Who supports Roe vs. Wade?

[Cyclonepride]

All these what if this happens, and what if that happens, and what if the baby isn't wanted, or is born addicted, blah, blah, blah is only effective in muddying the waters of the real issue. So, just in case 5% of these babies are born addicted, and 20% have crappy parents, etc, let's kill 100% of them.

Let's apply this logic to the death penalty........well, there is a chance that this guy really did it. Let's kill him just in case.

 

[darts180]

All these what if this happens, and what if that happens, and what if the baby isn't wanted, or is born addicted, blah, blah, blah is only effective in muddying the waters of the real issue. So, just in case 5% of these babies are born addicted, and 20% have crappy parents, etc, let's kill 100% of them.

Let's apply this logic to the death penalty........well, there is a chance that this guy really did it. Let's kill him just in case.

See Cyclonepride, this is where I knew the debate was coming from. Please don't think that I am saying this for the sake of being argumentative. However, this post seems on target for you believe in, which you are entitled to, and I am not arguing substance. But, if you go back and read your original post, the language was MUCH softer.

I understood all along what your feelings were on the subject, and I can hazard a guess at your opinions on other topics as well. I guess that I see it as more along the lines of what I see in the political nature of the topic as well. Say that abortion is legal in cases of rape and incest, but how do you prove that??? More to the point, it is easy for a person with an agenda to dispute these facts, therefore eliminating that as possible alternative for a woman who was put into a situation against her will. And if you don't think for ONE moment, the anti-abortion people won't have a slew of attorneys on staff to dispute any of those cases, you haven't been watching. Conversely, I am sure that the pro choice people will have their people too.

The point I am trying to make is that as much as the right tries to take the fear out of this argument, there will be no room for the compromises that you tried to propose once Roe is overturned.

 

[Wesley]

Abortion kills a lot more babies than saves mothers' lives. Sate should make it easier to give kids away of not wanted. I am sure their are plenty of parents that would take anewborn baby if state took on the birth payment. Obviously, the cost of state stepping in would be paid back in future taxes by the kid. A million abortions is way too much in such a country as ours. We probably lead tyhe rest of the world as a percentage in abortions. Shame on us.

 

[Cyclone62]

All these what if this happens, and what if that happens, and what if the baby isn't wanted, or is born addicted, blah, blah, blah is only effective in muddying the waters of the real issue. So, just in case 5% of these babies are born addicted, and 20% have crappy parents, etc, let's kill 100% of them.

Let's apply this logic to the death penalty........well, there is a chance that this guy really did it. Let's kill him just in case.

Are you applying this to all babies in the womb, or just the ones with parents that want to undergo an abortion? The world can't be divided into right and wrong, there's too much grey.

 

[Cyclone62]

Abortion kills a lot more babies than saves mothers' lives. Sate should make it easier to give kids away of not wanted. I am sure their are plenty of parents that would take anewborn baby if state took on the birth payment. Obviously, the cost of state stepping in would be paid back in future taxes by the kid. A million abortions is way too much in such a country as ours. We probably lead tyhe rest of the world as a percentage in abortions. Shame on us.

Most parents that adopt want a newborn, but where does that leave the kids who are 8+?

 

[JVAR]

I don't expect anyone to tell me what to do with my body so I certainly have no business telling a woman what to do with hers...

Laws are supposed to protect those that cannot protect themselves, and what is more defenseless than an unborn baby. Abortion supporters have dehumanized babies by calling them "embryos" or a "fetus" so they can have power over them and kill them. It is usually a necessary process to dehumanize someone before you can commit a violent act against them, such as in domestic violence. It is the genocide of our society and culture. 60 Million babies! If you are going to have sex, you'd better be able to deal with all the consequences, both good and bad.

 

[brianhos]

I don't expect anyone to tell me what to do with my body so I certainly have no business telling a woman what to do with hers...

Laws are supposed to protect those that cannot protect themselves, and what is more defenseless than an unborn baby. Abortion supporters have dehumanized babies by calling them "embryos" or a "fetus" so they can have power over them and kill them. It is usually a necessary process to dehumanize someone before you can commit a violent act against them, such as in domestic violence. It is the genocide of our society and culture. 60 Million babies! If you are going to have sex, you'd better be able to deal with all the consequences, both good and bad.

Sorry, it is not a baby until it is viable outside the womb. A few cells clumped together does not mean it is a baby.

 

[Cyclone62]

Alright, I decided to Google "Pro-Life" and clicked on the first link. Outside of Cyclonepride, Wesley, and half of Incyte's comments, the rest of these people are saying WORD FOR WORD the same EXACT thing that site is spewing. They're twisting nearly everything, and telling half truths (I haven't check the pro-choice site yet, so bear with me) to demonize everyone who disgrees with them. It's quite funny JVAR, that I read that exact paragraph nearly twenty minutes before you posted it.

 

[JVAR]

Sorry, it is not a baby until it is viable outside the womb. A few cells clumped together does not mean it is a baby.

Yeah, a few cells that have a heart beat, moves, has limbs, can feel pain, etc.

 

[Cyclone62]

Yeah, a few cells that have a heart beat, moves, has limbs, can feel pain, etc.

I understand what you're getting at, but say the baby is stillborn. When was the start of it's life, and when did it end? It never took a breath, never lived a life, and wasn't conscious.

EDIT: After looking up the "Pro-Choice" site from my previous post, I have to say that one is more informative. It wasn't "pro-abortion" and actually said that abortions weren't there preferred method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, and gave relevant statistics regarding abortion, adoption, and keeping the child. If I had to say one thing about each site, it would be that the pro-choice site was more for making an informed opinion, and the pro-life site was more for pushing the agenda of abstinence, and laying the blame of pregnancy on the mother.

 

[tec71]

And then the US Supreme Court in one judicial swoop (Roe versus Wade), took this deeply divisive social issue out of the hands of voters, and their elected legislators. All this and the word abortion appears nowhere in the US Constitution. What was the legal and social environment that caused the court to take such an unprecedented action of which I believe they didn't even have the authority to decide? Attitudes toward abortion were in fact shifting and Americans were in a serious public debate, amending state laws to fit the changing morality. Sure, New York's laws were more liberal than Texas's but again that is the beauty of how our federalist system of government is supposed to work. And a Texan who wanted an abortion could - with the help of charity if she needed it - go across state lines to obtain one.

Enter the Supreme Court. In his Roe opinion, Justice Blackman purported to find in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution the right to an abortion. His opinion struck down 50 state laws, but, even more destructively, he also stopped democracy cold. Without Roe, we likely would have had a decade or so of political battles in 50 state legislatures which is where the battle belonged. My guess is that we would have ended up with a rough consensus close to where every poll shows the American public stands on abortion: Legal on the first trimester, with restrictions later in pregnancy and provisions for parental and spousal notification.

What should frighten everyone, pro-life or pro-choice, is the very analysis contained in Roe v. Wade. I had a constitutional law professor, a rabid liberal femininist (her words, not mine), who was as rampantly pro choice as you could get, who frequently told classes that if you turned in a final exam answer with the type of legal fiction contained in Roe v. Wade, you would fail so badly that she'd question how you got into law school in the first place. It's got to be one of the top 3 legal fictions created by the courts to justify a decision in the history of the world.

What bothers me is the rhetoric that if its is 'overturned' you'll loose your right to an abortion. You "may" lose the right created by Roe v. Wade if you live in a state where the legislature bans it, but there's no gaurantee that you "will." Overturning it doesn't actually ban anything. If it is "overturned' what you will see is it vary from state to state, and maybe even at the local level if the state leaves it alone. You will have some pass a complete ban, and others open the borders and almost encourage it. You'd have aid organizations setting up in those states banning it to help get those people seeking them to other states and back. If you live in a state that bans it and you are in favor of the option, then you vote out those that banned it, or you move to a state where the laws fit your personal views. In actuality people have more influence over those deciding on the issue, the closer those decision makers are to the people. Please though whatever your view is, actually read a full text version of the Roe decision, as well as the concuring opinions and the dissent (which come in Doe v. Bolton). Then decide if you'd like your "fundamental" rights decided with such creative reasoning. Remember, while they intend to caring and benevolent, nothing says they have to be. For me, our system is much worse off with the Consitutation being interpreted with a set of ginsu knives and some duct tape.

 

[Cyclonepride]

See Cyclonepride, this is where I knew the debate was coming from. Please don't think that I am saying this for the sake of being argumentative. However, this post seems on target for you believe in, which you are entitled to, and I am not arguing substance. But, if you go back and read your original post, the language was MUCH softer.

I understood all along what your feelings were on the subject, and I can hazard a guess at your opinions on other topics as well. I guess that I see it as more along the lines of what I see in the political nature of the topic as well. Say that abortion is legal in cases of rape and incest, but how do you prove that??? More to the point, it is easy for a person with an agenda to dispute these facts, therefore eliminating that as possible alternative for a woman who was put into a situation against her will. And if you don't think for ONE moment, the anti-abortion people won't have a slew of attorneys on staff to dispute any of those cases, you haven't been watching. Conversely, I am sure that the pro choice people will have their people too.

The point I am trying to make is that as much as the right tries to take the fear out of this argument, there will be no room for the compromises that you tried to propose once Roe is overturned.

I still stand by exactly what I said in the opening post. Yes, my feelings are quite strong, and I also meant what I have said since. But I don't feel I have contradicted myself in any way.

Unfortunately, we would need this law to go through the old fashioned way, which is through a bill in Congress, and as has been said, that bill should overturn Roe vs. Wade, and return the issue to the states, where it should be in the first place, instead of a virtual law being passed down by judges.

And if it were done this way, the actual bills in each state would have to contain compromises to have any chance of passing. Legitimate compromises such as I listed in my initial post.

 

[JVAR]

I understand what you're getting at, but say the baby is stillborn. When was the start of it's life, and when did it end? It never took a breath, never lived a life, and wasn't conscious. __________________

Correct me if I am wrong, but a still born baby was once alive, with a heart beat, brain activity, etc., but dies at some point in the pregnancy. I think you are thinking of a false pregancy, in which there is a mass of cells.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I guess my last thought on this subject, as the argument will soon turn into one big circular mess, if it hasn't already, is that I agree that there are some potential gray areas, but not, in my opinion on the sanctity of human life. I appreciate the respect shown by everyone, as I know this can be a very heated topic. After the time I have spent on this site, I would expect nothing less.

 

[Cyclone62]

Great point Tec71. In rebuttal though, it's just easier to say Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, and that "overturning it" would reverse the effect than creating the novella-esque post you posted. :wink0st:

 

[Cyclone62]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a still born baby was once alive, with a heart beat, brain activity, etc., but dies at some point in the pregnancy. I think you are thinking of a false pregancy, in which there is a mass of cells.

Well, perhaps I'm the one who is wrong, but I believe a stillborn is a baby that never takes a breath. Which would be outside of the womb, but still had a heart-beat. My point was that legally, when would it's life begin and end? Was it "alive" for nine months? Is it documented as a life? Why or why not? For what it's worth, I didn't have stillborn and false pregnancy confused, but one of us may have a false impression on what classifies a stillborn baby, or we're in agreeance, but one of use thinks the other isn't. Quite the conundrum.

 

[Cyclone62]

I guess my last thought on this subject, as the argument will soon turn into one big circular mess, if it hasn't already, is that I agree that there are some potential gray areas, but not, in my opinion on the sanctity of human life.

Well, since I'm almost positive you said you advocated the death penalty, why is that justifiable as legal? Is it economic? IMO, I think the worst sentence would be life in prison, then answering to the higher power. You'd have hell on earth, the possibly hell in hell. As for the pro-choice stance, I don't suggest or encourage getting one, but I think that choice should be available. Color me hypocritical if it makes you feel better, but as Ozzy says "I'm Not Going Away."

 

[chadm]

Well, perhaps I'm the one who is wrong, but I believe a stillborn is a baby that never takes a breath. Which would be outside of the womb, but still had a heart-beat. My point was that legally, when would it's life begin and end? Was it "alive" for nine months? Is it documented as a life? Why or why not? For what it's worth, I didn't have stillborn and false pregnancy confused, but one of us may have a false impression on what classifies a stillborn baby, or we're in agreeance, but one of use thinks the other isn't. Quite the conundrum.

My understanding of the law is if the mother wants the baby and the mother or/and the baby is killed the person that killed them will be prosecuted.
If the mother doesn't want the baby, then it is legal to kill the baby. Except for the recent ban on late term abortions.

 

[JVAR]

Well, perhaps I'm the one who is wrong, but I believe a stillborn is a baby that never takes a breath. Which would be outside of the womb, but still had a heart-beat. My point was that legally, when would it's life begin and end? Was it "alive" for nine months? Is it documented as a life? Why or why not? For what it's worth, I didn't have stillborn and false pregnancy confused, but one of us may have a false impression on what classifies a stillborn baby, or we're in agreeance, but one of use thinks the other isn't. Quite the conundrum.

I don't think that I have them confused. You stated in your reply because it didn't breath that it wasn't life. There are other signs of life, such as having a pulse, in which a unborn baby does, and which a still born baby did. If you have ever seen an ultrasound, I think unborn babies have are quite conscious. They have moved away from abortion instruments in the second trimester. So obviously they are conscious.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Well, since I'm almost positive you said you advocated the death penalty, why is that justifiable as legal? Is it economic? IMO, I think the worst sentence would be life in prison, then answering to the higher power. You'd have hell on earth, the possibly hell in hell. As for the pro-choice stance, I don't suggest or encourage getting one, but I think that choice should be available. Color me hypocritical if it makes you feel better, but as Ozzy says "I'm Not Going Away."

Ok, so that was my final word on THAT subject, but not that subject:wink0st:. Recent studies have pointed out that (some of this was posted earlier by others) that the death penalty prevents murders. So I can easily defend against the taking of innocent lives on both counts. In fact, I think it would be a handy tool for pedophiles, as the bleeding hearts on the left love to point out that many of them were sexually abused as children themselves. That is all sad of course, but many, many sexually abused children do not go on to do the same themselves. So if sex offenders create future sex offenders, then I say light them up.