Roe v Wade

[WadeFulp]

The woman known as Roe wants to reopen her old case and have it over turned, making abortion illegal.

This is going to be a huge issue. What does everyone think?

Since my name is Wade can I request the case stays closed? :)

[MrTrivia]

At 6/17/03 10:50 AM, WadeFulp wrote: The woman known as Roe wants to reopen her old case and have it over turned, making abortion illegal.

This is going to be a huge issue. What does everyone think?

Since my name is Wade can I request the case stays closed? :)

Did she win the first time? If so, why does she want to overturn the decision?

[WadeFulp]

At 6/17/03 10:51 AM, mr_trivia wrote: Did she win the first time? If so, why does she want to overturn the decision?

Yes, she won by a vote of like 7-2 to make abortion legal. I think it was just up to the states to make their own abortion laws. So abortion is legal in some states, but not others. However since then she has become a Christian and is now against abortion (crazy women can't make up their damn minds!), and wants to have her case overturned to make abortion illegal. This means it would be a federal law taht abortion would be illegal so no state could allow it like they do now.

[Freakapotimus]

You can get info on the case:

http://www.roevwade.org/ (seems to be against abortion)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html (legal info at FindLaw.com)

Why does she want abortion to be illegal?

[stafffighter]

She fought for the right to make a choice. Now shes christian and her thinking is done for her. I love the symbolism.
On another note, women have the right to choose for their own bodies and even if you do outlaw it theres no well in hell it'll stop happening.
You're name deserves better than this Wade.

[FUNKbrs]

thats the problem with basing morality on a technicality. If youre teetering on the brink in the first place, chances are you will sway in both directions before you either stabilize or fall off. I hope it gets overturned, just so the pro-abortionists will have to get solid backing for their legal stance, instead of just one legal battle.

Remember when we were supposed to vote on what laws we abided by, instead of letting the courts do it for us? I advocate a state by state abortion referendum, instead of this dictatorship from the supreme court. The court system represents everything that is wrong with this country.

I hate lawyers.

[TheShrike]

Ha! It'll never happen. There are too many people here who want abortion to be legal.

Me, well, I don't think abortion should be illegal because more people die or are injured from abortions in countries where abortion is illegal.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/17/03 01:56 PM, TheShrike wrote: Ha! It'll never happen. There are too many people here who want abortion to be legal.

Me, well, I don't think abortion should be illegal because more people die or are injured from abortions in countries where abortion is illegal.

Id like to clarify. I'm not against abortion, I'm against the fact that the only reason it is legal is because of a single court case. Law should not be determined by judges, it should be determined by elected officials. For those who dont know, supreme court justices in the US are appointed, not elected. Which means the people have no say over the interpretation of the laws they vote for.

[Kenney333]

If it was voted that people have the right to choose than she shouldnt be to change that on her own

[poxpower]

This woman is completely nuts. Just shows how dedicated she is. I mean, it's sad that a person who can't made up her mind would have a shot at changing a law that afects a whole country -the most powerfull in the world mind you.
Not letting the people decide on abortion is ridiculous and primitive, and if it gets overturned, I'm going to be glader than ever to be canadian.

[karasz]

It wont get overturned... bush would lose too many women voters that are independent but like having the 'right' to decide (its not really a right... if it were i would be allowed to do crack without any worries...)

and if im wrong and the court overturns it... then ill buy a 'PRO-COATHANGER' bumper sticker... and let the good times roll

[Jimsween]

*rolls eyes* He just keeps talking, seriously though doesnt this violate the cheack and balance system now. Bush currently is able to appoint conservative supreme counrt judges so they will make the law conservative but that would be directly violating the check and balance system.

Why did the democrats have to put such crappy canidates against bush...

Heh, I was listening to a song called "pro-abortion, anti-christ" when I came across this topic.

My thoughts on this?

You shouldn't be able to take away someone's right even if it offends your almighty god.

Honestly, what's the difference between a condom and an abortion? They both stop a baby from being fully formed. Sperm and eggs are as alive as a few weeks old fetus, if it can even be called that. I'm against killing babies but they're killing killing babies they're killing a fetus. That can't even be considered human. "ICEBERG! WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND FETUSES ON THE LIFEBOAT!"

[Commander-K25]

At 6/17/03 07:45 PM, nailbomb wrote: Honestly, what's the difference between a condom and an abortion? They both stop a baby from being fully formed. Sperm and eggs are as alive as a few weeks old fetus, if it can even be called that.

Your definition would place skin cells and hair on the smae level as a baby, though. The biological fact you overlook is that sperm and eggs, seperately, are genetically identical to that person. It is only when they combine that a new, genetically different organism is created.

Killing a sperm is no different than cutting your hair because they're part of you. Aborting a fetus is terminating another life, though.

That can't even be considered human.

So when do you define "human"? We don't know when the "transformation" to "human" status takes place. Since we don't know, we've got to play it safe or we may be murdering tens of thousands and not even know it.

[TheShrike]

At 6/18/03 01:05 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: So when do you define "human"?

Why don't we define human as something with active vocal cords? Or perhaps humans use their lungs. fetuses don't use their lungs, so it's clear-cut to me!

There. Problem solved. =]

[Commander-K25]

At 6/18/03 01:10 AM, TheShrike wrote: Why don't we define human as something with active vocal cords? Or perhaps humans use their lungs. fetuses don't use their lungs, so it's clear-cut to me!

There. Problem solved. =]

So it's only when they can scream as they're being killed that it's wrong?

[Alejandro1]

At 6/18/03 01:13 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: So it's only when they can scream as they're being killed that it's wrong?

If you think killing is wrong, I could say you're hypocritical because I can guarantee you've killed something before you've eaten it, or had someone else kill it for you (this is just an assumption, you could eat things while they are still alive, I wouldn't know).

I think it's great that women have the choice for abortion, but you have to remember: just cause the choice is there doesn't mean that everyone will have an abortion. When I was discussing this topic with my girlfriend, she was glad that our society is pro-choice, but she said that she could never go through with an abortion if the oppertunity came up.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/18/03 01:34 AM, alejandro1 wrote: If you think killing is wrong, I could say you're hypocritical because I can guarantee you've killed something before you've eaten it, or had someone else kill it for you (this is just an assumption, you could eat things while they are still alive, I wouldn't know).

This is not an argument against all killing. I am not a vegeterian because animals are not intelligent beings.

I think it's great that women have the choice for abortion, but you have to remember: just cause the choice is there doesn't mean that everyone will have an abortion. When I was discussing this topic with my girlfriend, she was glad that our society is pro-choice, but she said that she could never go through with an abortion if the oppertunity came up.

Yes, and you should be glad that she's sensible. However, it often gives a feeling of a free license to many that diminishes the sense of consequences from their actions. Some women don't care if they get pregnant because they can just go to a clinic and have it killed, and cheaply too.

[Jimsween]

At 6/18/03 01:05 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

That can't even be considered human.

So when do you define "human"? We don't know when the "transformation" to "human" status takes place. Since we don't know, we've got to play it safe or we may be murdering tens of thousands and not even know it.

But how can it be considered murder if the law does not recognize it at murder, (I'm assuming your going to say god) why would god make his laws non beneficial to society, if one of gods laws causes more turmoil than it stops than wouldnt that make god fallable and disprove his existance. So he couldnt have considered tha murder.

[Alejandro1]

At 6/18/03 01:38 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: I am not a vegeterian because animals are not intelligent beings.

And you think human babies are intelligent beings, let alone fetuses? Scientists have proven that chimp newborns are truly smarter than human newborns. Drop a human baby and a chimp baby in the woods; which one would survive?

[AbstractVagabond]

I remember the first time I heard about Roe v Wade. I though it was an argument between boating and swimming.

That's your stupid joke for today.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/18/03 01:51 AM, alejandro1 wrote: And you think human babies are intelligent beings, let alone fetuses? Scientists have proven that chimp newborns are truly smarter than human newborns. Drop a human baby and a chimp baby in the woods; which one would survive?

It's what it will develop into. We don't kill patients in comas simply because their brains are inactive at the moment, do we?

[Alejandro1]

At 6/18/03 05:53 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: It's what it will develop into. We don't kill patients in comas simply because their brains are inactive at the moment, do we?

Sometimes we do. When someone has experienced a large amount of head trauma and would be extremely crippled if they woke up from the coma, then we might consider letting the person die. Or if the insurance ran out and the person showed no response to waking up from the coma, then we might let the person die too.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/18/03 06:54 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Sometimes we do. When someone has experienced a large amount of head trauma and would be extremely crippled if they woke up from the coma, then we might consider letting the person die. Or if the insurance ran out and the person showed no response to waking up from the coma, then we might let the person die too.

But not when we know that they will recover. The fetus will develop into a sentient human child, so they are like a coma patient that, although brain dead at the moment, will recover. It's just a metaphor.

At 6/18/03 01:05 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Your definition would place skin cells and hair on the smae level as a baby, though. The biological fact you overlook is that sperm and eggs, seperately, are genetically identical to that person. It is only when they combine that a new, genetically different organism is created.

Exactly, at early stages it's only an organism, not a person.

Killing a sperm is no different than cutting your hair because they're part of you. Aborting a fetus is terminating another life, though.

So killing a virus that you caught from someone else would be an abortion?

So when do you define "human"? We don't know when the "transformation" to "human" status takes place. Since we don't know, we've got to play it safe or we may be murdering tens of thousands and not even know it.

If it doesn't have a pulse or any brain activity it can't even be considered human.

Answer me this, would you get an abortion if you were raped and the rapist had impregnated you?

[Commander-K25]

At 6/18/03 06:59 PM, nailbomb wrote: Exactly, at early stages it's only an organism, not a person.

You're misinterpreting my use of organism. People are organisms, and a fetus is a person, just not fully developed yet.

So killing a virus that you caught from someone else would be an abortion?

That's a completely invalid comparison. A virus you caught from somebody else is an entirely different matter than what we're talking about.

There is a difference between a virus and human life, is there not? A virus is not human, it is a parastie completely unrelated to the issue of abortion.

We could discuss the morality of killing flies as well, but that wouldn't make it relevant.

If it doesn't have a pulse or any brain activity it can't even be considered human.

Says who? You?

Do brain activity and pulse start magically at birth? No, they don't.

Answer me this, would you get an abortion if you were raped and the rapist had impregnated you?

I do recognize that there are some special circumstances and in some cases it might be acceptable.

[RydiaLockheart]

Women are going to continue having abortions whether or not they are legal. In that case, they should have the option to have them done safely by professionals.

I'm only a pro-choicer to a point. If a woman is on her fourth abortion, it's time for her to get her tubes tied. The women that abuse the privilege cause problems.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/18/03 07:08 PM, Rydia_Lockheart wrote: Women are going to continue having abortions whether or not they are legal. In that case, they should have the option to have them done safely by professionals.

If women are going to run to "back-alley abortionists" as you fear, then why was the death toll from illegal abortions, before it was legalized, only 200-300 deaths per year?

In 1972, a year before Roe v. Wade, there were only 39 maternal deaths from abortion. This is a far cry from the figures of thousands that are usually stated in the pro-choice literature.

Most illegal abortions before legalization were done by physicians, not the feared "back-alley butcher" or "coathanger" that pro-choice advocates like to conjure up the images of.

"....Second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians...."
-Dr. Mary S. Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood

[Alejandro1]

At 6/18/03 06:57 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/18/03 06:54 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Sometimes we do. When someone has experienced a large amount of head trauma and would be extremely crippled if they woke up from the coma, then we might consider letting the person die. Or if the insurance ran out and the person showed no response to waking up from the coma, then we might let the person die too.

But not when we know that they will recover. The fetus will develop into a sentient human child, so they are like a coma patient that, although brain dead at the moment, will recover. It's just a metaphor.

Sad thing is we have no way of telling when someones in a coma if he/she will recover, unless of course they show a sign of life, then of course we wouldn't kill them. But I don't quite consider a fetus a 'coma patient' because they haven't developed yet; they could still die when inside the mother.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/18/03 07:30 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Sad thing is we have no way of telling when someones in a coma if he/she will recover, unless of course they show a sign of life, then of course we wouldn't kill them.

Yes, but let's argue the topic, not the metaphor.

But I don't quite consider a fetus a 'coma patient' because they haven't developed yet; they could still die when inside the mother.

And you could be killed by a meteor while walking outside. Anything could happen, but shouldn't they be givern the benefit of the doubt. Most fetuses don't die and the infant mortality rate is very low.