Jane Roe to ask Supremes to vacate Roe v. Wade

[David Floyd]

I'm gonna answer your points, but I'm not gonna get into a serious debate about abortion. That's not what the thread is about. You seem to think that new Constitutional issues have arisen, and we're all curious as to what you think those might be.

Now then.

Sure. After all, the mother's right to life is more important than her husband's right to privacy.

Give me an example.

Suppose I had the freedom to speak. If someone denies me that right through censorship, do I now have the right to kill that person? No. There are steps to regain the loss of individual liberties that do not entail killing others.

Absolutely - in civilized society there are accepted ways of redressing a violation of rights without taking drastic steps. However, if the government clamps down with censorship, for example, and basically removes the 1st Amendment, and the Judicial Branch will do nothing about it, then hell yes it is acceptable to take any measures necessary to regain our liberty. It's basic self-defense.

First of all, if you consent to the procedure, than why should you be allowed to change your mind later when changing your mind will result in the death of the other person? That's not right. This is why JJT's argument is just slightly different than yours.

As I recall, JTT's scenario had to do with a famous musician or somesuch, right?

Anyway, the reason I should be allowed to change my mind regarding the use of my body is simple - it's my body. Now, if you want to get deeper into the issue, and suggest that I sign a contract allowing my body to be used for a certain amount of time, yada yada yada, then yes, you do have a bit of a point. However, don't forget that "unconscionable contracts" are unenforceable, as are illegal contracts, and I suspect any written contract obligating me to hook my body up to a machine for any amount of time with no escape clause would be considered either illegal or unconscionable.

Furthermore, the point of contracts is irrelevant, unless you want to take the position that a mother is capable of entering into a legal contract with a fetus. An adult can't even enter into a contract with a 5 year old, legally speaking, whether written or implicit (so don't try the "implicit contract" escape route), so why should an adult be able to enter into one with a fetus in the womb?

How is the person violating your body? You have allowed him to be hooked up to you in the first place. He can no more violate your body, than you can violate yourself. He has a claim to your body because you consented to having him hooked up to you.

That doesn't give him a claim to your body - you aren't giving ownership of your body over to him, or anything of the sort. You were gracious enough to allow your body to be used to prolong his life, when otherwise he would have died immediately. He had no claim on your body, and his right to life didn't create an obligation on your part, either. You have no more of an obligation to continue your "life support" than you had to give it in the first place.

Do you agree with child support? Same thing. You are forcing fathers to provide for their unwanted children.

Not really relevant, but as things stand now, I believe that the justice system is skewed very heavily against the father in these types of cases.

Great! What do you make of Dr. Janet Daling?

I think that in spite of evidence that suggests abortion may have long term consequences for the mother, the snippet still states that Dr. Daling is pro-choice.

I also think that this has no relevance on the Constitutional question.

If you believe that abortion empowers women, then it is quite a blow to see the shocking treatment that Norma has received from the prochoice side.

That "empowerment" crap sounds like new age, left wing bull****. I don't care about "empowerment", I care about rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

Give me an example.

Spousal support is the most obvious one. The husband cannot leave his wife in the cold, without any visible means of support for herself.

Absolutely - in civilized society there are accepted ways of redressing a violation of rights without taking drastic steps. However, if the government clamps down with censorship, for example, and basically removes the 1st Amendment, and the Judicial Branch will do nothing about it, then hell yes it is acceptable to take any measures necessary to regain our liberty. It's basic self-defense.

Now, does this situation pertain to what we are discussing here? Look at it from the other side. Suppose you are an unborn child. You have no rights whatsoever. You could be killed at any moment inside the womb, for whatever reason the mother desires. Now, does this mean the unborn child would be justified in taking the life of the abortion doctors who seek to kill her?

What about the people who oppose abortion? Would they be justified in killing those who perform abortions for the same reason? Could they not say that because the courts are unwilling to protect these children, that they must step in?

Be very careful Floyd, with justifying violent action to obtain civil rights.

As I recall, JTT's scenario had to do with a famous musician or somesuch, right?

Concert violinist. She says that the woman does not consent to having the violinist hooked up to her, a very crucial difference between your case and hers. I'm just wondering whether you are familiar and trying to redirect discussion along different lines, or whether you have something else in mind.

Anyway, the reason I should be allowed to change my mind regarding the use of my body is simple - it's my body.

No it isn't. As soon as your body is hooked to his, your body is not your own any more, you share your body with another.

Why should you have any more rights over what happens to your body than the musician hooked up to you? Consider this, why should the musician, after you consented to the operation, be forced to die because you have changed your mind?

The only way I can see this working is to figure out a way to save the life of the musician, so that he does not die. Otherwise, you are not justified in changing your mind, because to do so will result in the death of another person.

However, don't forget that "unconscionable contracts" are unenforceable, as are illegal contracts, and I suspect any written contract obligating me to hook my body up to a machine for any amount of time with no escape clause would be considered either illegal or unconscionable.

As would the removal of the other person without his consent. After all, he has just as much right over his body, as he does to yours, and your actions directly affect his. You cannot, through appeal to bodily autonomy, override the autonomy of another.

An adult can't even enter into a contract with a 5 year old, legally speaking, whether written or implicit (so don't try the "implicit contract" escape route), so why should an adult be able to enter into one with a fetus in the womb?

Interesting question. Do we hold adults accountable for their actions to children in the absence of a contract? Sure we do. If a parent is found negligent, he or she will be charged even though there is no contract made between the parents and their children.

In short parental responsibilities to their children are not contractual, and for a good reason. Children should not be responsible for their own welfare.

The same principle applies to children in the womb. The relationship between a mother and her child, cannot be contractually terminated, because there is no contract signed by either party. Rather, the mother has a duty to care for her daughter, regardless of her wishes, that she cannot decline.

After all, look at child support. Even if a father has an unwanted child, he cannot decline his support. Why then should the mother be permitted to do the same through an abortion?

That doesn't give him a claim to your body - you aren't giving ownership of your body over to him, or anything of the sort. You were gracious enough to allow your body to be used to prolong his life, when otherwise he would have died immediately.

You have consented to have him be connected to you. To sever the connection, resulting in his death, will require his consent to, since he would be able to provide such consent.

You have no claim over his body, to force him to consent to the removal of his body from you.

Siamese twins must have mutual consent to be separated. The same applies in this case, regardless of the initial conditions.

You have no more of an obligation to continue your "life support" than you had to give it in the first place.

Granted, you cannot be required to save the life of this fellow, by hooking him up to your body. However, as soon as you give your consent, then you have a much greater obligation to that person than you would otherwise.

I think that in spite of evidence that suggests abortion may have long term consequences for the mother, the snippet still states that Dr. Daling is pro-choice.

Which is the case in point. Not all the medical evidence is put forth by Christians. Some of these folks are respected researchers in their field, if you can possibly believe that.

I also think that this has no relevance on the Constitutional question.

Sure it does. It pertains to the question of whether there are any new constitutional issues that have arisen since 1972. Such compelling, and conclusive evidence plays a huge part in reversing the rationales behind Roe. One of the underpinnings of Roe, is the assertion that childbirth is more dangerous to the woman than an abortion. If there is evidence that suggests the contrary, than much of the reasoning by the justices needs to be revised.

That "empowerment" crap sounds like new age, left wing bull****. I don't care about "empowerment", I care about rights.

Well, most of those who favour rights over empowerment are prolife.

[David Floyd]

Spousal support is the most obvious one. The husband cannot leave his wife in the cold, without any visible means of support for herself.

But only because a contract between consenting adults is involved, and the contract has mutually agreed upon escape clauses.

If you let your girlfriend move in, for example, because she has nowhere else to go, then a week later you can break up with her a kick her out.

Suppose you are an unborn child. You have no rights whatsoever. You could be killed at any moment inside the womb, for whatever reason the mother desires. Now, does this mean the unborn child would be justified in taking the life of the abortion doctors who seek to kill her?

As an "unborn child", I don't even know what the hell we're talking about. Even as a 3 year old, I have no concept of death - you are projecting adult ideas and reactions onto a being that has no capacity for those ideas and reactions.

Furthermore, even granting your ridiculous analogy for a second, that would be like allowing the terminally ill patient to kill me for deciding I no longer wanted to support him (and I'll get to that in a second).

What about the people who oppose abortion? Would they be justified in killing those who perform abortions for the same reason? Could they not say that because the courts are unwilling to protect these children, that they must step in?

I'll give that argument a little more credibility when the medical community has a whole takes the pro-life position. Until that happens, we're arguing apples and oranges and you know it.

Be very careful Floyd, with justifying violent action to obtain civil rights.

I'm justifying violent action to obtain freedom, when absolutely necessary. I can't "obtain rights", rights, as you've already implicitly agreed, are natural.

I'm just wondering whether you are familiar and trying to redirect discussion along different lines,

Not really, although that scenario did occur to me when I was posting.

No it isn't. As soon as your body is hooked to his, your body is not your own any more, you share your body with another.

I think you misunderstand. My body isn't somehow fused to his, like Siamese twins. Let me change the example a little bit to make it clearer. Let's say I am the only person capable of donating blood to someone who needs it, and he will die without it. We've both agreed I have no initial obligation to do so, and thus, we've both agreed that someone else's right to life can't override my rights, and in that sense, if there is a hierarchy of rights, then life isn't at the top. Let's say that I agree to donate blood, but after a few such donations, I decide that giving blood makes me feel faint, and just ruins my whole day, and I want to stop.

It is in no way a violation of the sick person's rights for me to do so, whereas forcing me to continue to donate blood is a violation of my rights.

Is that a little more clear? The main point is that I cannot be forced to use my body to provide support for another, EVEN IF I agreed to do so at some prior point. My initial agreement didn't lock me into an indefinite commitment by any means.

Consider this answer to answer all of your points about the subject, I think I covered it all.

Interesting question. Do we hold adults accountable for their actions to children in the absence of a contract? Sure we do. If a parent is found negligent, he or she will be charged even though there is no contract made between the parents and their children.

In short parental responsibilities to their children are not contractual, and for a good reason. Children should not be responsible for their own welfare.

The same principle applies to children in the womb. The relationship between a mother and her child, cannot be contractually terminated, because there is no contract signed by either party. Rather, the mother has a duty to care for her daughter, regardless of her wishes, that she cannot decline.

That's an argument that relies on a medical judgement which neither you nor I are qualified to make. As such, I'll fall back on the medical judgement of the vast majority of physicians. Yes, I'm making an appeal to authority, but at the same time, in order to discuss the issue intelligently, you have to do the same thing.

All I was doing in my argument about contracts was comparing the use of one's body for a dying adult with the use of one's body for a fetus. I think I adequately demonstrated that no contract, implicit or otherwise, can force me to keep using my body to support a dying adult. I was basically dealing with an argument I commonly hear, which is that by having sex/getting pregnant, women enter into a voluntary implied contract with the fetus. That's false, and impossible.

If you want to bring up the issue of parental obligations, that may be SOMEWHAT different, but you ignore another aspect of the discussion - a parent can't be compelled to donate their body, or any part of it, to save the life of a dependant. There are some limits to parental obligations.

Which is the case in point. Not all the medical evidence is put forth by Christians. Some of these folks are respected researchers in their field, if you can possibly believe that.

I do believe that, yet I don't see how your position is furthered by Dr. Daling - she remains pro-choice, regardless of the possible danger of abortions, which indicates to me that she feels that adults should be recognized as competent to take risks.

One of the underpinnings of Roe, is the assertion that childbirth is more dangerous to the woman than an abortion. If there is evidence that suggests the contrary, than much of the reasoning by the justices needs to be revised.

Childbirth still CAN be more dangerous to the mother than abortion. You also ignore the point that Roe was focusing on short term dangers, while Dr. Daling's study is focusing on long term dangers. Those are completely different things, and don't necessarily have to be balanced by the Courts. That is what our own judgement is for. At best, I can see the Court requiring abortion providers to also provide information about the risks of abortion, but I can't see SCOTUS striking down Roe based solely on Dr. Daling's study about long term risks.

Well, most of those who favour rights over empowerment are prolife.

Obviously not all.

[Ben Kenobi]

But only because a contract between consenting adults is involved, and the contract has mutually agreed upon escape clauses.

If you let your girlfriend move in, for example, because she has nowhere else to go, then a week later you can break up with her a kick her out.

Suppose we believed that individual privacy superceded the right to life. Would we also not say that a man had every right to leave his wife, without any visible means of support?

As an "unborn child", I don't even know what the hell we're talking about. Even as a 3 year old, I have no concept of death - you are projecting adult ideas and reactions onto a being that has no capacity for those ideas and reactions.

Furthermore, even granting your ridiculous analogy for a second, that would be like allowing the terminally ill patient to kill me for deciding I no longer wanted to support him (and I'll get to that in a second).

What support does an abortion doctor provide to the unborn child?

You are dodging the point. Just because the analogy seems 'unreasonable' and 'ridiculous' is a piss poor reason to reject the argument outright. You have nothing in your bag, so admit that and move on.

I'll give that argument a little more credibility when the medical community has a whole takes the pro-life position. Until that happens, we're arguing apples and oranges and you know it.

Is that all you have to say to my point? Why would the medical profession take that position as a whole? Are there not doctors who make a good living off of killing these children?

I'm justifying violent action to obtain freedom, when absolutely necessary. I can't "obtain rights", rights, as you've already implicitly agreed, are natural.

I am feeding you Kopp's argument, to justify killing an abortion doctor to obtain societal recognition for natural rights. Both of you agree on the necessity of violence to gain these ends.

I think you misunderstand. My body isn't somehow fused to his, like Siamese twins. Let me change the example a little bit to make it clearer.

Uh, the analogy is spot on.

Let's say I am the only person capable of donating blood to someone who needs it, and he will die without it. We've both agreed I have no initial obligation to do so, and thus, we've both agreed that someone else's right to life can't override my rights, and in that sense, if there is a hierarchy of rights, then life isn't at the top.

Finally! A damn good point. Yes, you are very observant to pick up that point, that I cannot be forced to give my life to another person in order to save the life of another. I cannot be forced to dive into a river and risk my life to save another person. The same is true of kidney transplant.

This case is analogous to the situation where a mother's life is in danger during a pregnancy. She cannot be required to risk her life, in attempting to give birth to her child. She may choose to do so, but she cannot be required to risk her life for another.

This is not a rejection of a heirarchy of rights with the right to life at the top, but rather, a result of the interaction between competing rights of the same level. The right to life cannot demand that a mother sacrifice her own life for her daughter.

Let's say that I agree to donate blood, but after a few such donations, I decide that giving blood makes me feel faint, and just ruins my whole day, and I want to stop.

It is in no way a violation of the sick person's rights for me to do so, whereas forcing me to continue to donate blood is a violation of my rights.

Actually, I would say that since pumping blood does not pose a risk to your life, that you have an obligation to donate blood to this person, if you have the same blood type as that person.

To start the process, and refuse, because 'it ruins your day', is just lame.

Is that a little more clear? The main point is that I cannot be forced to use my body to provide support for another, EVEN IF I agreed to do so at some prior point. My initial agreement didn't lock me into an indefinite commitment by any means.

Consider this answer to answer all of your points about the subject, I think I covered it all.

Good argument, lame analogy though. I can think of better ones to use, for your side.

That's an argument that relies on a medical judgement which neither you nor I are qualified to make. As such, I'll fall back on the medical judgement of the vast majority of physicians. Yes, I'm making an appeal to authority, but at the same time, in order to discuss the issue intelligently, you have to do the same thing.

Um, no it doesn't. Where is there any reliance upon medical judgement? I'm talking about children and the fact that parental responsibility cannot be contractual.

All I was doing in my argument about contracts was comparing the use of one's body for a dying adult with the use of one's body for a fetus. I think I adequately demonstrated that no contract, implicit or otherwise, force me to keep using my body to support a dying adult.

Now, you were talking earlier about apples and oranges. Could I not fire back by saying there is a big difference between a healthy unborn child and a dying adult? Could not this difference lead to a different conclusion in our obligation to another person?

as basically dealing with an argument I commonly hear, which is that by having sex/getting pregnant, women enter into a voluntary implied contract with the fetus. That's false, and impossible.

Why not? One of the potential outcomes of sex is pregnancy. We go back, once again, to child support. If a father, uses a condom, and still gets his girlfriend pregnant, he will still be responsible for that child, even though by using a condom, he has shown that he did not want that child. Why should this man be forced to support his child, while the mother should be able to choose not to support her child?

If you want to bring up the issue of parental obligations, that may be SOMEWHAT different, but you ignore another aspect of the discussion - a parent can't be compelled to donate their body, or any part of it, save the life a dependant. There are some limits to parental obligations.

True. However, is it right to say that pregnancy is 'saving the life' of the child? I would argue no. It is the normal condition for children of that age in their life.

I do believe that, yet I don't see how your position is furthered by Dr. Daling - she remains pro-choice, regardless of the possible danger of abortions, which indicates to me that she feels that adults should be recognized as competent to take risks.

But it refutes your earlier assertion that abortions do not harm women. Now, Dr. Daling may be comfortable with abortions, even though they are very dangerous to women, but I will not speculate, as you do, as to her reasons for the position she takes. I don't know why she believes what she does.

Childbirth still CAN be more dangerous to the mother than abortion. You also ignore the point that Roe was focusing on short term dangers, while Dr. Daling's study is focusing on long term dangers. Those are completely different things, and don't necessarily have to be balanced by the Courts. That is what our own judgement is for. At best, I can see the Court requiring abortion providers to also provide information about the risks of abortion, but I can't see SCOTUS striking down Roe based solely on Dr. Daling's study about long term risks.

True. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. There is an avalanche of sequelae, some short-term, some long-term associated with abortion.

However, you may also be interested in a deeper look into how the SCOTUS came to that conclusion in the first place, and how their numbers were based on flawed statistical analysis of the relative risks.

Of course, if you are after truth, and justice, that alone would be reason to review Roe, but that's not what we are about here.

Let's be honest. No amount of studies showing the dangers of abortions will convince those who are ideologically convicted into the necessity of abortions to civilised society. This includes the members of SCOTUS who passed Roe vs Wade. It doesn't matter how many changes they make, so long as they get the number that they are looking for, that abortions are to be legal, throughout pregancy, and for any reason a woman wants one.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


... and for any reason a woman wants one.

"Oh, doctor, I'd like to have an abortion."

"Really? And what are your reasons?"


"Well, I'm having a bad hair day, there's a ladder in my stocking, and I've missed the last episode of 'The Young and the Dumb.' "

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Seems to me that this so-called "new information" doesn't really change the Constitutional issues.

Bingo. This is an utter non-issue.

And the fact of the matter is that the ruling was NOT made for her benefit. By the time the case came to the Supreme Court, she was forced to have her child, but the Supreme Court said the issue was so important to other pregnant women's rights (NO ONE could go through all the appeals up to the Supreme Court in 9 months), that they'd decide the issue based on that.

Doc, IIRC, she wanted to have an abortion and Texas did not allow it. She had the kid, btw, before the court issued the ruling.

So how is she going to void the suit? Is she giving the kid back? Did she get a monetary reward? Will she get it back?

[David Floyd]

Suppose we believed that individual privacy superceded the right to life. Would we also not say that a man had every right to leave his wife, without any visible means of support?

Why suppose that at all? I don't suppose that any right supercedes any other right - I've already stated I don't believe in a hierarchy of rights, and as such I won't have hypothetical discussions about such hierarchies.

You are dodging the point. Just because the analogy seems 'unreasonable' and 'ridiculous' is a piss poor reason to reject the argument outright. You have nothing in your bag, so admit that and move on.

I'm not dodging the point at all. For your hypothetical uber-fetus to have an accepted right to kill the abortion doctor to prevent an abortion, you first have to convince me that a)the fetus has rights, and b)the fetus has an inviolable claim on the mother's body. You've thus far failed to convince me of either.

Is that all you have to say to my point? Why would the medical profession take that position as a whole? Are there not doctors who make a good living off of killing these children?

Now you're trying to change the debate by stroking my emotions. Forget it - let's just assume that my precious gives a **** is broken and move on.

To answer your point, such as it is, doctors have an obligation called the Hippocratic Oath, which the vast majority take seriously. Rather than assume they don't take it seriously because they perform abortions, I'm going to assume that abortions don't violate the Oath, which is the position most doctors would take. I'm further going to assume that in the face of valid medical evidence, MOST doctors would be willing to change their position.

I am feeding you Kopp's argument, to justify killing an abortion doctor to obtain societal recognition for natural rights. Both of you agree on the necessity of violence to gain these ends.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that violence was necessary in order to retain/regain freedom, only that it was POTENTIALLY necessary. Furthermore, you still haven't proved that a fetus has rights, nor have you proved that a fetus (actually, I liked my term "uber-fetus", it sorta captures what you seem to think a fetus is) has an inviolable claim on the mother's body. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you in this case.

Uh, the analogy is spot on.

Saying that conjoined Siamese twins is the same as allowing a terminally ill patient access to my body in order to survive is not a spot on analogy.

Finally! A damn good point. Yes, you are very observant to pick up that point, that I cannot be forced to give my life to another person in order to save the life of another.

Good God! That wasn't the point at all! You've obviously got debating experience, because you keep trying to either slip words into my mouth or subtly change my points, and pretending that's what I actually said.

The original argument I made, and that you agreed to, was that I have no initial obligation to use my body to help someone else survive. I said nothing about dying in the process - if that was the end result, why all this talk about subsequently withdrawing aid? No, my point was that because I have no obligation to use my body to help someone else survive, then the right to life can't be at the top of any proposed hierarchy of rights. For life to be at the top, then I WOULD have an obligation to use my body in any way I could to help someone survive, unless it resulted in my death.

You seemed to agree with me before, are you gonna go back on it now? Either life is at the top of the hierarchy of rights, in which case "bodily autonomy", as you put it, is fairly meaningless, or it isn't, in which case either something else is at the top, or there is no natural hierarchy, only artificial ones. In either of the latter cases, though, a lot of your arguments against abortion evaporate. You see the position you're in, when you get into discussing a hierarchy of rights?

This case is analogous to the situation where a mother's life is in danger during a pregnancy. She cannot be required to risk her life, in attempting to give birth to her child. She may choose to do so, but she cannot be required to risk her life for another.

Yet many pro-lifers, as well as the Catholic Church, would disagree with you.

This is not a rejection of a heirarchy of rights with the right to life at the top, but rather, a result of the interaction between competing rights of the same level. The right to life cannot demand that a mother sacrifice her own life for her daughter.

I agree (and I did notice the fact that you keep trying to make the fetus more than what it is in an emotional appeal, but I'm just ignoring it because I know from experience you won't stop), yet this wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that the mother has no obligation to donate blood to save her 2 year old daughter, so parental obligations have limits, and those limits stop at some point well before giving your life for your child.

Actually, I would say that since pumping blood does not pose a risk to your life, that you have an obligation to donate blood to this person, if you have the same blood type as that person.

So you believe that I don't have moral control over my own body? Morally speaking, it is acceptable for the government to mandate that everyone donate blood on a regular basis, for example? Maybe the government can tell me that I have to donate one of my kidney's, to save the life of someone else. What about that?

Hell, it doesn't even stop there - there's no fundamental difference between forcing me to donate a part of my body, such as an organ, and forcing me to donate a product of my body, such as my labor. That's slavery - but hey, if it helps people survive, then it's OK, right?

Again, these are the issues you get into when you want to say that there is a hierarchy of rights, with life at the top.

Good argument, lame analogy though.

That's rich, the person who came up with the concept of the "uber-fetus" that kills abortion doctors is accusing me of a lame analogy.

I'm talking about children and the fact that parental responsibility cannot be contractual.

Yes, but you are ignoring the limits of parental responsibility, which I have tried to point out.

Could I not fire back by saying there is a big difference between a healthy unborn child and a dying adult?

You could, but most people would take put the priority on the adult rather than the fetus. Come to think of it, most doctors would, too.

Could not this difference lead to a different conclusion in our obligation to another person?

That conclusion being that you don't think we have an obligation to provide as much care to a dying adult as we do to a fetus? Interesting argument.

If a father, uses a condom, and still gets his girlfriend pregnant, he will still be responsible for that child, even though by using a condom, he has shown that he did not want that child. Why should this man be forced to support his child, while the mother should be able to choose not to support her child?

Very good question. If the father doesn't want a child, and does everything in his power to prevent pregnancy, yet the mother obstinantly insists on having and keeping the baby, it seems to me that since she made a unilateral decision she should also have a unilateral responsibility.

True. However, is it right to say that pregnancy is 'saving the life' of the child? I would argue no. It is the normal condition for children of that age in their life.

OK, change the word "save" to "sustain". Different word, same concept.

But it refutes your earlier assertion that abortions do not harm women.

Actually I didn't assert that, I asserted that I was incompetent to make any such judgement. If Dr. Daling is competent to do so, good for her, but that still doesn't really change anything, ESPECIALLY in a court case about abortion rights.

Of course, if you are after truth, and justice, that alone would be reason to review Roe, but that's not what we are about here.

No amount of studies showing the dangers of abortions will convince those who are ideologically convicted into the necessity of abortions to civilised society.

Very true - no amount of studies showing the dangers of cigarettes will convince me that we should ban cigarettes, either.

[Ned]

It struck me that a direct attack on Roe v. Wade would be a "preferred" way to reverse that decision. If the Rule 60 motion is successful in persuading the justices that there is critical new evidence that bears on the original decision, they could re-decide the case without having to deal with prior precedent. Overruling prior precedent is rare. Very rare.

[Ned]

On the issue of a "right to privacy," that was not decided per se in Roe. That "right" was created in Griswold.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the Rule 60 motion is successful

It won't be. Rule 60 motions are meant to 'relieve a party' from a final judgment. It is meant to be used by those who lose a case, not those who win. It makes no sense to 'relieve a party' from a judgment that it won.

FURTHERMORE, a Rule 60 motion can only be made within a YEAR of the final decision if the Rule 60 motion is for new evidence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule60.htm

[Imran Siddiqui]

Furthermore, the 5th Circuit have already ruled that Roe's 60(b) motion is moot because the statutes she was contesting have been repealed after the SCOTUS decision. That's as far as it will go, because the case will never get cert.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If the Rule 60 motion is successful

It won't be. Rule 60 motions are meant to 'relieve a party' from a final judgment. It is meant to be used by those who lose a case, not those who win. It makes no sense to 'relieve a party' from a judgment that it won.

FURTHERMORE, a Rule 60 motion can only be made within a YEAR of the final decision if the Rule 60 motion is for new evidence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule60.htm

Thanks for the link. The court could easily dismiss this motion on the grounds that it might be untimely. You also make a good point about Jane being the "winner."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ned, there is also the fact that there aren't enough votes on the current SCOTUS to overturn Roe. Both O'Conner and Kennedy will not rule against it, even if they limit it.

And the Supremes may look down on attempts to try to reopen a case which was finally decided 30 years ago, no matter how they stand on this particular issue.

[Boris Godunov]

This rather reminds me of attempts to "refute" Darwinism by [false] claims that Darwin recanted about the theory on his deathbed. Even if it were true, it would be meaningless, as science rests on the merits of the evidence at hand, not the whims of the theorists.

Similarly, the constitutionality of a law stands or falls on the merits of the law, not the whims of the plaintiffs in the precedent-setting cases.

[Sava]

This dope needs to just go away. Abortions aren't going to be outlawed... stop making a fool out of yourself you media wh0re! (to Roe)

Ned...