Roe V Wade Stands - Motion to Overturn Roe v. Wade Dismissed

[Liquor Dealer]

DALLAS — A federal district court dismissed a request by the one-time plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 30 years ago.

The court said late Thursday that Norma McCorvey's request wasn't made within a "reasonable time" after the 1973 judgment in Roe v. Wade

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90004,00.html

I was glad to see that the Federal District Court in Texas had enough intestinal fortitude to stand behind the Supreme Court decision of Roe V Wade - I hope the current and future Supreme Courts also has this same determination.

Your turn.

[Sparhawk]

Women can make decisions for themselves. Period.

[BBtB]

From site
DALLAS — A federal district court dismissed a request by the one-time plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 30 years ago.

The court said late Thursday that Norma McCorvey's request wasn't made within a "reasonable time" after the 1973 judgment in Roe v. Wade .

McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight 10 years ago, filed the "motion for relief from judgment" Tuesday, asking the court to reopen the case and conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into scientific and anecdotal evidence that she says shows abortion hurts women.

"Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation," Judge David Godbey wrote in the ruling. "It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment."

McCorvey's attorney, Allan Parker, said his client will likely ask the court to reconsider its ruling.

"This is not a case of newly discovered evidence, which must be brought in a short amount of time. It's a case of changed factual conditions and law," he said.

Sarah Weddington, the abortion rights activist and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, said she was delighted but not surprised that McCorvey's request was dismissed.

"It never should have been filed," Weddington said Friday. "Those who filed it got publicity, but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved."

Weddington said she has received about two dozen e-mails from people offering to help defend the Roe v. Wade decision.

Federal law allows litigants to petition the court to reopen cases in extraordinary situations, but such requests must be made weeks or months after the judgment, not decades, Godbey wrote.

McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who regret their abortions, in re-evaluating the Supreme Court's decision.

The Supreme Court decision came after McCorvey had her baby. It was the third child McCorvey put up for adoption; she was a 21-year-old carnival worker at the time.

McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980. After converting to Catholicism, she shocked the abortion rights community in 1995 by joining the anti-abortion activist group Operation Rescue.

Sorry just felt like being a moderator type. As for that article... Yea I am going to completly skip all that and go straight to Sparhawks comment. As I have said several times in the abortion thread... Why is it just the womans decision?

[ganon]

It was definitely too late to try to go that route. I am just glad that the woman who was called roe for the case never actually murdered her children, she gave them up for adoption. All three of them.

[Liquor Dealer]

I guess I'm just too damned stupid to stay out of this - I believe that if you are not capable of becoming pregnant you are not entitled to even an opinion on abortion. What a woman does with, or allows to be done to her body is her business and no one elses.

[smooth]

ganon,

Before the decision abortion was illegal--she seems to have been quite busy otherwise.

[Scipio]

I'm in the middle of the road on abortion. It's been a republican strategy for quite a few years to polarize the debate on this issue, but I think many many people in this country are sitting on the fence, where they think it's a bad thing, and it should be avoided, but the government shouldn't step in and make it illegal. There are cases where it's at least understandable and somewhat justified. Sometimes abortions are needed to save the mother's life, to prevent incest or rape pregnancies, and to stop very young mothers from having children.

[The_Dude]

i guess the "right wing conspiracy" got hold of the woman.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I believe that if you are not capable of becoming pregnant you are not entitled to even an opinion on abortion. What a woman does with, or allows to be done to her body is her business and no one elses.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Should decisions on drug law only be made by those who do drugs themselves? Should immigration policy be made by illegally-immigrating mexicans in the back of semi-trucks?

No matter what way you spin it, in some cases (partial-birth especially), abortion is the willful murder of a child and shouldn't be done merely for the convenience of the parent[s].

[james t kirk]

I respect the individual's rignt to make up their own mind on this issue and agree 100% with LD.

Since I can't get pregnant, it's not my call to make.

I accept that, and sleep easier believing it.

[rogue49]

talk about a "back to the future" scenario.

yeah, that's right...
change 30 years of national law & policy, just because you changed your mind,
and on a technicality yet.

Good catch by the federal court.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by seretogis
That is absolutely ridiculous. Should decisions on drug law only be made by those who do drugs themselves? Should immigration policy be made by mexicans in the back of semi-trucks?

No matter what way you spin it, in some cases (partial-birth especially), abortion is the willful murder of a child and shouldn't be done merely for the convenience of the parent[s].

What someone chooses to do with their body is their decision. Your attitude kind of scares me, and it seems to be shared by many republicans- that government be reduced until it's just big enough to fit inside your house/doctor's office/bedroom.

I also don't see how immigration policy fits in with people making personal decisions...

[The_Dude]

i agree.

1) you're stereotyping way too mcuh. you are pretty much saying that all immigrants are comin in the back of semi's. get that from foxnews also?

2) it's not a valid comparison to abortion rights

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
What someone chooses to do with their body is their decision. Your attitude kind of scares me, and it seems to be shared by many republicans- that government be reduced until it's just big enough to fit inside your house/doctor's office/bedroom.

I also don't see how immigration policy fits in with people making personal decisions...

First, read the quote which I responded to before you wildly make accusations. The suggestion that only users of "X" should have any sort of opinion on legislation pertaining to "X" is ridiculous, where "X" is abortion, immigration, gun control, property taxes, etc.

Originally posted by The_Dude
i agree.

1) you're stereotyping way too mcuh. you are pretty much saying that all immigrants are comin in the back of semi's. get that from foxnews also?

2) it's not a valid comparison to abortion rights

1) I was referring specifically to illegal immigrants, original post = edited. What have I posted on this thread that was from FoxNews in the first place, or are you just stereotyping me as a FoxNews-worshipping Christian zealot?

2) It's not a comparison to abortion rights, it's an example regarding a suggestion that only those who would benefit from legislation should dare have an opinion about it.

[The_Dude]

the foxnews part was intended as a joke

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by seretogis
First, read the quote which I responded to before you wildly make accusations. The suggestion that only users of "X" should have any sort of opinion on legislation pertaining to "X" is ridiculous, where "X" is abortion, immigration, gun control, property taxes, etc.

I'm not wildly making accusations, seretogis. I just think consenting adults should be free to make decisions about what they want to do with their bodies, a position you should be familiar with. That's why I feel the way I do about these issues.

I understand your argument on how non-users should be allowed to have an opinion on the behavior of 'X'. I don't particularly like drugs, abortion, sodomy, etc, but I'm not going to moralize on those who do, or even worse, try to legislate it.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I don't particularly like drugs, abortion, sodomy, etc, but I'm not going to moralize on those who do, or even worse, try to legislate it.

Once a man and a woman have unprotected sex which results in a pregnancy, they no longer are dealing with just "their own bodies". The parents have to take responsibility at some point, even if the pregnancy is a drunken mistake or a miscalculation. Abortion is not a contraceptive and shouldn't be used as one.

Now, I'm not a nut that believes that life begins at conception, and I think that RU-486 is a good alternative for situations where a condom breaks or you otherwise have 72 hours to correct your mistake. However, abortions after 12 weeks are irresponsible and inexcusable save for expected medical complications, and shouldn't be considered legal. There is some dispute about exactly when a developing child is considered "alive" and not just an appendage of the mother, but from what I've seen it is between 10 and 12 weeks from conception.

Take a look at some of Europe's abortion legislation. (<- LINK) This is from the Planned Parenthood site, by the way, not Fox News.

The majority of the countries where abortion is available on request have a gestational limit, usually of 12 weeks. There is, however, no uniformity in the way this limit is calculated. It can be calculated from the last menstrual period, or from the estimated day of the conception.

The gestational limit, calculated from the last menstrual period, is 12 weeks in 17 of the countries with the most liberal laws. It is 14 weeks in another five countries, 10 weeks in France (a draft law extending the period to 12 weeks will be discussed by the French National Assembly by the end of the year), 90 days in Italy, 18 weeks in Sweden, and 24 weeks (or foetal viability) in the Netherlands. Most of these countries permit abortion even after the legal gestational age, but only in specific circumstances, and/ or with additional requirements. For example, Belgium, France and Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) permit the procedure at any time to protect a woman's life or health or because of foetal impairment.

In summary, my opinion is, get RU-486 readily available to those who need it (without prescription), and ban abortions past 12 weeks from conception with the exception of consideration for the health of the mother.

[Prophecy]

Getting back to the court's ruling, I'm glad they up held Roe vs. Wade. Women should have the right to choose what they do with their bodies. Just because we don't like the choices that some people will make doesn't mean we should have the right limit their choices. We should instead give them a better understanding of the choices that are out their before they make a final decision, the final decision should be up to them.

Seretogis if you believe abortions after 12 weeks are irresponsible and inexcusable that’s all good and well, but that shouldn’t stop someone from being able to have one after 12 weeks. I say let them do what they feel is right for them and let them live with that for the rest of their life. It is not the government’s job to regulate morals.

[The_Dude]

agree w/ prophecy there.

i trust the mother to make the choice.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Prophecy
Seretogis if you believe abortions after 12 weeks are irresponsible and inexcusable that’s all good and well, but that shouldn’t stop someone from being able to have one after 12 weeks. I say let them do what they feel is right for them and let them live with that for the rest of their life. It is not the government’s job to regulate morals.

Abortion is not cosmetic surgery! A nose job, face-lift, or body piercing is "a woman doing what she wants with her body", not death and disposal of a developing child.

After 12 weeks, the child has developed to a point where it is recognizably human, has a distinct heart beat, spinal cord, etc. It is no longer "just a part of the woman's body", it is a developing human being that should have a right to live.

[Charlatan]

While I firmly agree on a woman's right to choose, there should be a time limit. If it is 12 weeks so be it.

12 weeks seems like enough time to a) realize you are pregnant and b) make up your mind if you want to be a parent.

[Dilbert1234567]

seretogis i think there should be a 3 month window, after that i feel it has to be endangering the mom's life

Further do you think rape victims getting abortions? How bout 14 year olds

[Prophecy]

Originally posted by seretogis
After 12 weeks, the child has developed to a point where it is recognizably human, has a distinct heart beat, spinal cord, etc. It is no longer "just a part of the woman's body", it is a developing human being that should have a right to live.

Originally posted by Charlatan
While I firmly agree on a woman's right to choose, there should be a time limit. If it is 12 weeks so be it.

12 weeks seems like enough time to a) realize you are pregnant and b) make up your mind if you want to be a parent.

If there ever is a law passed that limits abortions after a certain time period I'd set the limit at 19 weeks instead of 12, but that's beside the point. Seretogis, abortion is not cosmetic surgery your right and I understand that. However that just reinforces the my belief that we should give women/couples a better understanding of both sides of the issue. Then once they understand the issue the choice they make is theirs. Right or wrong after that point the problem falls squarely in the lap of the mother/couple. They understood the issue, they made the choice, they live with it. People should be allowed to make the "wrong" choice and yes sometimes that choice effects other people, but thats just how the world is.

[The_Dude]

it's the mother that has to carry the unborn for 9months and then have to go thru the procedure of giving birth.

if she chooses not to go thru this procedure at any moment, it's her choice.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Apperently the chick became a Born-again or something, she realized the evil that she unleased. She tried to re-write one of histories biggest wrongs... good for her.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by The_Dude
it's the mother that has to carry the unborn for 9months and then have to go thru the procedure of giving birth.

if she chooses not to go thru this procedure at any moment, it's her choice.

If she chooses not to go through the procedure at any moment, she can not have unprotected sex with a man or take some responsibility and get shit taken care of within 12 weeks of conception! Her "choice" can be that of not getting pregnant in the first place. Do you think that parents that get tired of raising a child should be able to "choose not to go through the procedure of raising a child" and drown their children in a bathtub one after the other?

Yes, the above is an extreme suggestion, but honestly you seem to be completely ignoring any other form of reason, so I guess I have to draw some wicked parallels.

Originally posted by Prophecy
However that just reinforces the my belief that we should give women/couples a better understanding of both sides of the issue.

I am always pro-education when it comes to such a decision. Even if abortion is made illegal after 12 weeks, it still is a choice that can have serious moral, physical, and emotional consequences that the parents should be aware of.

Originally posted by Prophecy
Then once they understand the issue the choice they make is theirs. Right or wrong after that point the problem falls squarely in the lap of the mother/couple. They understood the issue, they made the choice, they live with it. People should be allowed to make the "wrong" choice and yes sometimes that choice effects other people, but thats just how the world is.

That sort of "honor system" in regards to lawful decisions just does not work. There is a chunk of the population that will not do something because it is illegal, and the law / consequences are what stop them. To consider that we shouldn't make abortion after 12 weeks illegal just to allow parents to choose right or wrong, is a bit silly. They have the rest of their lives to choose between right and wrong, let's not give them the opportunity when it concerns the life of a child.

[i]Originally posted by Dilbert1234567[i]
seretogis i think there should be a 3 month window, after that i feel it has to be endangering the mom's life

Further do you think rape victims getting abortions? How bout 14 year olds

A mother's life is always endangered when getting an abortion, regardless of how early or late it occurs. There are also psychological concerns that are rarely addressed.

As for rape victims getting abortions, they have 72 hours to use RU-486, and 12 weeks to otherwise deal with the pregnancy. As for 14 year olds, the same applies though I would prefer that the parents be notified. Leaving parents out of the loop in something like this is a horrible idea, and further undermines their abilities as a parent. A friend of mine was knocked up (date-rape) at 16 and got an abortion, and she recently told her parents at 25 and it was weighing on her heavily for 9 years. A fourteen year old doesn't generally have the ability to make the morally right decision when it could entail punishment from parents, so to leave it up to them will nearly always guarantee that the wrong decision is made and other not-so-visible consequences take their toll.

[Daval]

Suprisingly, I find myself quite agreeing with Seretogis on this whole abortion issue.

I am highly against using abortion as a method of birth control. I personally know someone who has had 3 or 4 abortions because she doesnt like her partners to use condoms, and thinks the pill makes her fat. I lost total and complete respect for her.

Abortions should only be performed within the first 12 weeks of conception, and that will give enough time for the 14 year olds and rape victims to get sorted. (poor choice of words, sorry).

People who come back for multiple abortions however, and are using it as a method of birth control should be charged and refused. Maybe fined. Somethign to stop them.

[hrdwareguy]

Just want to point out something about Roe v Wade.

Roe v Wade did not make abortion legal. Roe v Wade made abortion a states rights issue. It is up to each individual state to determine if it is legal or not.

[Prophecy]

Originally posted by seretogis
If she chooses not to go through the procedure at any moment, she can not have unprotected sex with a man or take some responsibility and get shit taken care of within 12 weeks of conception! Her "choice" can be that of not getting pregnant in the first place. Do you think that parents that get tired of raising a child should be able to "choose not to go through the procedure of raising a child" and drown their children in a bathtub one after the other?

Some parents have been known to give their child up for adoption when the child was as old as five.
Thats all I have to say about that...

Originally posted by seretogis

That sort of "honor system" in regards to lawful decisions just does not work. There is a chunk of the population that will not do something because it is illegal, and the law / consequences are what stop them. To consider that we shouldn't make abortion after 12 weeks illegal just to allow parents to choose right or wrong, is a bit silly. They have the rest of their lives to choose between right and wrong, let's not give them the opportunity when it concerns the life of a child.

I guess my whole thing with this is, "Who am I/ Who are we" to judge? Silly or not that mother/couple should be able to choose for themselves what they are going to do about her situation without government intervention. Now don't get me wrong I would be truly angry at mother that got an abortion in her seventh month of pregnancy. However, I would try my best to stay neutral, just because I disagree that shouldn’t give me the right to stop her. (We are speaking only of abortion here, I hold different views on other topics) People should be allowed to make their own choices and be accountable for them after the fact, not before hand. Minority Report anyone?
I'm guessing this comes down to the point of view that I believe this is still the woman’s body where as you do not. Correct me if I’m wrong.

[Prophecy]

Originally posted by Daval
I am highly against using abortion as a method of birth control. I personally know someone who has had 3 or 4 abortions because she doesn’t like her partners to use condoms, and thinks the pill makes her fat. I lost total and complete respect for her.

I might sound like I'm contradicting myself here but I agree abortion is not a method of birth control and using it as such is sickening. I would have lost respect for that lady too. However, I currently still think the woman should have the choice to do such as she did however sickening as it might seem.

[The_Dude]

if a woman chooses to get pregnant intentionally or not, it's still her decision to decide what to do w/ the baby.

to me, the baby is still part of her till it comes out.

to me, it's like saying you cant whack off cuz you're killing potential offspring. govt has no right to tell me what i can/cant do w/ my body as long as i dont harm anyone else (no, i dont think the baby is a person, maybe that's cuz i was brought up in a society where abortion was considered as contraception)

[seretogis]

Originally posted by The_Dude
to me, the baby is still part of her till it comes out.

Well, the baby is a separate living developing human being before it is born. Are you suggesting that if, on the day that the woman's water breaks, if she decides that she doesn't want a child after all that she should be able to abort it at that moment, hours from being born? If not, where are you willing to draw the line? If so, wow -- that's impressive in a very disturbing way.

Originally posted by The_Dude
to me, it's like saying you cant whack off cuz you're killing potential offspring. govt has no right to tell me what i can/cant do w/ my body as long as i dont harm anyone else (no, i dont think the baby is a person, maybe that's cuz i was brought up in a society where abortion was considered as contraception)

You are able to do whatever you want with your body (for the most part), but an unborn baby is "someone else" as soon as it has its own heartbeat, regardless of how much you deny it. You should spend some time around women who are pregnant, and newborns and see if you have any more respect for the process of child development and birth. It's not just an unfortunate side-effect of drunken sex in an alley like a hangover, you know.

As for "to me, it's like saying you cant whack off cuz you're killing potential offspring", limiting unnecessary abortions is nothing at all like telling someone not to masturbate. Please don't compare me to wacko nut-jobs that consider masturbation to be equal to abortion. Abortion (especially after 12 weeks) should be considered a last resort, as it is the most harmful way to prevent a pregnancy -- to the mother and the child.

[The_Dude]

what i am saying is, as long as the baby is inside the other, it should be mother's decision. i trust the mother to make the decision. i dont think many mothers would opt for partial birth abortions unless critical conditions are present.

supreme court put this under the right to privacy, which in my mind includes till the baby comes out.

btw, i'm not an expert in the medical science assosiated w/ this.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Prophecy
Some parents have been known to give their child up for adoption when the child was as old as five.
Thats all I have to say about that...

Well, at least that child will have the chance to grow up and learn from the mistakes of their parents.

Originally posted by Prophecy
I guess my whole thing with this is, "Who am I/ Who are we" to judge?

By that logic, we should have no laws at all, right? I know that it isn't PC to think so, but there is a difference between "right" and "wrong".

Originally posted by Prophecy
Silly or not that mother/couple should be able to choose for themselves what they are going to do about her situation without government intervention.

They can. Abstinence, condoms, "the pill", "the patch", visectomy, spermicide, sponge, IUD, cervical cap, norplant, etc all all available to stop unwanted pregnancies. In the unlikely event that all of the above options are unavailable or do not work, RU-486 is effective up to 72 hours after a pregnancy. There are plenty of choices that don't involve killing a developing child.

Originally posted by Prophecy
Now don't get me wrong I would be truly angry at mother that got an abortion in her seventh month of pregnancy. However, I would try my best to stay neutral, just because I disagree that shouldn’t give me the right to stop her. (We are speaking only of abortion here, I hold different views on other topics) People should be allowed to make their own choices and be accountable for them after the fact, not before hand. Minority Report anyone?

The problem with this, Prophecy, is that abortion in the seventh month does not hold the parents accountable -- only the child -- who has absolutely no say in the matter. The parents have had plenty of time to decide what to do about the pregnancy, and holding the child accountable for their lack of action is not right. If you want for people to be able to make wrong hurtful decisions and "live with the consequences", why would you make a special case of abortion, which is not only not victimless, but concerns a victim which can't even defend itself? If you want people to "learn lessons", then legalize breaking and entering.

Originally posted by Prophecy
I'm guessing this comes down to the point of view that I believe this is still the woman’s body where as you do not. Correct me if I’m wrong.

It comes down to how on earth abortion-supporters can believe that something with its own heart beat is somehow still only the mother. It's only a matter of time before our technology is to the point where a fetus can be extracted from the mother and survive/develop to a healthy baby. Scraping the very same fetus out of the womb with surgical tools will seem that much more barbaric, then.

[The_Dude]

look, we kill a lot of other things that are at a much more developed stage than a fetus.

so, you say what about the potential?? well, we have the death penalty, what about their potential?

[Sparhawk]

Dear god, don't bring capital punishment into this debate.

[Daval]

Originally posted by seretogis

Please don't compare me to wacko nut-jobs that consider masturbation to be equal to abortion. Abortion (especially after 12 weeks) should be considered a last resort, as it is the most harmful way to prevent a pregnancy -- to the mother and the child.

Are there seriously people who compare masturbation to abortion? I've never heard that before. wow!

[Prophecy]

Okay, I am going to try to tackle a few of statements here at the same time. So have been made in this thread a few others haven't but are along the same lines as other comments, bear with me... (Let me find my thinking cap...)

Originally posted by seretogis
If you want for people to be able to make wrong hurtful decisions and "live with the consequences", why would you make a special case of abortion, which is not only not victimless, but concerns a victim which can't even defend itself? If you want people to "learn lessons", then legalize breaking and entering.

Some how I knew you were going to say that when I posted.
So let me say this, I'm referring to abortions only. Breaking and entering is a different topic that I have a different view on. Abortion isn't a special case it’s a separate case. My views on breaking and entering have nothing to with abortion.

Originally posted by seretogis
Abstinence, condoms, "the pill", "the patch", visectomy, spermicide, sponge, IUD, cervical cap, Norplant, etc all are available to stop unwanted pregnancies. In the unlikely event that all of the above options are unavailable or do not work, RU-486 is effective up to 72 hours after a pregnancy. There are plenty of choices that don't involve killing a developing child.

Okay, yes we have contraceptives, but no birth control method is perfectly reliable (except abstinence), and for medical or religious reasons many women can't use the most effective methods. Contraceptive information and services are still not available to all women, especially teens and the poor. That some women (and men) are careless about birth control is irrelevant to the legality of abortion.

Originally posted by seretogis
It comes down to how on earth abortion-supporters can believe that something with its own heart beat is somehow still only the mother...

I am pro-choice. "Pro-abortion/Abortion-supporter" is inaccurate, it implies I favor abortion over childbirth. I support choice/reproductive freedom, which means that an individual woman should be able to make her own choice.

Originally posted by seretogis
...Well, the baby is a separate living developing human being before it is born.

[list=1][*]The fetus is totally dependent on the body of the woman for its life support and is physically attached to her by the placenta and umbilicus. The health of the fetus is directly related to the health of the pregnant woman. Only at birth are they separate.[*]No twelve week child has been taken from the mother's womb and survived.[/list=1]

With the central nervous system already developed, the baby is capable to feeling intense pain when it is killed in abortion.

I think that is along the lines of something seretogis was saying. Anyway, the brain structures and nerve-cell connections that characterize the thinking and feeling parts of the brain are not completed until between the 7th and 8th months of gestation. Only after 30 weeks do the brain waves show patterns of waking consciousness when pain can be perceived. The reflex actions that are present before this stage do not indicate ability to feel pain. Abortions virtually never occur after 24 weeks anyway. (Think life threatening cases)

Abortion is wrong because it is taking a human life.

Almost all legislators who oppose abortion rights also support the death penalty. One might ask if they think people who are convicted of murder are no longer human.

The right of the unborn to live supersedes any right of a woman to "control her own body." It’s not just her body...

I believe Margaret Sanger once said, "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." This concept is fundamental for women and men.

----------------

Forced abortion was being discussed in another thread here on the board as a method of population control in nations i.e. China. The only thing I have to say about that is abortion is one way to allow individuals to limit their childbearing voluntarily when a country's resources cannot support its population. I am opposed to forced abortion and support freedom of choice for all women in all countries.

[rat]

Thank god they haven't overturned that ruling. While I have yet to truly support one side or the other, I tend (especially in political instances) to look towards the real world impact of decisions. This country has lived for too long with Roe v Wade to overturn it now. Simply put, our country would split straight down the middle on this issue were Roe v Wade to ever be overturned. Philosophy aside, it's political suicide to entertain overturning that ruling. Any president that puts in the justices that overturn Roe v Wade can expect to never return to the White House. Our country isn't ready for a counter-ruling on the issue, and as far as the pro-life camp goes, how is it directly affecting those mothers that choose to keep their children? As opposed to the pro-choice camp, where mothers would no longer have any choice but to have the child? The pro-life camp has nothing to lose in this fight, and everything to gain politically. However, the pro-choice camp has everything to lose, and I guarantee you they would not tolerate a counter-ruling for long.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Prophecy
Some how I knew you were going to say that when I posted.
So let me say this, I'm referring to abortions only. Breaking and entering is a different topic that I have a different view on. Abortion isn't a special case it’s a separate case. My views on breaking and entering have nothing to with abortion.

I know this, my point was that if you want to legalize something merely to allow people to learn moral lessons, then legalize something which does not have a living victim which dies.

Originally posted by Prophecy
Okay, yes we have contraceptives, but no birth control method is perfectly reliable (except abstinence), and for medical or religious reasons many women can't use the most effective methods. Contraceptive information and services are still not available to all women, especially teens and the poor. That some women (and men) are careless about birth control is irrelevant to the legality of abortion.

Who, for religious or medical reasons, cannot have the man use condoms? A friend of mine is allergic to latex, so their partner has to use lambskin condoms, but they are available and work just as well.

Originally posted by Prophecy
I am pro-choice. "Pro-abortion/Abortion-supporter" is inaccurate, it implies I favor abortion over childbirth. I support choice/reproductive freedom, which means that an individual woman should be able to make her own choice.

All you're doing is playing around with words. "Pro-choice" implies that I do not believe in choice, which is incorrect. People should exercise said choice before another life is involved, not make life-threatening choices for a child.

Originally posted by Prophecy
[list=1][*]The fetus is totally dependent on the body of the woman for its life support and is physically attached to her by the placenta and umbilicus. The health of the fetus is directly related to the health of the pregnant woman. Only at birth are they separate.[*]No twelve week child has been taken from the mother's womb and survived.[/list=1]

These points are not really valid, because they are dependant on our technology and that it never improves to the point where a 12 week old child can survive without the mother. It's honestly just a matter of time.

By the way, how many two year olds do you know that are not entirely dependant on the parents for food/safety? Are you suggesting that until they are completely self-sufficient, they can still be aborted?

Originally posted by Prophecy
I think that is along the lines of something seretogis was saying. Anyway, the brain structures and nerve-cell connections that characterize the thinking and feeling parts of the brain are not completed until between the 7th and 8th months of gestation.

As far as I know, the ability to feel pain isn't a determining factor of life. Are people in comas not alive?

Originally posted by Prophecy
Almost all legislators who oppose abortion rights also support the death penalty. One might ask if they think people who are convicted of murder are no longer human.

In both cases (capital punishment, abortion) there were choices available which could save lives. Choices which, by the way, were ignored or passed over for what would yield immediate benefit but long-term suffering. Those who consistently make the wrong decisions and endanger the lives of others have wasted their chances to bring something positive into the world.

Originally posted by Daval
Are there seriously people who compare masturbation to abortion? I've never heard that before. wow!

Yes, there are also people who consider birth control to be sinful -- as well as any sex performed without intent to impregnante.