Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[Bonnie]

In case I wasn't clear - I'm using size to indicate that there is a point where a WOMAN's rights EXCEED the rights of the embryo.


Regards


Andy

Just curious Andy, Im still not sure how you equate size with relevancy? And what does size have to do with the mother and her body??

And please tell me you are not comparing a baby embryo to a roach or lettuce leaf??

 

[musicman]

Whew!! Glad I'm 6'5"


heh


A

I'm glad I'm alive.

Later tonight, when we all push ourselves away from our computers, those of us who are still lucky enough to have them with us should send flowers to our Moms.

Maybe with a card that reads, "Thanks for not considering me an inconvenience."

 

[Merlin1047]

Well said, Merlin. That's pretty much the situation as she stands. However, I'd like to raise again a question I have posed twice in this thread:

At what precise moment does human life begin? My question was not rhetorical - I really want to know if someone wants to go out on a limb and say, "Life begins at THIS point." You know what? I can't do it. No one can.
(I don't mind admitting that I'm not nearly smart enough to answer that question)

Some - like Krisy and myself, believe that life begins at conception. Others believe that life isn't life until the point of viability - independent of the mother. But, my point is, we just don't know.

Since we don't know - and since the stakes are as high as stakes get (life and death) - isn't it just prudent and sensible, not to mention decent and humane - to err on the side of life?
(I see no way to dispute the assertion that life begins at conception. That is a scientific fact - period. A better question would be when does that tissue mass become a human being. To me, a fertilized egg is not a human any more than a germinating acorn is an oak tree.

But I see your point in wanting to preserve potential human beings wherever possible. Like I said, this one is beyond me. Hopefully we can come to some decision on a national basis. Somehow I doubt that THAT discussion will be as rational as this one has been)

 

[Bonnie]

I'm glad I'm alive.

Later tonight, when we all push ourselves away from our computers, those of us who are still lucky enough to have them with us should send flowers to our Moms.

Maybe with a card that reads, "Thanks for not considering me an inconvenience."

Great idea!! Ever see that bumper sticker that reads simply
"smile your mom was pro-life"

 

[musicman]

Thanks for the kind words, Merlin. And, you're points are well-taken.

Actually, I could have been more specific with my question. I wonder if anyone can say - definitively - when HUMAN life, with all it's attendant rights, begins.

Again, I sure can't.

 

[musicman]

Great idea!! Ever see that bumper sticker that reads simply
"smile your mom was pro-life"

Beautiful! It just got a smile out of me.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm glad I'm alive.

Later tonight, when we all push ourselves away from our computers, those of us who are still lucky enough to have them with us should send flowers to our Moms.

Maybe with a card that reads, "Thanks for not considering me an inconvenience."

How about doing it just cuz ya love her.
There will come a time she's not around and you don't have the option.

 

[Gem]

Here...you can get your baby a new t-shirt:

 

[musicman]

How about doing it just cuz ya love her.
There will come a time she's not around and you don't have the option.

Don't I know it, my friend.

Don't wait too long - you'll never get these moments back.

 

[theim]

IMO, when 2 people make the choice to have sex, they should be very aware of the consequences. That includes the possibility of the woman getting pregnant. If you don't want a baby, the solution is simple. Don't have sex, or use protection. Everyone in my generation got the same sex-ed speil I got in high school. "Don't have sex or you might get pregnant". Did you think they were kidding when they said that? So why do all these teens and young adults keep having sex, get all suprised when they get pregnant, and go get abortions?

Here's the thing. Life begins at conception. Fact. If a mother decides to have an abortion, the child would have been able to live a full life without that abortion. Therefore it is wrong. The fact that many admit to killing these children because it is inconveniant frightens me. I cannot convey the level of contempt I feel for women who have consenual sex, get pregnant, and then abort the child because it would inconeniance them. You made the choice, live with it. Give it up for adoption. But killing the child for your own comfort is despicable.

Abortion should be allowed only when the mother's life is for sure in mortal danger. It is a horrible practice that does nothing but devalue human life.

 

[musicman]

Here...you can get your baby a new t-shirt:

Oh, my Gawd - that's HILARIOUS!

 

[Bonnie]

Oh, my Gawd - that's HILARIOUS!

That is GREAT!!!!

 

[5stringJeff]

Oh, my Gawd - that's HILARIOUS!

Somewhat disturbing, and borderline safe for work... but still funny.

 

[dilloduck]

It is VERY relevant. At question is at what point does a sperm and egg become an independent being with it's own rights, and when do those rights exceed the rights of the host woman?

Andy

Most assuredly the point that a fetus has rights will NOT be decided my measuring it. Put a hole the size of a dime in your aorta and have your Dr. tell me what happened to ya. ( lose the size argument--you're embarassing yourself)

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

As I have stated many times before, Roe v Wade did not make abortion legal, it took away the States' right to determine if abortion was legal. Abortion was legal in New York before Roe vs. Wade, for instance. Overturning Roe v Wade would simply give the States the right to determine whether or not to ban abortion. That is simply good jurisprudence, since the 10th Amendment states that the rights not specifically outlined in the Constitution are up to the States to grant or deny.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment states that no person can have their life, liberty or property taken from them without due process of law. If you believe that the fetus is a person (as I do), then logically abortion is unconstitutional, since it denies the baby's right to life without due process of law.

As for what a woman does with her body argument. I agree, if she wants to get a tattoo, OK; if she wants to get liposuction, OK; if she wants an abortion --- not OK. Why? Because the body she's messing with isn't hers, it's her baby's! That argument simply is saying that the baby isn't a person (which is the same argument given in the Dred Scott decision, which stated that slaves were not people, but property). I can understand extenuating circumstances e.g. rape, incest, the life of the mother --- provided a court order is in place (hey--- "due process of law" should apply).

My opinion is that, if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, it would not change things much. The people of most states would vote to allow abortions, except in some of the more conservative states e.g. Utah and Louisianna. However, partial birth abortion would probably be banned in most states. Still, it should be up to the voters, not a panel of judges, to decide this matter. That is the right that the 10th Amendment gives us. Furthermore, it isn't the right of a bunch of judges to take that right from the voters. Period.

 

[musicman]

I absolutely agree - Roe vs. Wade is bad law, and it ought to go.

 

[speederdoc]

I personally don't have a problem with women having first trimester abortions for any reason, preferably as early as possible. A fetus that age clearly cannot survive outside the womb, and doesn't even have a heartbeat until week 5. I believe that if that right were restricted, an unfortunate number of self-mutilation injuries and deaths would occur from the old clotheshanger method.

Second trimester abortions, those after 13 weeks, begin to bother me. A fetus is definitely baby-shaped at least by that time, and I would imagine could feel pain. At 20 weeks, and perhaps slightly earlier, the fetus is often viable outside the womb, although it requires expensive life support to survive. I think abortions in the second trimester should be restricted to unusual situations involving the health of the mother.

If a woman is too unintelligent to realize she is pregnant by that time or to decide if she wants to have an abortion by that time, then she should bear the burden of carrying the fetus to term. Women in that category are likely to be on public assistance anyway, so missing work shouldn't be a problem.

 

[dilloduck]

I personally don't have a problem with women having first trimester abortions for any reason, preferably as early as possible. A fetus that age clearly cannot survive outside the womb, and doesn't even have a heartbeat until week 5. I believe that if that right were restricted, an unfortunate number of self-mutilation injuries and deaths would occur from the old clotheshanger method.

Second trimester abortions, those after 13 weeks, begin to bother me. A fetus is definitely baby-shaped at least by that time, and I would imagine could feel pain. At 20 weeks, and perhaps slightly earlier, the fetus is often viable outside the womb, although it requires expensive life support to survive. I think abortions in the second trimester should be restricted to unusual situations involving the health of the mother.

If a woman is too unintelligent to realize she is pregnant by that time or to decide if she wants to have an abortion by that time, then she should bear the burden of carrying the fetus to term. Women in that category are likely to be on public assistance anyway, so missing work shouldn't be a problem.

Why should a human life be dependent on the intellect of the mother?

 

[speederdoc]

Why should a human life be dependent on the intellect of the mother?

That is putting it simply. I stated my opinion that abortion should be restricted to the first trimester, except in unusual cases. I don't consider intellect or absence of such to be one of the cases I would make an exception.

Then again, I'm not in charge, so it doesn't really matter.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Most assuredly the point that a fetus has rights will NOT be decided my measuring it. Put a hole the size of a dime in your aorta and have your Dr. tell me what happened to ya. ( lose the size argument--you're embarassing yourself)

That's a specious analogy. A hole in my aorta has absolutely no correlation with an embryo.

A little lump of flesh, the size of a dime, cannot be said to have "more rights" than the woman who is carrying it. The Supreme court has held that viability is the law, and a dime sized piece of flesh does not fall under "viability".



Regards,


Andy