Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Roe v Wade is predicated completely on "viability" of the fetus.
The standards have not been those from Roe v Wade since Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan
As viability of the fetus is a moving target as technology advances, at some point Roe v Wade will be on shaky enough grounds that a civil suit will push abortion to the point of being illegal shortly after conception.
Just a reminder that the right to abortion is a circumstantial right to begin with. The actual Constitutional right being exercised is the woman's right not to be pregnant. You can try saving all these embryos and young fetuses at taxpayer expense just as soon as an artificial placenta, uterus, and mother have been invented. Meanwhile, as a practical matter, 80% of all abortions are performed by 10 weeks and 90% by 12 weeks. That's about half of where viability can even be hoped for at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan
Even now you can't get an abortion in the third trimester, which I don't believe was always the case.
Yes you can, though few are done. These are as permissible now as they were under Roe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan
It really will come down to a matter of geography (inside the womb vs. outside the womb). It won't be outlawed at the State or Fed level, it will just be decided by a courtroom judge.
You are tampering with the Consitutional right to privacy which is the foundation of the ordered liberty on which the republic itself depends. Your take on this seems poorly informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan
It has nothing to do with "souls and God".
No, it doesn't. Except in the minds of right-to-lifers.
Considering how rapidly we are evolving as a culture,(in some cases devolving) I suspect it will not be long into this century that we discover the true barbarians of the ages were the pro abortionists.
The standards have not been those from Roe v Wade since Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992.
Just a reminder that the right to abortion is a circumstantial right to begin with. The actual Constitutional right being exercised is the woman's right not to be pregnant. You can try saving all these embryos and young fetuses at taxpayer expense just as soon as an artificial placenta, uterus, and mother have been invented. Meanwhile, as a practical matter, 80% of all abortions are performed by 10 weeks and 90% by 12 weeks. That's about half of where viability can even be hoped for at the moment.
Yes you can, though few are done. These are as permissible now as they were under Roe.
You are tampering with the Consitutional right to privacy which is the foundation of the ordered liberty on which the republic itself depends. Your take on this seems poorly informed.
No, it doesn't. Except in the minds of right-to-lifers.
The courts in Roe v. Wade never made an declaration as to when life begins: at conception, at birth, or sometime in between. It's still up for debate. But since several states have made it illegal to have third trimester abortions, I guess they have decided the "in between" is the answer.
The taxpayer expense argument is a non-starter. The responsibility falls on the child-bearer. Why in the world would it be any other way? If you can't pay to raise a child, don't get pregnant.
To answer that quetion, I would simply say that as a matter of responsibility, the law mandates that the man as penance for his irresposnibility inherits an 18 year mortgage. This is currently the law. All that remains is to take away the protectionist umbrella mandated by the masses of uneducated people that we currently call pro abortionist and require the woman to do her part for her invlovement in that irresponsibility. Would you set a thief free because he could not resist the temptation to rob you? His motive being the same to enhance his pleasure by taking from you what does not belong to him. So he takes away from the life he has created. A much more serious crime.
Last edited by WKUHilltopper; 02-09-2008 at 05:37 PM..
To answer that quetion, I would simply say that as a matter of responsibility, the law mandates that the man as penance for his irresposnibility inherits an 18 year mortgage. This is currently the law. All that remains is to take away the protectionist umbrella mandated by the masses of uneducated people that we currently call pro abortionist and require the woman to do her part for her invlovement in that irresponsibility. Would you set a thief free because he could not resist the temptation to rob you? His motive being the same to enhance his pleasure by taking from you what does not belong to him. So he takes away from the life he has created. A much more serious crime.
Considering how rapidly we are evolving as a culture,(in some cases devolving) I suspect it will not be long into this century that we discover the true barbarians of the ages were the pro abortionists.
There are no pro-abortionists. There ARE people who believe in having the freedom of choice...they are pro-choice.
Then there are anti-freedom, anti-choice "women are cattle and must be treated like it" people.
That would be a terrible self image or image someone else could have of anyone. I love women as i do children.
A womans choice is the choice to have unprotected sex with a man she doesn't intend to marry. It is an issue made complex by an otherwise a simple and doable effort of personal responsibility. This is not brain surgery. Ethics yes, brain surgery no.
Crystal, I did answer the question asked. I should not have to pay for the irresponsibility of others. The young man or irresponsible man that created that situation should be first and foremost the one with an 18 year mortgage.
If a pack of dogs in heat drop puppies on my doorstep I should not feel compelled to raise them. Their owner should have gotten them fixed or kept them penned up while they were in heat. Now if the owner dropped them on my road as they often do I would either call the aspca or find them homes. With nothing to pick up before me ,I would do the right thing. Useing that example ,I was never too keen on people I knew that put them in a burlap bag and dropped them in the pond. Now I know that there are those of you that cringe at the thought of that example. Poor little beautiful loveable puppies. In some cases,the same ones of you, that think dropping an unborn fetus in the wastebasket is a womans right or a fair abbrogation of a mans responsibility. Somehow that is less offensive.
One of the most sexist "women are all one thing" statements ever(as if I hadn't "guessed" you were before)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
