On the issue of abortion:

One reason that the right of a woman to terminate her pregnacy by abortion of the fetus was decided on the issue of privacy is that the government has no power to prescribe or proscribe medical procedures for a citizen. This is not necessarily bad law but it does hinge on when a fetus becomes a separate person whose rights are then protected by the constitution.

Therefore, the question of when does life begin does not apply so much as when does a fetus become a legally recognized person protected by the constitution? In other words, when is it no longer abortion but rather becomes infanticide? It is not at all clear nor need it be assumed that this is so at the moment of conception. The issue of abortion was not even on the legal radar screen until the early 20th century when issues that impacted women's sexuality became a matter of public concern. This was the era of the Comstock laws forbidding the dissemination of birth control information to women.

For most of history a child was considered a person at birth or sometime after birth. Some religious traditions still use birth as the demarcation for the beginning of legal personhood. Our technology allows us to know much more about the fetus in utero and this influences our feelings and ideas on the matter and that is one reason that this issue is of such importance in our society now.

As far as when life "really" begins--well that depends much on what you mean by "life". In a biological sense, reproduction is not so much the beginning of new life as it is the passing on of life either asexually (that is by cloning) or sexually (that is to genetically unique organisms). Certainly gametes (egg and sperm cells) are alive and yet they are not organisms. The same is true for somatic cells. Certainly, morulae (first two weeks from conception), blastulas (about 3 weeks from conception) , and gastrulas (about 4 weeks from conception) are alive and are organisms but they are in no way capable of independent life nor do they even remotely resemble mammals or human beings. A fetus (from about 12 weeks post conception) resembles a human being but is not yet capable of independent life and will not be for some time. And yet we are dealing with an organism that does have great potential to become an independent and unique being. This is where we are on the horns of the dilemma our society faces with the issue of abortion.

The dilemma is when do we limit the rights of a living person in order to accomodate the rights of a fetus? Does a fetus have rights?

Personally, I am not impressed by either pole of the controversy. I find the arguments of those who say that an abortion is no different than having a few cells or an organ removed ridiculous. We all know that these fetal cells are different and special and that difference had enormous ethical consequences. At the same time, I find the arguments or the extreme anti-abortionists equally ridiculous. They would have the life of a woman held hostage to that of a fetus and this does not make much biological sense. I would hate to see every spontanous abortion (miscarriage) investigated as a possible murder.

I have had two pregnacies in which I had preeclampsia--this condition has the potential to kill the mother and the fetus when it becomes severe. The only remedy is the delivery of the baby. I was fortunate in that my condition was moderate in the first pregnancy and in the second only became severe in the last month. Therefore, we were able to go to term with the first baby and induce at 36 weeks with the second (one month early). However, there are women who face emergency Ceasarians as early as 20 weeks in order to save their lives. This is before the fetus can survive outside the uterus. Should the government interfere with her decision?

I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.

These are not easy issues and the consequences of our decisions devolve onto real people who must make very real decisions. This is not a matter of abstraction only.

On the issue of abortion:

One reason that the right of a woman to terminate her pregnacy by abortion of the fetus was decided on the issue of privacy is that the government has no power to prescribe or proscribe medical procedures for a citizen. This is not necessarily bad law but it does hinge on when a fetus becomes a separate person whose rights are then protected by the constitution.

Therefore, the question of when does life begin does not apply so much as when does a fetus become a legally recognized person protected by the constitution? In other words, when is it no longer abortion but rather becomes infanticide? It is not at all clear nor need it be assumed that this is so at the moment of conception. The issue of abortion was not even on the legal radar screen until the early 20th century when issues that impacted women's sexuality became a matter of public concern. This was the era of the Comstock laws forbidding the dissemination of birth control information to women.

For most of history a child was considered a person at birth or sometime after birth. Some religious traditions still use birth as the demarcation for the beginning of legal personhood. Our technology allows us to know much more about the fetus in utero and this influences our feelings and ideas on the matter and that is one reason that this issue is of such importance in our society now.

As far as when life "really" begins--well that depends much on what you mean by "life". In a biological sense, reproduction is not so much the beginning of new life as it is the passing on of life either asexually (that is by cloning) or sexually (that is to genetically unique organisms). Certainly gametes (egg and sperm cells) are alive and yet they are not organisms. The same is true for somatic cells. Certainly, morulae (first two weeks from conception), blastulas (about 3 weeks from conception) , and gastrulas (about 4 weeks from conception) are alive and are organisms but they are in no way capable of independent life nor do they even remotely resemble mammals or human beings. A fetus (from about 12 weeks post conception) resembles a human being but is not yet capable of independent life and will not be for some time. And yet we are dealing with an organism that does have great potential to become an independent and unique being. This is where we are on the horns of the dilemma our society faces with the issue of abortion.

The dilemma is when do we limit the rights of a living person in order to accomodate the rights of a fetus? Does a fetus have rights?

Personally, I am not impressed by either pole of the controversy. I find the arguments of those who say that an abortion is no different than having a few cells or an organ removed ridiculous. We all know that these fetal cells are different and special and that difference had enormous ethical consequences. At the same time, I find the arguments or the extreme anti-abortionists equally ridiculous. They would have the life of a woman held hostage to that of a fetus and this does not make much biological sense. I would hate to see every spontanous abortion (miscarriage) investigated as a possible murder.

I have had two pregnacies in which I had preeclampsia--this condition has the potential to kill the mother and the fetus when it becomes severe. The only remedy is the delivery of the baby. I was fortunate in that my condition was moderate in the first pregnancy and in the second only became severe in the last month. Therefore, we were able to go to term with the first baby and induce at 36 weeks with the second (one month early). However, there are women who face emergency Ceasarians as early as 20 weeks in order to save their lives. This is before the fetus can survive outside the uterus. Should the government interfere with her decision?

I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.

These are not easy issues and the consequences of our decisions devolve onto real people who must make very real decisions. This is not a matter of abstraction only.

On the issue of abortion:

One reason that the right of a woman to terminate her pregnacy by abortion of the fetus was decided on the issue of privacy is that the government has no power to prescribe or proscribe medical procedures for a citizen. This is not necessarily bad law but it does hinge on when a fetus becomes a separate person whose rights are then protected by the constitution.

Therefore, the question of when does life begin does not apply so much as when does a fetus become a legally recognized person protected by the constitution? In other words, when is it no longer abortion but rather becomes infanticide? It is not at all clear nor need it be assumed that this is so at the moment of conception. The issue of abortion was not even on the legal radar screen until the early 20th century when issues that impacted women's sexuality became a matter of public concern. This was the era of the Comstock laws forbidding the dissemination of birth control information to women.

For most of history a child was considered a person at birth or sometime after birth. Some religious traditions still use birth as the demarcation for the beginning of legal personhood. Our technology allows us to know much more about the fetus in utero and this influences our feelings and ideas on the matter and that is one reason that this issue is of such importance in our society now.

As far as when life "really" begins--well that depends much on what you mean by "life". In a biological sense, reproduction is not so much the beginning of new life as it is the passing on of life either asexually (that is by cloning) or sexually (that is to genetically unique organisms). Certainly gametes (egg and sperm cells) are alive and yet they are not organisms. The same is true for somatic cells. Certainly, morulae (first two weeks from conception), blastulas (about 3 weeks from conception) , and gastrulas (about 4 weeks from conception) are alive and are organisms but they are in no way capable of independent life nor do they even remotely resemble mammals or human beings. A fetus (from about 12 weeks post conception) resembles a human being but is not yet capable of independent life and will not be for some time. And yet we are dealing with an organism that does have great potential to become an independent and unique being. This is where we are on the horns of the dilemma our society faces with the issue of abortion.

The dilemma is when do we limit the rights of a living person in order to accomodate the rights of a fetus? Does a fetus have rights?

Personally, I am not impressed by either pole of the controversy. I find the arguments of those who say that an abortion is no different than having a few cells or an organ removed ridiculous. We all know that these fetal cells are different and special and that difference had enormous ethical consequences. At the same time, I find the arguments or the extreme anti-abortionists equally ridiculous. They would have the life of a woman held hostage to that of a fetus and this does not make much biological sense. I would hate to see every spontanous abortion (miscarriage) investigated as a possible murder.

I have had two pregnacies in which I had preeclampsia--this condition has the potential to kill the mother and the fetus when it becomes severe. The only remedy is the delivery of the baby. I was fortunate in that my condition was moderate in the first pregnancy and in the second only became severe in the last month. Therefore, we were able to go to term with the first baby and induce at 36 weeks with the second (one month early). However, there are women who face emergency Ceasarians as early as 20 weeks in order to save their lives. This is before the fetus can survive outside the uterus. Should the government interfere with her decision?

I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.

These are not easy issues and the consequences of our decisions devolve onto real people who must make very real decisions. This is not a matter of abstraction only.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I would hate to see every spontanous abortion (miscarriage) investigated as a possible murder.

Exactly. And I completely agree with the rest of your argument as well.

Let's not kid ourselves. If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I would hate to see every spontanous abortion (miscarriage) investigated as a possible murder.

Exactly. And I completely agree with the rest of your argument as well.

Let's not kid ourselves. If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I would hate to see every spontanous abortion (miscarriage) investigated as a possible murder.

Exactly. And I completely agree with the rest of your argument as well.

Let's not kid ourselves. If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Apparently, I misspoke. I meant to say that I apologize "for crossing any line (real or percieved) regarding privacy". IOW, if I actually said something denying or disparaging the right to privacy (as your prototypical pro-life constitutionalist does), I did not intend for my rhetoric to go that far.

So you do recognize the right to privacy then? Good for you. I just shake my head every time I see a pro-life conservative take the bait from Roe and declare that there is no right to privacy. It is a daily occurrence on conservative sites and in real life, and if you try to get them to see the obvious and sinister ramifications of what they are saying, you might as well be talking to a block of granite. I have long since given up.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Apparently, I misspoke. I meant to say that I apologize "for crossing any line (real or percieved) regarding privacy". IOW, if I actually said something denying or disparaging the right to privacy (as your prototypical pro-life constitutionalist does), I did not intend for my rhetoric to go that far.

So you do recognize the right to privacy then? Good for you. I just shake my head every time I see a pro-life conservative take the bait from Roe and declare that there is no right to privacy. It is a daily occurrence on conservative sites and in real life, and if you try to get them to see the obvious and sinister ramifications of what they are saying, you might as well be talking to a block of granite. I have long since given up.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Apparently, I misspoke. I meant to say that I apologize "for crossing any line (real or percieved) regarding privacy". IOW, if I actually said something denying or disparaging the right to privacy (as your prototypical pro-life constitutionalist does), I did not intend for my rhetoric to go that far.

So you do recognize the right to privacy then? Good for you. I just shake my head every time I see a pro-life conservative take the bait from Roe and declare that there is no right to privacy. It is a daily occurrence on conservative sites and in real life, and if you try to get them to see the obvious and sinister ramifications of what they are saying, you might as well be talking to a block of granite. I have long since given up.

[quote="Kiff '61"]

Originally Posted by elilevin

Let's not kid ourselves. If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Those who have moral issues with the ready use of abortion as birth control (and I am one) have the obligation to work hard and long to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and also have the obligation to provide aid and comfort to women who choose to carry through on a problem pregnancy.

[quote="Kiff '61"]

Originally Posted by elilevin

Let's not kid ourselves. If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Those who have moral issues with the ready use of abortion as birth control (and I am one) have the obligation to work hard and long to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and also have the obligation to provide aid and comfort to women who choose to carry through on a problem pregnancy.

[quote="Kiff '61"]

Originally Posted by elilevin

Let's not kid ourselves. If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Those who have moral issues with the ready use of abortion as birth control (and I am one) have the obligation to work hard and long to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and also have the obligation to provide aid and comfort to women who choose to carry through on a problem pregnancy.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.

Did you mean to say "and that her right to life is protected."? I thought Roe (and the entire abortion issue) was enacted to protect a woman's right to privacy, not her right to life. If you meant to say "life", then Roe was a huge mistake and patently bad law because it used a woman's right to privacy as it's premise. If you meant to say "and that her right to privacy is protected" then it seems privacy trumps life in the constitutional pecking order.

I discussed this privately with some Boomer and Silent pro-abortion friends of mine and they said pre-Roe abortions were often conducted, legally, when the life of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. If this is true then I don't see how defining when life begins will affect anything. Because, if that's true, then Roe was all about privacy - keeping an unwanted, unplanned, embarrassing or inconvenient pregnancy a secret from parents, potential fathers, the public - and has absolutely nothing to do with life.

If indeed abortions were conducted pre-Roe, as in the cases I stated, then Kiff's point...

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

... serves to prove the whole abortion issue has little to due with privacy and everything to do with easing the discomfort, inconvenience, embarrassment, or financial hardship a child would be for the mother or, more cynically, abrogating the potential child support cost and commitment requirements that would fall to the father. :cry:

Even if some states completely banned abortions, no matter the circumstances (a stance with which I disagree), repealing Roe now would only serve to force states into defining when abortions are legal.

Kiff goes on to say...

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

I agree, I agree, I agree!! But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:

This gets to what I think will be one of the principal issues of this entire 4T and ensuing Crisis... Individualism, and the responsibility that must accompany it.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.

Did you mean to say "and that her right to life is protected."? I thought Roe (and the entire abortion issue) was enacted to protect a woman's right to privacy, not her right to life. If you meant to say "life", then Roe was a huge mistake and patently bad law because it used a woman's right to privacy as it's premise. If you meant to say "and that her right to privacy is protected" then it seems privacy trumps life in the constitutional pecking order.

I discussed this privately with some Boomer and Silent pro-abortion friends of mine and they said pre-Roe abortions were often conducted, legally, when the life of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. If this is true then I don't see how defining when life begins will affect anything. Because, if that's true, then Roe was all about privacy - keeping an unwanted, unplanned, embarrassing or inconvenient pregnancy a secret from parents, potential fathers, the public - and has absolutely nothing to do with life.

If indeed abortions were conducted pre-Roe, as in the cases I stated, then Kiff's point...

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

... serves to prove the whole abortion issue has little to due with privacy and everything to do with easing the discomfort, inconvenience, embarrassment, or financial hardship a child would be for the mother or, more cynically, abrogating the potential child support cost and commitment requirements that would fall to the father. :cry:

Even if some states completely banned abortions, no matter the circumstances (a stance with which I disagree), repealing Roe now would only serve to force states into defining when abortions are legal.

Kiff goes on to say...

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

I agree, I agree, I agree!! But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:

This gets to what I think will be one of the principal issues of this entire 4T and ensuing Crisis... Individualism, and the responsibility that must accompany it.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I believe that these issues are best left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physicians because they have such an impact on her life--and that her right to life is protected.

Did you mean to say "and that her right to life is protected."? I thought Roe (and the entire abortion issue) was enacted to protect a woman's right to privacy, not her right to life. If you meant to say "life", then Roe was a huge mistake and patently bad law because it used a woman's right to privacy as it's premise. If you meant to say "and that her right to privacy is protected" then it seems privacy trumps life in the constitutional pecking order.

I discussed this privately with some Boomer and Silent pro-abortion friends of mine and they said pre-Roe abortions were often conducted, legally, when the life of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. If this is true then I don't see how defining when life begins will affect anything. Because, if that's true, then Roe was all about privacy - keeping an unwanted, unplanned, embarrassing or inconvenient pregnancy a secret from parents, potential fathers, the public - and has absolutely nothing to do with life.

If indeed abortions were conducted pre-Roe, as in the cases I stated, then Kiff's point...

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

If Roe is overturned, and states begin to pass laws to criminalize abortion, women will still find a way to end pregnancies, whether it's through the "back alley" or some other kind of underground network.

... serves to prove the whole abortion issue has little to due with privacy and everything to do with easing the discomfort, inconvenience, embarrassment, or financial hardship a child would be for the mother or, more cynically, abrogating the potential child support cost and commitment requirements that would fall to the father. :cry:

Even if some states completely banned abortions, no matter the circumstances (a stance with which I disagree), repealing Roe now would only serve to force states into defining when abortions are legal.

Kiff goes on to say...

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

As a practical matter, if we want to continue to reduce the number of abortions in this country, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. We do this through education; not just by teaching teenagers about the "birds and the bees," but by teaching respect for themselves and for others.

I agree, I agree, I agree!! But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:

This gets to what I think will be one of the principal issues of this entire 4T and ensuing Crisis... Individualism, and the responsibility that must accompany it.

Originally Posted by Steve61

But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives. I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

I am starting to understand why many conservatives opposed teaching sex ed in the 1960's and 1970's. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and some of us more liberal types aren't happy with the message being put out in some of our schools. I may pull my kids out of sex ed if this approach is going to be used in my local public school.

I have to laugh at the irony here. ;-)

Originally Posted by Steve61

But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives. I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

I am starting to understand why many conservatives opposed teaching sex ed in the 1960's and 1970's. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and some of us more liberal types aren't happy with the message being put out in some of our schools. I may pull my kids out of sex ed if this approach is going to be used in my local public school.

I have to laugh at the irony here. ;-)

Originally Posted by Steve61

But if we agree reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is the key to reducing the number of abortions, then why is teaching abstinence so widely badmouthed - by so many groups? Is it because teaching abstinence forces people to make judgments on conduct and consequences! Hmmm... :wink:

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives. I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

I am starting to understand why many conservatives opposed teaching sex ed in the 1960's and 1970's. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and some of us more liberal types aren't happy with the message being put out in some of our schools. I may pull my kids out of sex ed if this approach is going to be used in my local public school.

I have to laugh at the irony here. ;-)

Originally Posted by Steve61

I discussed this privately with some Boomer and Silent pro-abortion friends of mine and they said pre-Roe abortions were often conducted, legally, when the life of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. If this is true then I don't see how defining when life begins will affect anything. Because, if that's true, then Roe was all about privacy - keeping an unwanted, unplanned, embarrassing or inconvenient pregnancy a secret from parents, potential fathers, the public - and has absolutely nothing to do with life.

Steve, in the decade or so prior to the Roe decision, abortion laws had been steadily liberalized in state legislatures all over the country. It was not as if abortion had been illegal coast to coast one day and then legal the next (in 1973 with Roe), not even remotely so. States had been steadily liberalizing abortion laws and this trend had not even spawned a cultural reaction. There was no necessity whatsoever for the Roe decision. And courts are not permitted to make law anyway, that is what legislatures are for. Even intellectually honest pro-choicers concede that it is very bad law.

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

Originally Posted by Steve61

I discussed this privately with some Boomer and Silent pro-abortion friends of mine and they said pre-Roe abortions were often conducted, legally, when the life of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. If this is true then I don't see how defining when life begins will affect anything. Because, if that's true, then Roe was all about privacy - keeping an unwanted, unplanned, embarrassing or inconvenient pregnancy a secret from parents, potential fathers, the public - and has absolutely nothing to do with life.

Steve, in the decade or so prior to the Roe decision, abortion laws had been steadily liberalized in state legislatures all over the country. It was not as if abortion had been illegal coast to coast one day and then legal the next (in 1973 with Roe), not even remotely so. States had been steadily liberalizing abortion laws and this trend had not even spawned a cultural reaction. There was no necessity whatsoever for the Roe decision. And courts are not permitted to make law anyway, that is what legislatures are for. Even intellectually honest pro-choicers concede that it is very bad law.

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

Originally Posted by Steve61

I discussed this privately with some Boomer and Silent pro-abortion friends of mine and they said pre-Roe abortions were often conducted, legally, when the life of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. If this is true then I don't see how defining when life begins will affect anything. Because, if that's true, then Roe was all about privacy - keeping an unwanted, unplanned, embarrassing or inconvenient pregnancy a secret from parents, potential fathers, the public - and has absolutely nothing to do with life.

Steve, in the decade or so prior to the Roe decision, abortion laws had been steadily liberalized in state legislatures all over the country. It was not as if abortion had been illegal coast to coast one day and then legal the next (in 1973 with Roe), not even remotely so. States had been steadily liberalizing abortion laws and this trend had not even spawned a cultural reaction. There was no necessity whatsoever for the Roe decision. And courts are not permitted to make law anyway, that is what legislatures are for. Even intellectually honest pro-choicers concede that it is very bad law.

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

I believe the legal reasoning behind Roe is that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures implies a right to privacy, and that government intrusion into a medical decision of such personal importance as abortion is a violation of privacy, except where the existence of a viable fetus creates a compelling public interest to the contrary.

Personally I find that reasoning a stretch. It is conceivable, however, that a justification for the decision could have been better found in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, since a ban on abortion is something that affects women only, and tends to subject them to the control of men. But that wasn't the reasoning employed by the Court.

I believe Stonewall is correct about the consequences of overturning Roe. He is incorrect in describing my opinion that it should be reversed. I don't think that, because I don't want to see abortion become an active and hotly-contested issue, even though I'm confident the pro-choice side would win. We have more important things on our plate right now. I want the culture wars to go away.

I would have preferred to see a legislative resolution to the abortion debate rather than a judicial one, for many reasons, not least because the judicial right to abortion has made it possible for the GOP to harness religious-right votes by giving the issue lip service, with a perfect excuse for failing to act. But that's water under the bridge now.

I believe the legal reasoning behind Roe is that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures implies a right to privacy, and that government intrusion into a medical decision of such personal importance as abortion is a violation of privacy, except where the existence of a viable fetus creates a compelling public interest to the contrary.

Personally I find that reasoning a stretch. It is conceivable, however, that a justification for the decision could have been better found in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, since a ban on abortion is something that affects women only, and tends to subject them to the control of men. But that wasn't the reasoning employed by the Court.

I believe Stonewall is correct about the consequences of overturning Roe. He is incorrect in describing my opinion that it should be reversed. I don't think that, because I don't want to see abortion become an active and hotly-contested issue, even though I'm confident the pro-choice side would win. We have more important things on our plate right now. I want the culture wars to go away.

I would have preferred to see a legislative resolution to the abortion debate rather than a judicial one, for many reasons, not least because the judicial right to abortion has made it possible for the GOP to harness religious-right votes by giving the issue lip service, with a perfect excuse for failing to act. But that's water under the bridge now.

I believe the legal reasoning behind Roe is that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures implies a right to privacy, and that government intrusion into a medical decision of such personal importance as abortion is a violation of privacy, except where the existence of a viable fetus creates a compelling public interest to the contrary.

Personally I find that reasoning a stretch. It is conceivable, however, that a justification for the decision could have been better found in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, since a ban on abortion is something that affects women only, and tends to subject them to the control of men. But that wasn't the reasoning employed by the Court.

I believe Stonewall is correct about the consequences of overturning Roe. He is incorrect in describing my opinion that it should be reversed. I don't think that, because I don't want to see abortion become an active and hotly-contested issue, even though I'm confident the pro-choice side would win. We have more important things on our plate right now. I want the culture wars to go away.

I would have preferred to see a legislative resolution to the abortion debate rather than a judicial one, for many reasons, not least because the judicial right to abortion has made it possible for the GOP to harness religious-right votes by giving the issue lip service, with a perfect excuse for failing to act. But that's water under the bridge now.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives.

Are most abortions performed on married women in a stable relationship with a husband?

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".