Jane Roe to ask Supremes to vacate Roe v. Wade

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is interesting in that the original Roe v. Wade implied that the US system ought to be like that outlined here by Spiffor as now prevailing in Europe. Because of later court decisions, abortion in the US has gone way beyond Roe v. Wade and the European laws.

WHAT?!

Ned, have you even read Roe? Due to the trimester framework, the second trimester was also basically off limits to abortion bans. The state could only impose small restrictions, but nothing close to a ban in that period. It was only in the 3rd trimester that the state had a compelling interest in fetus life. Later decisions have done little to affect that. In fact, one can definetly argue that Roe has been curtailed by cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which allows small state restrictions from the point of conception).

Late term abortion laws have been struck down because they do not have a provision allowing abortion to protect the health of the mother AND what they ban is very vague and the procedure (D&X) also is done before viability. BOTH in contrast to Roe.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: A PERSPECTIVE

Originally posted by beingofone
I am talking about emotional health. Do you think it is natural for a mother to kill her offspring?

Funny that I already addressed the emotional health aspect. The only thing I see here is a blatant emotional appeal.

Plenty of women suffer psychological trauma from childbirth. Post-partum depression, anyone? That's why I mentioned Andrea Yates.

I notice you just choose to ignore what I said. That is why we should do away with childbirth.

That's not relevant to what I said. I'm not arguing that childbirth is somehow in need of banning. I'm advocating choice--so a woman can choose to undergo childbirth, or not. The risks are hers to weigh and to take. My entire point is that just because a procedure--be it childbirth or abortion--has risks and consequences does NOT prove it is a procedure in need of banning.

Oh of course not - it is perfectly OK to kill are unborn children. It is in our best interest.

Emotional appeal. Certainly in instances it is in the best interest to perform an abortion. Unless you think women with medical complications should be forced to carry a baby to term even if it means killing them. You don't advocate that now, do you?

You fail to acknowledge the fact that the abortions are what crippled her.

And how do you know that not having abortions wouldn't have been as bad for her? Or not specifically her, for some other woman?

Your using anecdotal evidence, which is pretty worthless in an argument such as this. Hence why I mentioned comparing the actual statistical numbers of women suffering ill effects from childbirth to those from abortions.

Yes I was going to take full responsibilty for the children.
And me being a father actually having the audacity to think I have a say in the matter.

You had every right to voice your opinion. But I see no reason why you should have any legal veto power over the woman, who is the one who has to actually bear the children. You've again utterly failed to provide any rationale for your having some sort of right to force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy.

Just curious, but how is it this woman (or is it just one?) came to have two abortions?

Like I said we sould do away with childbirth to protect the rights of all women against the tyranny of the fetus and the inherent danger of keeping our species in existence

I don't have any idea what the point of this statement is. I don't think our species is in any danger of extinction any time soon, and certainly not because of people having abortions. What a laughably absurd implication! And yet another emotional appeal to boot.

Do you people actually believe I have not considered this and adoption? I experienced this.

Considering something and actually doing it are two very different things. You haven't seen fit to elaborate any. If you tried to adopt and were denied, I'd be curious as to why.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I'd hit it.

There is no way to refer to the Supreme Court without Ted Striker being able to make a joke on it.

SCROTUM

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Originally posted by beingofone
You cannot see your own circular reasoning.

I don't understand how the following statement "it would have been OK if my mother had aborted me" is circular reasoning. Please explain.

If you grew and your life became valuable because of your growth, then your life has no value today because you will grow in some way tomorrow.

At what point did your life become valuable? Yesterday or the day before?

When I developed a survival instinct, i.e. an active willingness to save my life, that comes along a nervous system. At about 3-4 monthes in the womb.

Do you remember when you devoloped this survival instinct so that you knew your life had value? And how do you know your life has value right now?

Be aware that it is a common debating practice here, for people only to respond to the particular topics that interest them. Boris answered to your anguish at not having children, I responded on the "meaning of life" aspect of your post, etc. Such behavious is something to be expected on this forum, where people came for entertainment and not for work. As far as I know, only Berzerker can sustain a debate where he adresses each and every line of text written by the others. And trust me, it grows tiring very quickly

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

However, here are my answers to your arguments in your "A Perspective" post.

So, let's see, your arguments in general are:

1. How can we decide what is human and what is not?
2. The argument that the mother should decide, because the fetus is a parasite of her body, is moot.
3. The meaing of an individual's life
4. Men should have a choice too.
5. The danger of abortion to the mother.
6. "This world has made the most precious of all gifts, LIFE cheap and disposable."

Please tell me if I missed anything.

Wrt 1: The only way we can decide precisely what is human and what is not, is to have a collective agreement of what humanity entails. Science offers such an agreeable measure, with the barrier of species: a human can reproduce with another human to make a reproducible individual. Law offers another definition: a human has rights once it's born. Tradition offers yet another definition: in many traditional socieities, a human had no rights until well after birth, and infanticide was common.

I see - so if someone else decides you are subhuman - such as the collective agreement about Jews in in Germany 1936 or the worlds view of Africans in the 1700`s. You should just check out because the majority decides that would be the best thing for everyone.
After all you are not really a human so no loss.

The law's job is to offer rules that improve society while caring for individual rights. The law should thus have in mind the social implications of abortion, and not some sense of morals or another.
To put it simply, an abortion ban favors the appearance of back-alley abortionists whose practices are very dangerous to the health of the mother, it also favors the emergence of a population of unwanted children who won't have a caring or stable environment to grow up in. It'll wreck their lives, as much as their environment's. The law shouldn't favor such an obvious cause of criminal or deviant behaviours, as well as utter misery. It would be against individual rights to forbid people to have children, or to force them to have abortions. However, it is completely consistent with individual rights to offer the choice to do it.

The law differs from country to country when it comes to abortion. The US allows abortion on-demand until birth. Most European countries allow abortion on-demand until the third or fourth month. Many countries ban abortion outright. These different definitions come in part from the delicate balance between thhuman rights of the unborn child, and the social implications of unwanted birth.

Please tell me who chooses what is moral for you? Do you leave that decision in the hands of someone else?Do you let the courts or the majority decide what is a moral obligation for you?

2. I agree the argument is bunk.

3. This is the point I adressed

thank you for your honesty

4. I agree men should have a choice. I consider that both should be able to decide whether there will be an abortion. If one adamantly wants the child, however, there should be a legal arrangement for the child to be born and to be taken care of exclusively by the willing parent. If the willing parent is the father, he should compensate all ill side effects that come with the pregnancy (delayed studies, missed career opportunities, plus of course the stress of undergoing an unwanted and painful period of life)

Again thanks

5. Abortions can be dangerous to the woman's mental health, and repeated abortions can have ill side-effects on a woman's reproducive ability. True. But these side effects are dwarfed by the ills that can happen with an unwanted pregnancy. Your argument is bunk, as it is akin to banning all medicine because of its occasional side effects.

Cutting off an ingrown toenail and aborting what would have been a child is not in the same stadium. Unless of course you just choose to be in denial of the reality of life.

6. Life has always been cheap and disposable. Even if you focus on human life, it has always known mass slaughters during wars, and it has always known infanticide. Not to mention death penalty, making labourers work to death, etc.
Abortion brings absolutely nothing new in that regard.

So two wrongs make a right?

Urban Ranger

No system in nature has a single point of mode change. Even electronic systems have delays and margins of error. What makes you think that biological systems behave differently?

Soy change is the key issue? At what change did you aquire meaning and humanity?

Boris Godunov

Funny that I already addressed the emotional health aspect. The only thing I see here is a blatant emotional appeal.

If someone wanted to end your life - I wonder if we would not hear a "blatant emotional appeal".

Plenty of women suffer psychological trauma from childbirth. Post-partum depression, anyone? That's why I mentioned Andrea Yates.

Yes there is proof that childbirth depression has induced trauma to women and men for thousands of years.
That is why we must stop it and stop it now.

That's not relevant to what I said. I'm not arguing that childbirth is somehow in need of banning. I'm advocating choice--so a woman can choose to undergo childbirth, or not. The risks are hers to weigh and to take. My entire point is that just because a procedure--be it childbirth or abortion--has risks and consequences does NOT prove it is a procedure in need of banning.

Just because nazi experiments with Jews were "risky" doesn`t mean we did not gain, as a whole, major modern medical breakthroughs.

Emotional appeal. Certainly in instances it is in the best interest to perform an abortion. Unless you think women with medical complications should be forced to carry a baby to term even if it means killing them. You don't advocate that now, do you?

Just because I have emotion does not make me less intelligent or less human. In fact it makes me more, because I do not live in the denial that I experience emotion.
In certain cases I believe abortion should be allowed. I do not believe it is an alternative birth control method.

And how do you know that not having abortions wouldn't have been as bad for her? Or not specifically her, for some other woman?

Because ah um I knew her and you did not.
Common sense rather then listening to propoganda.

Hence why I mentioned comparing the actual statistical numbers of women suffering ill effects from childbirth to those from abortions.

47.9 % of ALL STATISTICS - are made up right on the spot.

But I see no reason why you should have any legal veto power over the woman, who is the one who has to actually bear the children.

I see no reason why the mother if reasonably stressed out - should not have the right to end her childs life up to the age of say 15.

Considering something and actually doing it are two very different things. You haven't seen fit to elaborate any. If you tried to adopt and were denied, I'd be curious as to why.

Because it would take up 4 forum pages.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by beingofone
If you grew and your life became valuable because of your growth, then your life has no value today because you will grow in some way tomorrow.

I will probably value my life even more in 6 weeks, once I have given my uni paper (or feel like utter crap fi I can't make it in time), that's true But other than those really marginal modifications to my feeling of self-worth, I have valued my life pretty much evenly since I developed a survival instinct.

Do you remember when you devoloped this survival instinct so that you knew your life had value?

I don't remember. I am drawing conclusions.

And how do you know your life has value right now?

Very simply: I value it to the point that I don't wish to die. My life is worth something to me = my life has value.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

You're welcome Sometimes this place can look a bit outlandish.

I see - so if someone else decides you are subhuman - such as the collective agreement about Jews in in Germany 1936 or the worlds view of Africans in the 1700`s. You should just check out because the majority decides that would be the best thing for everyone.
After all you are not really a human so no loss.

If the majority or the powerful decide that I'm not human, I'll probably stand up for my rights. But that implies that I have the ability to value my humanity. A 7-week-old certainly cannot.

Please tell me who chooses what is moral for you? Do you leave that decision in the hands of someone else?Do you let the courts or the majority decide what is a moral obligation for you?

They decide what are my obligations. Do you like to pay taxes? Do you like the idea of the draft? Do you like a ban on guns (something most countries enforce) ? There are plenty of bans and obligations that are the standard fare of States, even democratic ones.

Forunately, abortion isn't one of those. Nobody forces you to have an abortion. Abortion, however, is here to prevent you from being forced (by somebody else or by an accident) to give birth. Abortion is about choice and not about coercion.

thank you for your honesty

Again thanks

You're welcome But you know, it wasn't really an effort for me, it's not like I admitted some ideologically-impure crime
I think I have a much less extreme POV than moost Americans, but this comes from the big difference in the American and European debates about abortion. In the US, both sides are extremely polarized, and both defend positions that are flabbergasting to the average European: the anti-abortion ones oppose abortion from the day of conception, when the embryo is nothing more than a lump of chair devoid of any ability to feel on its own... And the pro-abortionists justify abortion on demand until right before birth, when the unborn child is exactly like a baby (except that it doesn't scream yet). Stefu, one of our Finns, calls this position "utterly ghoulish", and pretty much every Euro here will agree with that.

Cutting off an ingrown toenail and aborting what would have been a child is not in the same stadium.

It depends how you look at it. If you look at it as "what would have becomne a child", of course it's different, because you grant more value to that particular lump of flesh (I'm talking about embrioes here, not fetuses) than to the other particular lump of flesh that is your toe.
However, if you see it as "a lump of flesh I should remove before it is actually a human person to whom I can only offer a life of sorrow", then abortion warrants more than indifference, it warrants relief.
And of course, you have some people who don't think either way, and who are as indifferent of their embryo as they are of their toenail.

Unless of course you just choose to be in denial of the reality of life.

The reality of life is that we are fantastically complex chemical processes. We are so complex that we even defend our own existance. Embryos don't. Embryos are far less complex than a born child, and far less complex than fetuses. They don't defend their life any more than a lump of your skin. Actually, before developing feelings on their own, they are a completely dependent part of the mother's body as much as a lump of skin.
When the fetus develops feelings on its own (feeling of pain, especially), that flesh stops to become exclusively the flesh of the mother, and begins to be the flesh of the child.

So two wrongs make a right?

Nope, but I was adressing the point that abortion brings something new, that things were better before abortion. They weren't.

[Berzerker]

As far as I know, only Berzerker can sustain a debate where he adresses each and every line of text written by the others. And trust me, it grows tiring very quickly

Sorry, but why do people post stuff they don't want discussed? And I don't address every line, just most of the points being made.

[Berzerker]

I just looked at Spiffor's last post

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by beingofone
Soy change is the key issue? At what change did you aquire meaning and humanity?

Simple. As soon as some organism displays sentience.

[Berzerker]

thats never for some people

[David Floyd]

The rest of y'all are doing a great job debating against the anti-abortion crowd, so I'll lay off - I mainly like debating BK anyway, and he seems to have left.

However,

As soon as the great drs of our time find a way to remove a fetus and implant it into the man I still say he has no choice in the matter. Lets get real if population of the earth depended on men giving birth our species would die off real quick.

Fine, Mrs. Tuberski. In that case, women who insist on keeping a child, even when the father is against it, should not be automatically entitled to child support.

You see, that issue right there is what makes it unfair for men to have no input - there is a usually automatic and severe economic burden involved.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The rest of y'all are doing a great job debating against the anti-abortion crowd, so I'll lay off - I mainly like debating BK anyway, and he seems to have left.

However,



Fine, Mrs. Tuberski. In that case, women who insist on keeping a child, even when the father is against it, should not be automatically entitled to child support.

You see, that issue right there is what makes it unfair for men to have no input - there is a usually automatic and severe economic burden involved.

You are barking up the wrong tree, I think she would agree with you there.

However, I'm not going to wake her up to find out.

ACK!

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Simple. As soon as some organism displays sentience.

"Sentience" is clearly a bull**** term invented by abortion people to lend legitimacy to their extremist views.

Anti-abortion people make bull**** appeals to emotion to lend legitimacy to their extremist views.

Clearly abortion "debates" suck.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Simple. As soon as some organism displays sentience.

Sweet! When can we start killing 3 year olds?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sweet! When can we start killing 3 year olds?

When you can convince enough people to let you.

[DinoDoc]

Then can we please stop talking about sentience as if it is some sort of hard and fast rule and it doesn't automatically allow for the situation I describe.