Jane Roe to ask Supremes to vacate Roe v. Wade

[Ben Kenobi]

Bk, where are you???

I have a full-time job now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Prove it, with chapter, verse and examples.

Probably the best is Doe vs. Bolton:

The dissenting opinion from justice White in this decision.

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons - convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court for the most part sustains this position: During the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

Now, from the actual case:

We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

With this enormously broad interpretation of health, any pregnancy qualifies. After all, all pregnancies impose a emotional burden upon the mother, regardless of other circumstances.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thankfully, her days as a marionette were not over, as this thread clearly demonstrates, but obviously it's okay when she's being used as a puppet by people like yourself, eh?

We aren't asking her to go and try to overrule Roe.

BTW, you can read her testimony here: http://www.roenomore.org/normas_story/testimony.htm

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



With this enormously broad interpretation of health, any pregnancy qualifies. After all, all pregnancies impose a emotional burden upon the mother, regardless of other circumstances.

"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.' "

'In the US, this would be a valid enough reason (to have an abortion).'

Obi Gyn


'....the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.'


So, in other words, just the usual hyperbole.

Imagine my surprise.....

[Ben Kenobi]

Let them who have ears, let them hear.

[Ben Kenobi]

how bout the lousy sob forced me to have sex.

The MF left me pregnant and alone with no way to care for my self or this childand plans to have nothing to do with the child

or I was brutally gang raped wouldnt those be qualifing reasons

What do any of these have to do with the child? After all, you are saying that the child must die to pay for the damage done to you by someone else. By all means, pin down the rapist, arrest him, and slam him behind bars. But why kill an innocent bystander?

As for having no way to care for yourself or your children, would that be justification to kill a newborn?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let them who have ears, let them hear.

None so blind as those that will not see.


See?

We could swap disability related rejoinders for ages.

The decision in Doe- v. Bolton:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=179

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course there is danger and potential adverse effects from aborion--there are such risks with ANY medical procedure. There is a danger even from getting an ingrown toenail removed.

Ingrown toenail?

Let's delve into a tiny fraction of that sequelae I brushed aside earlier.

First you have the meta analysis published by Joel Brind of 23 separate studies-- in the October, 1996 Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. He concluded from all this evidence that there was a statistically significant 30% overall increased risk of breast cancer in women who had abortions.

You can find the abstract and the reference for the study here:

12 Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481–96.

http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/5/481?ijkey=2e981036d6527b39203d3156c91ceb867437a6fd&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Secondly, you have the increased risk of suicide from women after they have had an abortion. You are 6x more likely to die after an abortion, than after pregnancy.

This is the second large record based study to find elevated mortality rates among women following an abortion. In 1997, a government funded study of maternal deaths in Finland sent a tremor of worry through family planning agencies when it revealed that in the first year following an abortion, aborting women were 252 percent more likely to die compared to women who delivered and 76 percent more likely to die compared to women who had not been pregnant. Many of the extra deaths were due to suicide.

You can find the study here:

1. Gissler, M., et. al., "Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).

Plus the abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9292639&dopt=Abstract

How many women have died in childbirth as opposed to those who have died on abortion clinic tables? Need I mention Andrea Yates to demonstrate how giving birth can lead to psychological trauma?

How can we know how many die on the abortion tables when they do not publish such information in the US.

Go ahead, look for the numbers. You won't find them, because the abortion clinics are not required to keep track of the number of patients who die under their care. The reason for this is that when a patient has a complication, do you think she is going to go back to her abortion doctor? No. She goes to her regular physician, who may, or may not, be told of the prior abortion.

As for pregnancy, pregnancy is very safe, and is done well by qualified physicians.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks for the cite molly. I pulled mine from my files.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As for pregnancy, pregnancy is very safe, and is done well by qualified physicians.

Gosh.

I thought it was done by any fertile male and any fertile female.


And could result in ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia, post natal depression, high blood pressure, rejection of the foetus, spontaneous miscarriage....

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, and the complications are well documented, and the deaths due to pregnancy well addressed.

The same cannot be said about abortion. They are just starting to uncover this information.

After all, they've been doing deliveries for much longer than they have abortions. We don't really know half of the complications associated with abortion.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why not? That's the way it works for all other persons. We do not have the right to kill other people because they hinder our freedoms. In all other cases, we believe that individual liberties are less important than the right to life.

That's not true, it doesn't work that way for other people. Someone is not allowed to steal food (violating your right to property) in order to stop themselves from starving. Similarly, a foetus is not allowed to steal the mother's food to stop itself from starving. If the mother wants that food for herself, not for the person infesting her body, she's perfectly able, IMHO, to say she doesn't want it having those nutrients. You remove the mother's support, as you can with elderly relatives, where that relative's right to life does not override their carer's right to property. You do not have a right to life at the expense of others, similarly a foetus doesn't, unless you wish to grant a foetus rights that full grown humans don't have.

A hierarchy of rights, with right to life at the top, means anyone can steal to keep themselves alive. Which is still illegal.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, and the complications are well documented, and the deaths due to pregnancy well addressed.

The same cannot be said about abortion. They are just starting to uncover this information.

After all, they've been doing deliveries for much longer than they have abortions. We don't really know half of the complications associated with abortion.

An utterly pointless and fatuous comparison, given the inherent differences between getting pregnant, giving birth and helping someone to have an abortion.

Of course it also ignores the accumulation of centuries of medical knowledge and legal bars/religious proscription of abortion.

Perhaps we should address the differences between having a legal abortion in a clinical sterile environment and resorting to a knitting needle in a motel room.

[beingofone]

Spiffor

I consider the nervous system to be prerequisite of feelings and survival instinct (which is not precisley stupid, considering that all our senses and our thoughts are transmitted throught the nervous system.

I did not mean to imply you were stupid in fact it is obvious you like many others here have a very bright mind.

But as you said here thoughts are merely transmitted through the brain not originated.
Think of a white pony - where did that thought come from? Certainly your brain processed it like the processor in your computer but it could not have originated the thought it was imput. This is obvious because you can choose to think about anything you want to.

Who and what is thinking of a white pony?

If the government ordered the extermination of blue-eyed people, I wouldn't be morally obligated. I would be obligated, independent of morals.

Absolutly

I have an ethics that is my own. I don't base it on what other people say.

That I can respect

I had no more worth than what my mother granted me, because "I" could not attribute value to my life.

Look - we can talk in circles from now on. The point is you nor anyone else knows when life begins - so the statement that someone "knows" when life begins is assuming in and of itself that they are the source of that and all life.

What primarily matters is whether the human can 1) feel pain and 2) value its life.

Do you mind if I make a determination of whether you feel pain or value your life sufficiently not to be terminated?

And in the case of many unwanted pregnancies, the baby will be born in a family that is simply unable to raise it properly.

I think it's better if the unwanted child (a child so adamantly unwanted that even a prepared mother rejects it) is aborted before it can experience the hatred and bitterness that the unwanting mother is likely to spew.

Do you mind if I determine if your quality of life is good enough to keep around?


Boris Godunov

Not if I were a fetus. What emotions did you have at that point?

You are in denial. Look at some of the pictures and films of a fetus crying after an abortion.

I pointed out that it isn't making any sense, you persist in using it

Could it be I am trying to point out to you that you are not making any sense?

I am not anywhere arguing on banning a practice because there are risks associated with it. YOU are.

You can`t see there is a difference in trying to sustain life and take it? Its very obvious.

Emotional appeals do NOT have any relevance to a logical argument.If you can't articulate why a practice is wrong without resorting to emotional pleas, then it's a bad argument.

You are in denial again. We all have emotions and believing that I am not experiencing them is no solution.

So you accept that there are some cases wherein the best interest of the fetus is not the trump card--where the best interest of the mother can take precendent.If that's the case, then all the huffery and puffery about abortion being murder falls apart.

Now here you make a very good point. I am still thinking this one through myself.

I can present you with several anecdotal tales of women who have had abortions and it has, in there opinion, been the right thing to do.

Point taken I will refrain.

47.9 % of ALL STATISTICS - are made up right on the spot.
That's not an argument, and it's not even true.

A joke is not funny when you have to explain the punch line.

Perhaps because there's a fundamental difference between a fetus inside a mother's womb and a conscious child outside of it?

If you lose 10 pounds, are you less aware of yourself as a person?
Ah so you are more than just a physical body.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not true, it doesn't work that way for other people. Someone is not allowed to steal food (violating your right to property) in order to stop themselves from starving.

Not quite. Is the shopkeeper actively killing the person who steals food from him? No. That's what happens in an abortion, they have to shred the child to make sure that the child is dead. It is much worse than negligence, even though both are wrong. It would be like the shopkeeper killing the starving person who tries to steal food from him, because he is starving.

In fact, I would say that we have an obligation to provide food to someone who is starving so that they do not need to steal, and that someone who does steal to feed himself, should not be punished.

Similarly, a foetus is not allowed to steal the mother's food to stop itself from starving. If the mother wants that food for herself, not for the person infesting her body,

How can one person infest another? Infestation implies a difference in species, which person does not.

Secondly, the child has her own body inside the mother's. There is more than one body that comes into play.

she's perfectly able, IMHO, to say she doesn't want it having those nutrients. You remove the mother's support, as you can with elderly relatives, where that relative's right to life does not override their carer's right to property.

Yet I bring up the point again about negligence. Why is a parent not allowed to 'remove support' from their infant child?

You do not have a right to life at the expense of others, similarly a foetus doesn't, unless you wish to grant a foetus rights that full grown humans don't have.

That brings up the earlier point again. Can we kill another person, because they are a burden on others?

A hierarchy of rights, with right to life at the top, means anyone can steal to keep themselves alive. Which is still illegal.

A communist afraid of people stealing bread to live? Frankly, that's an indictment of the society that cannot feed it's people so that they do not have to steal in order to live.