not yet a person, it is still human life. To debase a lifeform and deem it worthless because it hasn't reached its potential in intelligence and size is simply wrong. Too many living humans are not intelligent or large. When should it be legal to kill them?

Saying a lifeform has less right to existence because it is still developing or may be deformed is trying to justify action that is based on convenience not on scientific or logical data, life develops at different rates but is still life and humans give birth to human life. The more intelligent or large a lifeform the longer the development stage is, there is no logical reason to deny rights to a person still in development just because they are still in development.

A full set of DNA is needed for life, an unfertilized egg does not have a full set and is not yet alive therefore it is tissue.

Calling it an embryo doesn't change the fact that it is a human embryo and therefore human life at a different stage of development. Saying fetus still doesn't change the fact that it is a human life at a different stage of development. Calling it an infant is still another stage of the same life, there are others. Embryo, Fetus, Infant, Toddler, Childhood, Pre-Teen, Teenager, Adult. Denying rights because of where someone exists is beyond logic to me and the right to life is the most important of rights.

Therefore abortion should be performed only in an instance where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, self-defense is a right to life issue.

I propose a new area of science be developed where reproductive rights and the right to life are not in direct conflict. Remove the fetus with the full intent of attempting to keep it alive. At the beginning we will be largely unsuccessful, but as the science progresses these lives will be able to live to their potential without being the inconvenience people who want abortions want to avoid. It will have the added benefit of creating a way to have children with the choice of pregnancy so that women can have all the advantages of men without having to leave the workforce etc when having children.

I have a hard time seeing how a Buddhist could deny the existence of a lifeform because it is in the uterus rather than in the air and in development rather than fully developed.

 

[krisy]

Where do you want to draw the line? An unfertilized egg has "different" DNA in it, as does each of the millions of sperm. Does that make the egg or sperm a baby? And the blood type is not necessarily different, and the sexual organs are not fully functional till puberty.


But lets step back a bit and address your first statement, "tissue or baby":


I was recently at BodyWorlds at the Science Center - plasticized dead humans, and of course, it includes some embryos as well.


At 4 week the embryo is smaller than a common FLY

At 8 weeks it's no bigger than my thumbnail.

At 3 months, it's about the size of a mouse, with a brain the size of a hazelnut.


It's not a human being - it's a potential human being. Carrying it full term will result in at least some health consequences for the mother - and it is certainly her choice if she wishes to bear this burden or not.


At 6 months it's the size of a rat, and this fetus is still not a human being, but a potential one. But at 6 months, the viability of the fetus becomes more clear. And at 6 months the mother has had plenty of opportunity to terminate the pregnancy.

From 6 months on, a termination can not be a casual decision.

Nevertheless, if a woman may die or suffer serious health consequences as a result of carrying the fetus full term, of if the fetus develops serious defects, then the woman still has the right to terminate, unless the fetus can be successfully delivered prematurely by cesarean.

While rare, these late term complications still must be dealt with, and that's the domain of doctor/patient discussion.



Regards,


Andy

Civil,you sound as if you think pregnancy is something that is a serious health risk to the mother. You talk about health consequences to the mother if she carries full term. That's silly. While things can always go wrong,a woman knows that when she gets pregnant. There are health consequences for everything we do. Being overweight,too much stress,drinking ,smoking. These are all conscious choices.
I agree with no1 that you can't put the worthiness of a life on how big that life is or how far developed he or she is. Life begins at moment of conception-period.

 

[Mr. P]

... Life begins at moment of conception-period.

Not trying to be smart ass here Krisy..But do you have a scientific link
that proves that statement? In the context of 'life' of course, not just living.

 

[dilloduck]

Nevertheless, if a woman may die or suffer serious health consequences as a result of carrying the fetus full term, of if the fetus develops serious defects, then the woman still has the right to terminate, unless the fetus can be successfully delivered prematurely by cesarean

Ok--I'm the father---I want this child---are you saying that I cannot make the decision to allow it to continue to develop ?

 

[Mr. P]

Ok--I'm the father---I want this child---are you saying that I cannot make the decision to allow it to continue to develop ?

Married to the mother? Or just the father?

 

[no1tovote4]

Not trying to be smart ass here Krisy..But do you have a scientific link
that proves that statement? In the context of 'life' of course, not just living.

Isn't that kind of like asking for a link to a statement like, there are clouds? At the point of conception is when human development begins, or in the case of a chicken where that chicken's development begins ergo the beginning of life.

 

[dilloduck]

Married to the mother? Or just the father?

either one.

 

[krisy]

Not trying to be smart ass here Krisy..But do you have a scientific link
that proves that statement? In the context of 'life' of course, not just living.

No link,just my belief. But if it doesn't start there,then when does it start? Life has a beginning, middle and end. I don't see how it doesn't start at conception. My belief is based a lot on my morals and religeous beliefs,I won't hide that. But, as I said earlier,our whole society is whether people believe it or not. The laws of our great country are based around the ten commandments,which brings us back to morality.

A scientific link will not change my mind or probably anyone else's. I believe God meant for life to begin at conception-it has to start somewhere. Keep in mind,abortion wasn't legal at some point,so at some point,it was considered wrong. It was not legal until the pro choice crowd took a young girl and tricked her into doing something she didn't fully understand.

Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying that you don't have morals if you believe in abortion,just that yours and mine don't click.