Roe v. Wade: How likely is a reversal?

[Zkribbler]

Oops, missed Obiwan's post earlier. But Obiwan's quote makes even less sense than my origin (incorrect) explanation . . .

As Imran says, viability is the point at which a fetus can live outside the womb. Therefore the Supreme Court's explanation "the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb" merely means "the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably is viable."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Viability is basically when the child can live outside the womb by itself. Like the rest of Roe, it's pretty arbitrary. Why allow this exclusion? With the advent of test tube babies, we aren't exactly sure when a child can live outside the womb (successfully).

Like a bunch of us assert, Roe is REALLY flawed on sooo many levels (I mean what was the Constitutional argument behind the trimester framework?)! It ain't because we are a bunch of pro-lifers (well the others may be, but I'm not ).

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, some more tidbits from Roe v. Wade

Why the original abortion restrictions?

"Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940's, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today. Thus, it has been argued that a State's real concern in enacting a criminal abortion law was to protect the pregnant woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy."

This revisionism allows the court to ignore past concerns about the unborn child entirely. If the real purpose of the law is to protect the mother's health, then we should be able to change the law when abortion becomes safer.

"Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth."

Source for this claim is:
Tietze, United States: Therapeutic Abortions, 1963-1968, 59 Studies in Family Planning 5, 7 (1970); Tietze, Mortality with Contraception and Induced Abortion, 45 Studies in Family Planning 6 (1969) (Japan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary); Tietze & Lehfeldt, Legal Abortion in Eastern Europe, 175 J. A. M. A. 1149, 1152 (April 1961).

Of which there are numerous problems. Tieze vastly underestimates the complications related to LEGAL abortion, including deaths, while overestimating deaths related to births. He does this through fudging the denominators. Tieze uses deaths per abortion for abortion mortality, while using deaths per live birth, for maternal mortality.

This negates spontaneous abortions during pregnancy, making birth appear much more dangerous in comparison to abortion.


CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT

In response to Imran:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation."

After admitting:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution."

The case history will take some time to examine as they use 16 different cases to cobble a right to privacy.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
What was the significance of "viability" then?

Morally, I think viability is a key issue. It is like Euthanasia, in the UK (and I believe the US?) you cannot commit active euthanasia, such as giving a lethal injection, but you can commit passive euthanasia, such as not resusitating, or not giving medicine that could save the life. If the fetus is not able to live outside the womb, then it could be argued that it is not being killed by directly killed by abortion, but that the women is withdrawing her services, thus killing the fetus. It would not survive without outside help, thus killing it is removing support, rather than a direct act of murder. Personally I'm pro-choice all the way, so with my morals, I wouldn't need viability.

Another way (much more analogious) of thinking about it is like society. The poorer members of society would die of starvation if the 'government teat' were to be removed. If that individual is removed from society, it will die, the same with the fetus. In this way, I find it a little strange that the Western country that has some of the least welfare, and the death penalty, has the right of a mother to choose to remove her support for an unborn baby in jeopody somewhat. There is no right to life for every human being who is alive, and alive on their own, but there is for an unborn fetus that will die without its connection to its mother?