The W
Views: 98489376
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.8.14 0824
The W - Current Events & Politics - 'Roe' Seeks to Overturn Roe v. Wade
This thread has 31 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1984 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (32 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1213 days
Last activity: 1010 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Somethings are just too weird to make up. Fox News and US Newswire is reporting that Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v. Wade fame, has petitioned to reopen the case in an effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn it. She has a right to petition to reopen since she was the original petitioner in the case.

What's interesting are the reasons why she is doing this:

There is more evidence being submitted proving the harmful effects of abortions on women now that should outweigh McCorvey's single, original testimony 30 years ago arguing for abortion.

The question of when life begins has been answered by scientific evidence within the past 30 decades.

Various "Baby Moses" laws in 40 states say the states will take care of a child if the mother cannot, providing an alternative to abortion.

three-dimensional sonograms that can show women that the fetus growing inside of them is viable.




"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
Promote this thread!
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
It was bound to happen sooner or later


    Originally posted by Grimis
    The question of when life begins has been answered by scientific evidence within the past 30 decades.


Just out of curiosity, when does science say life begins?
And when Roe v. Wade went down, when was life believed to start then?



We're all alright
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
Where's Elle Woods when you need her?
"Any masturbatory emmissions could be considered reckless endangerment."

It just seems to me that once the Sperm and the Egg unite, that developing...Zygote (?) is where the "baby" is alive.

But, others can argue that the Zygote/Fetus isn't a seperate individual and therefore not "alive" and therefore not protected under laws. Here in Maryland, a pregnant woman can not claim her unborn child as a "person" for HOV-2 Lanes and will be ticketed. People could use an argument like that, I think.




"Grabbin your butt? That's not very lady-like."
"I'm not a lady."
"Oh. Whatever."
力堵山
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on
There was a pretty heated debate over on the Mothership (tm) about this sort of topic... a couple of people brought up the idea that the fetus is technically a parasite and is at the mother's whim, until the mother gives birth. And no one really disputed this argument. Any thoughts? I suppose technically, it's not wrong, but...



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of hardygrrl:

"...between the grime layer and the Seventies game show host hair, I'd rather rim Undertaker after a White Castle/Schlitz bender."
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1213 days
Last activity: 1010 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I suppose it all depends on the technicality of the argument. Technically though, a parasite is a "living" creature, so that could just add to the pro-life argument.



"I'm going to fill a dark awful basement with radioactive cockroaches. Yep. Big nasty ones like skateboards on legs, that go click-click-click when they walk. And maybe poisonous. I'm going to starve them for a week.

Then I'm going to catch all the coercive priss-spigots in the world, the ones that want to ban second-hand smoke and dwarf-tossing and beer. I'll smear the rascals with bacon fat, so the roaches won't know what they're eating, as otherwise they might not.

Then I'm going to toss all those greased busybodies into the basement. And whoop. And dance. Ha."
- Fred Reed
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on
My answer to this question that decided it for me came when I went to a restaurant and ordered a chicken dinner. They brought me chicken. If they had brought me an omelet, that wouldn't be a chicken dinner. A fetus is a fetus that one day could become a person if everything goes right. But for me until it is alive outside of the womb, it is not a person.



and maybe I should open up my sensitive side/but really, the sensitive side sucks./I've been there./You can only imagine the kinds of sweaters they make you wear.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2977 days
Last activity: 191 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
With regard to the when-is-a-fetus-a-baby issue, I have no problem with the standard that RvW (somewhat arbitrarily) set up -- three trimesters, with the fetus gaining more and more rights as its development advances. The more viable the fetus is, the more recognition it receives under the law, until it pops out and officially becomes a "person." It's not perfect, but it's as reasonable a starting point for argument as we have right now.

Somewhere between "abortion on demand" and "all abortions are murder," there has to be some middle ground. (I will note that I've never met a person who truly believed that all abortions, even in the ninth month, should be legal. Likewise, I can count on one hand the people I've met who've been in the "ban all abortions" camp and didn't phrase their argument using religious references. I'm sure both of those examples exist, but they speak for their movements about as much as Jerry Falwell speaks for all Christians.)




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1213 days
Last activity: 1010 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by vsp
    (I will note that I've never met a person who truly believed that all abortions, even in the ninth month, should be legal.

I have. It's somewhat incredible and disturbing and there is absolutely no way to have a conversation with them on the issues that does not become extremely fiery.



"I'm going to fill a dark awful basement with radioactive cockroaches. Yep. Big nasty ones like skateboards on legs, that go click-click-click when they walk. And maybe poisonous. I'm going to starve them for a week.

Then I'm going to catch all the coercive priss-spigots in the world, the ones that want to ban second-hand smoke and dwarf-tossing and beer. I'll smear the rascals with bacon fat, so the roaches won't know what they're eating, as otherwise they might not.

Then I'm going to toss all those greased busybodies into the basement. And whoop. And dance. Ha."
- Fred Reed
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 489 days
Last activity: 356 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on
And yes, I agree with Grimis. I know many of these people, who I agree with on most issues but abortion.

As for me, the issue of when the fetus is a living being is all important. If the fetus is a living being inside the mother, I am against abortion, if it is not, I accept the legality of abortion. Right now, enough evidence seems to point towards the fetus able to perform just as many living actions as when it's first born, so that seems a basis for considering it a leaving creature.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2977 days
Last activity: 191 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by vsp
      (I will note that I've never met a person who truly believed that all abortions, even in the ninth month, should be legal.)

    I have. It's somewhat incredible and disturbing and there is absolutely no way to have a conversation with them on the issues that does not become extremely fiery.



Which goes both ways, of course -- attempting to discuss the issues calmly with someone who believes that abortion should never be legal (never never never, not for rape, incest or the mother's health concerns, going so far as to denounce birth control pills and devices) is equally futile. There aren't many extremists that can be described as being rational.

One thing that makes the abortion issue interesting is that those on the pro-choice side generally _aren't_ pushing aggressively for further legal gains, much less the "abortion on demand" standard they're often accused of supporting en masse; instead, they're trying to maintain the compromise that currently exists. (Which makes sense, because their major goal -- a national standard legitimizing the procedure -- has already been reached.) The subject of this thread is the first frontal assault on RvW in quite some time; typically, the pro-life camp has aggressively pursued more incremental gains, going for a death-by-1000-cuts effect by whittling RvW away one case at a time.


    Originally posted by messenoir

    As for me, the issue of when the fetus is a living being is all important. If the fetus is a living being inside the mother, I am against abortion, if it is not, I accept the legality of abortion. Right now, enough evidence seems to point towards the fetus able to perform just as many living actions as when it's first born, so that seems a basis for considering it a leaving creature.



Living, perhaps... but is it viable, and at what point does it become so? What are the criteria for "living actions?"

Medical science has certainly progressed, but not to the point where an eighth-week fetus has the slightest chance of survival outside the womb. A six-month preemie has much better prospects... which is why abortion at or beyond that point is _already_ highly restricted and comparatively very rare. The above principle is already in place. What most pro-lifers want to do is reduce the principle to a simple binary -- either it's life at conception or it isn't, with no possible compromise.


(edited by vsp on 19.6.03 0935)


"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3419 days
Last activity: 3413 days
#11 Posted on
I'll add my 3 cents.

First, birth is not a satisfying criterion for full human status, or personhood. It is unclear if there is any essential change taking place on the unborn child other than *location*. Why would it not be murder for a psychopath to run into a delivery room and stab a baby in the head while it is still inside the mother's womb yet about to come out, but it would be murder if he waited and stabbed the baby on the doctor's table? This really is not a morally or philosophically sound determining factor for what makes us human. The more serious philosophers and experts on this issue realize this and agree that *birth* is not the issue, even through the criterion is implied by the Roe v. Wade decision by allowing for the possibility of abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

Second, I agree that conception is the best determining factor of personhood. Basically, we can know that when the sperm and egg unite, there is a genetically unique human that comes into existence. It is simply going to develop and grow, just as children develop, just as young adults develop. It is unclear why simply because someone may not be "fully developed" in one way or another that they are therefore not human. None of the other criteria explain the existence of a unique human individual better than conception does. Not implantation, not birth, not the ability to "function like a human." As far as I and many others can tell, it remains the best answer for the beginning of human life. Therefore, abortion should be seen as the taking of a human life and morally wrong, only being acceptable in very rare circumstances. We can discuss which of those I agree with later on if you wish.

DMC



(edited by DMC on 19.6.03 0958)


Canadian: "You Americans just don't understand our European culture."

Rich Vos, Comedian: "Excuse me, you live four hours from BUFFALO."

messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 489 days
Last activity: 356 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on
A 2 hour old baby would have no more chance of surviving on its own then a fetus. It cannot talk, walk, eat on its own, drink on its own, survive any changes in temperature, etc.

Saying the fetus should get more human status as it progresses in its development raises all kinds of thorny issues. Should a fully developed, normal person be considered more of a human than a mentally challenged person who can't feed themself?

Should a 40 year old have more human status then a 2 year old?
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 20 min.
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by DMC
    I'll add my 3 cents.

    First, birth is not a satisfying criterion for full human status, or personhood. It is unclear if there is any essential change taking place on the unborn child other than *location*. Why would it not be murder for a psychopath to run into a delivery room and stab a baby in the head while it is still inside the mother's womb yet about to come out, but it would be murder if he waited and stabbed the baby on the doctor's table? This really is not a morally or philosophically sound determining factor for what makes us human. The more serious philosophers and experts on this issue realize this and agree that *birth* is not the issue, even through the criterion is implied by the Roe v. Wade decision by allowing for the possibility of abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

    Second, I agree that conception is the best determining factor of personhood. Basically, we can know that when the sperm and egg unite, there is a genetically unique human that comes into existence. It is simply going to develop and grow, just as children develop, just as young adults develop. It is unclear why simply because someone may not be "fully developed" in one way or another that they are therefore not human. None of the other criteria explain the existence of a unique human individual better than conception does. Not implantation, not birth, not the ability to "function like a human." As far as I and many others can tell, it remains the best answer for the beginning of human life. Therefore, abortion should be seen as the taking of a human life and morally wrong, only being acceptable in very rare circumstances. We can discuss which of those I agree with later on if you wish.

    DMC



    (edited by DMC on 19.6.03 0958)



Personally, I have serious problems with abortion. But that does not I think there should be legislation against it.

The problem with your argument is that you completely ignore the reproductive rights of women. And there in lies the whole argument: which is of greater value - the reproductive rights of women, or the right to life of the fetus. You cannot quantify them, so its down to a personal value judgement. I sure as hell do not want my government making these type of value judgements (especially with the current administration).





"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 692 days
Last activity: 692 days
#14 Posted on
    Originally posted by Leroy



      The problem with your argument is that you completely ignore the reproductive rights of women. And there in lies the whole argument: which is of greater value - the reproductive rights of women, or the right to life of the fetus. You cannot quantify them, so its down to a personal value judgement. I sure as hell do not want my government making these type of value judgements (especially with the current administration).





Ah, but what, exactly, are "reproductive rights"? Am I to assume that I (and everyone else) have a God-given/Constitutional right to reproduce? Could we really claim this to be true, considering the (past) forced sterilizations of developmentally handicapped, and the current practice of "chemical castration" of rapists?


    Originally posted by messenoir



      Should a 40 year old have more human status then a 2 year old?




Ooo, that's a good one. And, conversely, should that same 40-year-old have more rights than an elderly person, one who is, much like that infant, unable to survive on his own?

But, basically, I believe that the thorny question is: What is life?


(edited by ScreamingHeadGuy on 19.6.03 1305)

Fashion Reporter Extraordinare

Wisdom is learning from one's mistakes.
Greater wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others.

vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2977 days
Last activity: 191 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    Am I to assume that I (and everyone else) have a God-given/Constitutional right to reproduce? Could we really claim this to be true, considering the (past) forced sterilizations of developmentally handicapped, and the current practice of "chemical castration" of rapists?



Just because the sterilizations happened doesn't make them right or proper.

Rapists are a touchier subject (no pun intended). Unless the chem-stration is voluntary, I can't say that I'm in favor of allowing it.


    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    But, basically, I believe that the thorny question is: What is life?


If there was a clear-cut answer to that question that everyone could agree on, there wouldn't be an abortion issue (or a euthanasia issue, or a brain-death vs. physical death issue, or a variety of others).

All life is a blur of Republicans and meat. -- Zippy the Pinhead




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Im going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1213 days
Last activity: 1010 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by vsp
    Rapists are a touchier subject (no pun intended). Unless the chem-stration is voluntary, I can't say that I'm in favor of allowing it.

My solution for rapists is, of course, the death penalty. Since not many are going to go for that, chemical castration is a great idea to make the SOBs pay...



"I'm going to fill a dark awful basement with radioactive cockroaches. Yep. Big nasty ones like skateboards on legs, that go click-click-click when they walk. And maybe poisonous. I'm going to starve them for a week.

Then I'm going to catch all the coercive priss-spigots in the world, the ones that want to ban second-hand smoke and dwarf-tossing and beer. I'll smear the rascals with bacon fat, so the roaches won't know what they're eating, as otherwise they might not.

Then I'm going to toss all those greased busybodies into the basement. And whoop. And dance. Ha."
- Fred Reed
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 20 min.
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    My solution for rapists is, of course, the death penalty. Since not many are going to go for that, chemical castration is a great idea to make the SOBs pay...


A bit off topic, but...

Did anyone happen to catch the PBS documentary on men wrongly conviceted of crimes (mostly rape), and were later exonerated due to technological advances in DNA testing? Their lives were still destroyed - they had no job skills, they were completely institutionalized, and despite being set free still carried the stigma of being convicted.

That's why I am against the death penaly (and our current penal system in general).



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54


    Why would it not be murder for a psychopath to run into a delivery room and stab a baby in the head while it is still inside the mother's womb yet about to come out, but it would be murder if he waited and stabbed the baby on the doctor's table?


Ooh, I smell a Law and Order episode.



Over 1400 posts and still never a Wiener of the Day!





Well you're in your little room
and you're working on something good
but if it's really good
you're gonna need a bigger room
and when you're in the bigger room
you might not know what to do
you might have to think of
how you got started in your little room
da da da


---"Little Room," by the White Stripes
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1259 days
Last activity: 26 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on
    Originally posted by Leroy

    The problem with your argument is that you completely ignore the reproductive rights of women. And there in lies the whole argument: which is of greater value - the reproductive rights of women, or the right to life of the fetus.




This is my whole problem with the argument of the pro-abortion camp- the idea of the reproductive rights of women.

So a woman should have the right to decide whether or not she gets pregnant. TRUE! However, No woman, anywhere, will ever get pregnant if she does not have sex. (leave the Virgin Mary at the door for this one, ok :)) The main purpose of sex is to create children. A woman just does not "get" pregnant, she makes it happen (I know there is a man involved to, but we are talking about the woman's rights... and she has the right to say no).

So in having sex, she may create a living thing that has the potential to be (or is) a person. Why is it wrong to expect someone to take responsibility for that living thing?

Personally, I am one of those people who are pro-choice, so long as the fetus is not viable, or earlier. There is a definite point in time when the zygote/fetus really is not anymore "alive" than sperm. I personally don't think making abortion illegal is unconstitutional, however, and that is the crux of the Supreme Court's ruling. If they overturn Roe vs. Wade, the authority to make abortion illegal rests in the hands of the states. I live in California, and I am relatively sure that no matter what happens in the Supreme Court, abortion will always be legal here.

So exactly why is it that it should be considered unconstitutional to ban abortion? Where does it say in the constitution that people should be allowed to just get hot and horny, get it on, and then kill the result? We can debate whether or not it should be legal, but banning it is certainly not unconstitutional.

Except in extreme situations, like medical complications, why do we need abortion to be legal after the first tri-mester?

(edited by Pool-Boy on 19.6.03 1412)




Still on the Shelf #13 - Bargain Bin Love: Part 1
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 26 days
Last activity: 26 days
#20 Posted on
A while back, I read an article about a man who had this disgusting fetish about having a body part cut off. I think he paid a guy who was posing as a doctor to cut off one of his feet. He got gangrene and died, if I remember right. I think this was real and not some urban myth. I think the reason the pervert went to the fake doctor was that it was illegal for a real doctor to perform that kind of operation where you just have your own perfectly good body parts cut off.

If it's illegal to have your foot cut off, why is it perfectly legal to have a fetus removed?

I hear the pro-abortion side argue that it's the woman's body and therefore her right, but if that woman can not legally decide to have her foot or leg or arm cut off why can she legally decide to have another part of her body taken out?

The issue of "reproductive rights" is another one sided issue based on what I have seen. What about the reproductive rights of men? If a couple gets pregnant and the man wants the child, but the woman doesn't, the man is shit out of luck. But if she keeps the kid despite his wishes to the contrary, then he's stuck paying child support. But I guess this argument is way off topic. Still, I'd really like to hear what the "reproductive rights" really are.

Personally I'm in the middle of the pro-abortion crowd and the pro-life crowd. I'm not into the religious aspects of the pro-lifers, but I do think that killing unborn children is kind of barbaric. Abortion as birth control disgusts me, but I do not think it should be totally outlawed. I think any abortion should be the hardest decision of anyone's life and that it should be a last resort if used at all. But things like partial birth abortions, and underage girls getting abortions without parental notification/consent should be outlawed.



'But if one is struck by me only a little, that is far different, the stroke is a sharp thing and suddenly lays him lifeless, and that man's wife goes with cheeks torn in lamentation, and his children are fatherless, while he, staining the soil with his red blood, rots away, and there are more birds than women swarming about him.' Diomedes, The Iliad of Homer

Maiden RULES!!!
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: UMass Offers 'Whiteness Studies'
Next thread: Forget Spike TV, say hello to AL TV
Previous thread: who's next???
(1984 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
How many people are actually on the ballot for this thing anyway? This gives you more material than you could ever use!
- pieman, CA GCOTD: KENNEDY (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - 'Roe' Seeks to Overturn Roe v. WadeRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.144 seconds.