The Court in Roe said that there were two legitimate state interests in the regulation of abortion: the mother's health and the potential life of the fetus. According to the Court, the latter arises after "viability":



The Court defined viability here:



The specific medical authority for the definition of "viability" comes from an obstetrics book published in 1971. Since it references a medical text, current at that time, for when "viability" occurs, we can assume, that Roe anticipated that medical technology in future years might affect the point at which a fetus becomes viable. Especially if viability can mean the ability for the fetus to live outside the womb with artificial aid.

You ask:



I am no doctor, but I do know that thanks to recent medical advances, premature infants are able to survive at much earlier ages than they were in 1973. Additionally, I think it is fair to assume that our medical advances will make it possible for even less developed premature infants to survive in the future, outside the womb.

So, it would seem to me that under the specific rationale of Roe, we should see the States having the constitutional ability to regulate abortion in the interest of the potential life of the fetus. But we aren't seeing that are we? Does that mean that the rationale for the holding in Roe is pretty much meaningless?

There was no time period set by Roe for viability -- if viability happens earlier, the third stage comes into effect earlier. From what I've read, in 1973, the point at which a fetus was considered viable was 28 weeks and that is when the third stage came into effect. That has since been reduced to 24 weeks. In the United States, abortions can be legal up to 24 weeks -- after that the third stage comes into effect. Some physicians will not perform abortions after 20 weeks unless the woman's health or life are seriously at risk. So, adjustments are being made. It is happening. You implied that the 1st trimester ruling should be questioned in response to medical advancement and viability. There is nothing to indicate that this is necessary at this point. So, no... it isn't meaningless. If through some advancement in technology, the point at which the fetus becomes viable delves into the 1st trimester, the right of the viable fetus outweighs the right to privacy... Roe acknowledges that fact -- perhaps that is why they, wisely, did not put a time stamp on viability. Anybody challenging the law at that point would not be able to use Roe's argument to support the elective abortion of a viable fetus.

The British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has set the legal age of viability at 24 weeks . Since the British are not so polarized over this issue, I think we can use this figure as a fairly objective value. That would suggest that the fetus is viable only in the third trimester, and per Roe states are able to regulate or forbid abortions in that third trimester. Ergo, any deficiency here is on the part of the state legislators, not the judiciary.

Sorry, the AD editor is busted so here's the link to the web page in hard copy:

http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=549

And the law put into effect today is based on the OPINIONS of 7 Supreme Court Justices. Could they have been wrong?

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. If you would like the names of these books and sources, I’d be happy to give them to you.
Many people have been told that there is no medical or scientific consensus as to when life begins. This is simply untrue. Among those scientists with no vested interests in the abortion issue, there is an overwhelming consensus that human life begins at conception. Again if you want names and more information just ask.




The testimony was worse than this but it was to graphic to print the whole thing.


Vermillion I ask you, what would you call this if it isn’t murder?


What is it called when a poisonous salt solution is injected into the amniotic sac killing the child over several hours?

Might just be my opinion but this is no humane treatment of a human being. I asked the question before and no one touched it. How many people if they witnessed this procedure would think it wasn’t murder? How many could stand there and think of this as right, moral?
Woman’s rights? Who has the right to do this?

For those of us who have had the opportunity to give birth to a child, we know that during pregnancy we can make the child move in our bellies just by pushing on our stomachs. They move because they feel our touches. Do you think then they feel pain as well? Think these abortions might be painful?
In California, They have what is called the Fetal Pain Prevention Act. It requires babies to be sedated to reduce their suffering during an abortion. (Planned Parenthood opposed this bill)

How can you ask anyone who values life, to compromise on procedures such as these?




What is the taking of a life that has no say in its taking? Every pro-choice argument requires that we pretend, that we play mind games, that we forget, ignore, or deny the humanity, worth, and dignity of unborn babies. The pro-choice movement thrives on having a silent victim. That is why during procedures as the one I described; the doctor only delivers the baby’s body, so he can’t see the head. Why? What would happen if the baby’s eyes opened?
Why in many states do they have surgical teams standing by in case the baby somehow survives?

Just tell me what you call this then if it isn’t murder?

First off, great topic.
Is the division of the pregnancy into two periods the best way of dealing with the issue of how far advanced the pregnancy is?
If one is going to create a line for levels of abortion availability, then 1/2 way is as good of a point as any as it gives the mother ample time to make a decision while trying to avoid the fetus getting so developed that he/she can survive outside of the womb.

Should some restrictions be placed on legal access to abortion during the first period? Only the restrictions of physical, financial, and legal feasibility.

Would you vote for an amendment worded to reflect the ideas presented here?
Abortion is such a difficult issue because you can argue both sides reasonably IMO. On the one hand you have the freedom of the mother to do as she wishes with her body. On the other hand you have the freedom of a multicelled zygote to grow and live. Someone's freedom is infringed upon. In an ideal world, all unwanted children would be brought to maturity outside of the womb. Since that isn't scientifically or financially feasible, we are stuck trying to balance these freedoms. Erasmussimo has valiantly tried to create a federal balance that can put this issue to bed. I would not vote for this amendment though. Currently I believe that the Constitution itself leaves this issue up to the States and that is how it should stay IMO. The reasoning is based much on what Bay State Rebel has said.

Since we are dealing with an issue where both sides infringe upon such basic freedoms as life and the right of the individual, it is not proper to have the will of some states forced upon the others. Were this proposed as a regular law in my state Erasmussimo, I would certainly encourage a vote in favor of it as it seems to have found a good balance of freedoms.

What a lovely bit of misinformation. First, this Act has not been passed yet. Second, it does not require that babies be sedated to reduce suffering during an abortion. The act requires physicians to give mother's the information regarding sedation of the fetus and requires the mother to sign a waiver if she doesn't want to allow sedation. Third, it applies to abortions after the 20th week of gestation -- the point at which a fetus is said to have developed the ability to feel pain (note: this does not necessarily mean that the fetus is viable.)

And you aren't guilty of misinformation yourself Entspeak?



Link

I didn't even know about this until I read this thread. Thanks azchurchmouse.

Do you happen to know what Vagitus uterinus is? No? Let me define it for you. Crying of the fetus while still within the uterus. How in the hell can you tell me a 20 week old fetus is not a person/human being when it cries out in pain? Is this really a choice?

I don't think that's a fair way to phrase it. Roe v Wade constitutes the professional judgment of the top legal minds in the country in 1973. There's a big difference between a personal opinion and a professional judgment.

As to your other comments, as well as those of others, I want to remind everybody that this topic is not a general slugfest about the merits of abortion. It is specifically addressed to the problem of a possible constitutional amendment about abortion that represents some sort of compromise. You have made it clear that you oppose any amendment offering any compromise on the matter of abortion. That's fine -- but let's leave it at that. If you wish to argue the merits of abortion, please start a new topic or use one of the existing topics on the subject.

It's obvious that this is a highly contentious issue. It's also obvious that opinions have not changed in twenty years and they will not be changing much in the future. Nobody here is going to be changing their minds based on what is written here. My hope was that we could at least identify some basis for a compromise. There remains a determined minority (about 20%) that will fight this issue until the end of time; azchurchmouse, you are our local representative of that minority. I respect your opinion and I wish that there were some way to satisfy you, but like all extremists, you will be satisfied by nothing less than total victory. At some point, the patience of the majority will wear thin and I fear that your efforts may end up becoming counterproductive.

Would you vote for an amendment worded to reflect the ideas presented here?

I'll try get this off the emotional rollercoaster. I would not vote for this or any other amendment that puts the word "abortion" into the U. S. Constitution. I do not like tampering with the document, especially when we would be adding something involving a moral question and much emotional baggage.

We tried this with prohibition and it didn't work.

I would much prefer that "activist" judges make the decision than have it embedded in the stone of the constitution.

Further, from a practical standpoint, I don't see amendments involving such questions clearing the hurdles necessary for ratification.

I agree that the Constitution should not be amended for this.

"Activist" judges, as BoF has already said, are preferable to changing the Constitution, especially when a different Congress might and will probably represent the wishes of those with an entirely different take on the abortion issue after the next election.

The beauty of the Constitution is that, for the most part, it does not represent merely the thoughts of our leaders for a given time frame, but can be applied to most instances and times as it is.

Entspeak, I was implying that the Roe holding is "meaningless" due to the way that the legitimate state interest in potential life has been read by the courts. And I think it is. How else could we have litigants challenging the partial birth abortion statutes and winning? I think the courts have read the language in Roe: "health of the mother" very broadly so as to include any kind of asserted psychological problem. By doing this, the courts have effectively read out any real possibility for the state to act to protect the potential life of a fetus after viability.





Using the British organization's point of viability sounds reasonable erassmussimo. But as I said to entspeak, I don't think that it is the legislators who have failed to act here. I think they have. I think it is the courts that have read any meaningful limit on abortions of viable fetuses away by interpreting the phrase "health of the mother" very broadly to include the psychological health of the mother.





Bof-- you have to remember that when "activist" judges make this kind of decision, they too are embedding their decision into the constitution. Roe did not give us flexibility, it gave us a rigid solution to a very controversial moral issue.

I have to go back to my original position on the question posed in this thread. Amend the constitution and provide very limited situations where abortion is a guaranteed right and give the rest over to the states. Let the extremes on both sides of the issue battle it out at the local level, so that we can finally be rid of this issue in our national politics.

Is the division of the pregnancy into two periods the best way of dealing with the issue of how far advanced the pregnancy is?
I realize the reasoning behind this is to try and commute the viability debate, but I think it fails regardless. Viability is the only way the SC pulled off the original Roe decision. Without it, I seriously doubt you would have had the 7-2 decision it was.

Should some restrictions be placed on legal access to abortion during the first period?
None.

Should the restrictions this amendment places on legal access to abortion in the second period be loosened or tightened?
I think the language is fair, but I don't support the concept of an amendment in this area.

Would you vote for an amendment worded to reflect the ideas presented here?
No, at best this should be considered at a legislative level, not by permanently amending the constitution. Despite being well intended, a topic this polarizing and this contentious should never have its compromise codified as an amendment to the constitution. The document has had such a long life due in part to its difficulty in changing over the years.

Doc--what could be done to allow the issue to be considered at the legislative level? Would you support a constitutional amendment that gives the issue of abortion back to the states? How else could there be any compromise?

I don't think an amendment is necessary to give to the states what they have currently. Roe isn't prescriptive in preventing states from attempting to regulate this area. The fact that nearly all decisions are based on state (vs. federal) legislation proves this. SCOTUS laid the parameters pretty clearly upon which states can currently regulate abortion. The federal attempt at partial-birth abortion probably is the closest violation of that principle. If anything, you could simply pass legislation that leaves regulation of abortion to the states. The 10th and 14th amendments would still give SCOTUS jurisdiction to test state regulations to see if they pass constitutional muster.

I wouldn't vote in favor of this amendment. Avoiding too much contention on this issue (where life begins, ect), 88 to 91 percent of all abortions take place during the first 12 weeks. This amendment would apply to roughly only 5 or 6 percent of all abortions (a figure which already includes those for life and health and severe birth defects). To me that is a base so small it isn't amendment-worthy. States are already permitted to intervene after the first trimester and restrict access to abortion unless the mother's health is at risk. This amendment would be rather pointless on those grounds, IMO.

Actually, sleeper... I'm not. Azchurchmouse stated California, I looked up the law in California. As far as I can tell, the Act has not passed in California. Your link is Minnesota. There are, currently 2 states with such a law... Minnesota and Arkansas. Neither of these laws require physicians to sedate the fetus, per se. The laws require a physician to give information regarding the fetus's ability to feel pain at 20 weeks and requires them to adminster the sedative to the fetus if the patient consents. It is a decision made by the person having the abortion. Thank you for the link.




Well, being that I never stated anything of the kind, I don't know how you can ask me that question. I simply stated that the law does not consider a 20 week old fetus to be viable. That is the point at which the State now recognizes a fetus as a "person" under the 14th Amendment.

Hayleyanne,



I see. So before it was about changes occurring in the laws and technological advances and viability... now you are shifting to judicial interpretation regarding "health of the mother" and viability. I apologize for not seeing so clear an implication in your original argument.

Perhaps you could cite a case where an asserted psychological problem was accepted by the courts as a valid reason to allow a partial birth abortion? Otherwise, I'm not inclined to accept that argument... I can't seem to find such a case.



Really? Rigid? How then do you explain the decrease in the number of weeks before it becomes illegal to perform an abortion? It has put no time stamp on viability, thereby allowing for flexibility in making adjustments to the law alongside technological advancement. Roe acknowledges that if a fetus is considered a person under the 14th Amendment, the case for elective abortion collapses. It set the stage for having itself overturned should it ever be determined that a fetus is considered a person from the point of conception. In the meantime, it went with the States view regarding fetuses at the time... there was no law recognizing an unborn fetus as a person under the 14th Amendment -- in fact, there were statutes and judicial decisions in areas separate from abortion stating otherwise -- that an unborn fetus had no rights.

Now, a constitutional amendment allows for no flexibility -- particularly Erasmussimo's. As it stands, the right to privacy regarding the decision to abort a fetus is not absolute and can be increasingly infringed upon in the future even up until the point that all abortions become illegal except in cases dealing with a serious health risk to the mother. The grand issue of abortion then disappears into the ether. Not so with a constitutional amendment. Even if such an amendment succeeded in passing, the one proposed by Erasmussimo is certainly more rigid than the Roe decision and does not allow for the possibility of abortion being illegal if it, in future, is determined that an unborn fetus does have rights from the point of conception.

Research the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the Court.
It is being promoted with lies that are still being told. Norma, the Roe of Roe vs. Wade, admitted she lied about being gang raped-a lie upon which the Supreme Court based its decision. And this lie led many to accept the legality of abortion. Norma today happens to be pro-life.

Bernard Nathanson, the founder of National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, admitted lying in front of the court about the stats he gave on the woman who died from illegal abortions. He now is 100% pro-life. Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, lied under oath to the courts about the numbers of partial birth abortions.

There is too much to post about the lies told, you would have to research this yourself as I said before the American public knows nothing about abortion but its definition. If the majority did the research I and others like me have done, we would not be having this discussion.
.
I hope and pray the next person who is appointed to the Supreme Court, really reads up on the history of this decision and the lies that were told to get its approval.

As for your comment,

Please site source on this statistic.






I highly doubt this is true. People who are pro-choice do not respect right to life views.






Nothing, nothing, will stop us in trying to save the life of just one unborn child. NOTHING.
Nothing could be counterproductive in trying to save a life, an innocent life from death. A death he/she has no control over.




What I find so odd is why no one has put a name to the abortion procedure I described above in post 54. What should it be called?

If say, three boys happen to do this procedure that I described above. What would happen to them?
Arrest, prison, jail?
Yes that probably would happen, the public and community would be outraged.
Animal cruelty. Yet our society says nothing about this same thing happening around the country on innocent human babies. And most of you do not bat one eye as to its cruelty. You call me extremist because I find abortion wrong.

azchurchmouse,

Whether your statements are propaganda, as I suspect, or fact, it is your responsibility to back up your posts with appropriate documentation (credible sources)--not the other way around.

How far would a historian get if he/she wrote a book and at the end told the reader to verify the facts instead of including notes and a bibliography?

azchurchmouse,

So I guess this means you don't support the Erasmussimo's idea for an amendment to the Constitution. Good to know, thanks for the input.

Abortion activists keep repeating the same info about partial birth abortion, yet they're the ones who will stop at nothing other than outlawing any abortion, not just ones which are during second and third trimester of pregnancy.
"Innocent babies" which are being killed during the first trimester of pregnancy... they're not even fetuses yet, ossification of the bones has barely began, and some of them still have tails. There're no scissors small enough to "insert them through the back of the head", and this poster procedure of abortion foes is never performed during a first trimester. Yet, once again, you keep fighting not only against late-term abortions, but against any abortion, even the one performed during a forth week of pregnancy.

Answering the question, though... I like the ideas presented here, and I see it as a good compromise between two sides. I see no reasons to restrict abortions during (at least) a first trimester of pregnancy.
I am not sure that it should go into constitution though... I agree with other posters that specific issues such as abortion should be left out of a broad-based document such as constitution. As we know, amendmends can be repealed later, so it does not add any more "permanency" to the law than a regular bill passed by the Congress and signed by president.

Would you vote for an amendment worded to reflect the ideas presented here?

No, for the same reasons I stated in this thread which is a very similar topic. I don't think a Constitutional Amendment is required for this, and there is no need to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, a little research into Casey does cause me some concern. This is most definitely a ruling that needs to be re-visited. From this opinion.....



Basically what they are saying is that childbirth is a difficult process and has health risks associated with it. No kidding? This ruling is judicial activism to the Nth degree and goes far beyond the scope of Roe v Wade. Basically what it really says is that because giving birth to a child poses medical risks to the mother, an abortion at any point is acceptable "for the health of the mother". This seems to me to completely ignore one of the fundamental findings in Roe where the court recognized a "compelling interest" by the state in protecting potential life. I would prefer that Casey be over-turned and we go back to Roe as the law of the land and let the states exert their "compelling interests: appropriately. I wouldn't favor a Constitutional AMendment to do that though.

My point did not shift at all entspeak. The "laws" and the judicial interpretation of those laws are both intricately related. Frankly, I am at a loss as to how you missed my point in the first place.




There may or may not be a specific case with such facts, but that is not relevant. The courts have been asked to resolve the question of whether, for example, the ban on partial birth abortion is generally constitutional. The courts have not limited their holdings to the precise factual situations before them when it comes to this issue. Rehnquist makes this point in his dissent in Roe:




Finally, regarding the rigidity of Roe:




Roe is just as rigid as Erassmussimo's amendment in the sense that (just like E's amendment) Roe delineates the constitutional parameters of state regulation of abortion. Those parameters may purport to look to technological advancement, but Roe still sets the ultimate limitations on state regulation of abortion in the same way as any constitutional amendment would.

By that logic of course, laws against murder are 'just opinions'.... You know very well that that is not even close to what I meant. I asked you to consider the reality that your stance on abortion is just your opinion, and not some universal cosmic truth. I am happy to admit that for myself, why can you not do the same?



Bad bluff my friend. Not only do I want you to give them to me, I wish I could PAY you to do so. Which standard medical textbooks used anywhere in North America explicitly say life begins at conception?

Not 'Grey's Anatomy', not Macleods 'Clinical Examination', Not McKeel's 'Internal Anatomy', not Kumar and Clark 'Clinical medicine', Not the Texbook of Medical Physiology... sadly for you, my I know a number of doctors and medical students at the moment. I think you will find in fact, that this argument falls COMPLETELY against you. Most medical textbooks, where they make any inference about the beginning of life AT ALL' are clear in their separation between 'life' and pesonhood'. After all, a fingernail is 'alive', it is not a person.

Please do not make grand statements like this when they are entirely incorrect.






I call it a description of a late term abotion. Sorry, it is your opinion thhat this is murder, but that is just your opinion. The law disagrees with you, and so does the medical community. Despite your inaccurate comments about the beginning of 'life' (an irrelevant term in this case) I further defy you to find a single textbook anywhere in the medical community that defines abortion s murder, o even as a crime.




No, its not a humane treatment of a human being, but then a zygote is not a person. It may be according to your opinion, but thats just your opinion. Your opinion, and NOT the opinion of the law (and not just the law of the US, but the law of every single first world nation on the planet, by the way) nor the opinion of the medical community.

I do not fault you for your opinion, furthermoe I am happy to admit that there is an argument behind your opinion (something you deny your opponents) but that does not make it any moe than just your opinion. PLEASE keep that in mind.

As for your slightly puzzling second question... I think pretty much anyone who was pro-choice who was there for the proceedure (though why they would be I cannot know) would think it was not murder. I AM SURE they might find it unsettling, nausiating, even frigtening, but then they would experience the same visceral symptoms were they front row centre for a leg amputation. That does not make it murder.



Listen, I am not trying to somehow negate or ignore your side of the debate. As I said, certainly there is some merit to it, if there was not, there would not be such a huge debate. But I get really tired of people who do not argue, they preach. Pleae keep in mind that your point of view, no matter how much you hold to it, is a personal point of view.

It is also, just so you are clear, a minority point of view.

"More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade established a constitutional right for women to obtain legal abortions in this country. In general, do you think the Court's decision was a good thing or a bad thing?"

Good Thing 59%
Bad Thing 32%
Both 4%
Unsure 5%
(CBS New Poll, July 2005)


"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Always Legal 26%
Sometimes Legal 53%
Always Illegal 20%
Unsure 1%
(Gallup Poll, June 24th-26th 2005)


"If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it?"

Vote To Overturn 29%
Vote To Uphold 65%
Unsure 6%
(Gallup poll, June 24th-26th 2005)



I made sure to include the Gallup poll, so that nobody can question the veracity of the numbers. They are the most recognised and reputable independent polling agency on the planet after all...

Then adress what I post below..............Are you saying these experts are lying, that I am lying?














Popular science reference works reflect this same understanding of when human life really begins.





These are not from religious sources. Every one is from a secular source based on SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACTS.



Look at what some of the worlds most prominent scientists and physicians have to say about when life starts. These experts below all testified to a U.S. Senate committee on the beginning of life.




















At this particular Senate hearing, Pro-abortionists though invited to testify, failed to produce even one expert witness who would testify that life did not begin at conception.



If you would like more information I would be happy to provide you with names, sources. Because there are hundreds of more I would be willing to give you.


Read about Dr. Bernard Nathanson an internationally known OB, who was a cofounder of what is now known as NARA. He once owned the biggest abortion clinic in the Western Hemisphere. He participated in 60,000 abortions.
He studied fetology and the use of the ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb. This work led him to a new conclusion that he had participated in 60,000 wrongful deaths. Read his articles in the New England Journal of medicine.


I too have friends and relatives working in the medical field. My grandfather was a surgeon, my uncle an Internist and my cousin is an OBGYN.

I have worked in the pro-life field for years. I have heard experts, read magazines, books.
Your saying everything I heard and read is not the truth, they are all lies?

Bluffing?

Enough evidence has been presented to our courts in the past years that warrents the law to look at this issue once again. Evidence that clearly show life starts at conception. I can't believe that Roe v Wade should not, could not be overturned.

I know that this response is a bit dated, but I wanted to make this post. The technology for this sort of decision has existed for years. A simple pre-natal test can confirm Tae-Sachs disease for example, which is fatal in 99% of cases by the age of six, and in the remaining 1% by the age of twenty (known as late-onset Tae-Sachs, an even more horrifying disease.)

Just wanted to make it clear that these are issues that do exist quite clearly.

I don't know either... It is so very crystal clear.

This is what you said first:



To which I replied that the States are regulating and have the constitutional ability to regulate abortion in the interest of the potential life of the fetus at earlier and earlier stages as medical knowledge and technology continues to advance. Something you stated wasn't happening.

You then changed the argument by claiming that what you meant was:



Being that it is now generally accepted that a fetus is viable at about 24 weeks and that is the point now at which, according to Roe, the State's interest in protecting the potential life of a fetus kicks in. So... what are you talking about? Partial birth abortions are not allowed after 24 weeks except when there is a serious threat to the health or life of the mother. Where are the cases where there has been a fetus aborted after 24 weeks in which the courts decided that the State had no interest in protecting the potential life of a fetus after viability? What were the medical conditions cited in those cases for allowing the State's interest to be superceded? If there are no cases dealing with the issue you point out, then what you are saying is patently false.



So, now you claim your argument is no longer relevant. Wow, okay. Then, dare I ask, why you made the argument in the first place? I mean... States already regulate abortion with regards to the interest of protecting the potential life of a fetus after 24 weeks -- the time at which, medically, a fetus is generally considered viable today (as opposed to 28 weeks in 1973), so how is their ability to regulate or proscribe abortions at this stage being taken away from them?



Please, again, cite a case dealing specifically with partial birth abortion and your issue with it. As far as I've gathered, the problem with a total ban on partial birth abortions is that it affects abortions in stages of pregnancy before viability.



The parameters set down in Erasmussimo's amendment are rigid and do not allow for medical advancement or future recognition of a fetus's rights earlier on in the pregnancy, do they? No. This exists in the language of Roe. Like I said, Roe implodes if it is ever determined that a fetus has rights from the point of conception -- the trigger for such an implosion exists in the language of the decision itself. E's amendment does not. There is no language acknowledging the possibility that a fetus may have rights at the point of conception. That is why it is rigid and Roe is flexible.

In our system, "doctors" do not decide what is ethical, moral, or legal. They don't do that when it comes to euthanasia, and they shouldn't do that when it comes to abortion. Our laws are not (nor should they be) defined by a gallup poll or defined by the "opinion of the planet". They are defined by our elected representatives and do not become law unless the person elected as president (or governor) signs that bill into law.

A fetus is another person. An undeveloped person for sure. But it's NOT the mother and it's not the father. It's independent.

The problem with Roe v. Wade is that it completely short-circuited the long-overdue debate as to what IS moral, ethical, and legal when it relates to the killing of an independent underdeveloped human being. It found a bogus basis for abortion, in the invisible ink between the sentences of the 14th amendment, and therefore swept this debate off the table for good. And the dutiful legislative branch wailed, cried, and in some cases celebrated, but were more than glad that this RESPONSIBILITY was taken off of their shoulders. IN the same way that these cowards depend on "blue ribbon commissions" to determine lists of base closings, they now use the courts to take away the accountability from THEM on thorny issues like abortion.

The time has come to change this. I don't care what "medical textbooks" say. Medical textbooks once prescribed bleeding and leeches as cures and the science of medicine evolves constantly.

I've already stated what my personal positions are with respect to this matter. I believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester and illegal after that; except in very extraordinary (and rare) situations. As science progresses and moves the point of viability earlier and earlier, the first trimester breakpoint should be revisited and moved back as appropriate. I also believe that free abortions should be offered during the first trimester in our poor areas along with free birth control. I'm not the member of any religion and, while I appreciate the stance of those in the pro-life community, I believe it IS moral and ethical to kill a fetus during the first trimester in the same way I believe it's moral and ethical to kill a fully grown fish, deer, elk, boar, or any other game animal during hunting or fishing. I also believe it's moral and ethical to kill a fully grown human in self-defense, a justifiable wartime action, or via capital punishment for heinous crimes.

What I can't stand is the extremist position of the NARAL crowd and their denial that the fetus is anything remotely human and their refusal to deal with this issue honestly since it DOES involve killing an underdeveloped human.

The issue is a moral and ethical issue. At what point, if ever, is it moral and ethical to kill a fetus. And NO, this is not an issue of "choice". While I applaud the cleverness of the pro-abortion propagandists in framing the issue this way, it's just not a true statement. A woman doesn't have the "choice" to kill a fetus (if determined by our society to be illegal) anymore than she has a "choice" to kill her newborn child, her husband, her dog, her cat, or her canary.

Women do not have any more rights than "men". Men don't have the "right" to kill anyone else, except in extraordinary situations, and women certainly shouldn't be afforded the "right" to kill an independent fetus.... just because they "feel like it".

The only way this issue will be resolved is to overturn Roe vs. Wade and then start fresh. The battle will be fierce but it HAS to be fought. We need to come to a consensus, via our elected representatives, as to whether we believe abortion should be legal and if so, what the restrictions will be. And that consensus will then have to be approved by the president (or the governor of a state) and if vetoed, it'll either have to be overturned or the consensus position will have to be modified. And after that process has been completed, we will ALL have to live with that decision or else work to elect representatives to change the rules.

That is how our system was designed. Co-equal powers. Not tyranny from the bench. Not totalitarian decision making powers from unelected elites.


ps, you people should start using the spellcheck feature before posting....

Erasmussimo (nice to see a debater on AD use an influential (Dutch) thinker ) I must say that your effort to find a compromise in the whole abortion debate is a brave one, although it seems clear to me that some people have problems handling the subject, because it is so emotional.

But just because something is emotional charged doesn't mean that people should attack eachother vehemently because of different opinions. I agree with you that people should try to compromise on this issue, although some clearly don't want to, or are unable to.

Maybe it is informative to give the people the view about abortion we have in Holland (although I realize that some will have strong objections against 'our' views: we are known for having that effect on some people in other parts of the world.(for example our view on prostitution, soft-drugs and euthanasia )

I have placed a link that describes the Dutch legislation regarding abortion:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/population/ab.../Nether.abo.htm

Question for you....

What level of "compromise" should the allies have sought against the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese?

What level of compromise should the United States colonists sought with England?

Sometimes, the only way to settle things is to fight it out. To the victors go the spoils.

This is what is required in the abortion debate. Not a shooting war, but an "intellectual" war for the hearts and minds of our citizens. If we follow the democratic principles of our country, the issue will be settled. Either one side or the other will win outright or a compromise will be reached.

One doesn't go into a negotiation and immediately offer a compromise. That's just bad negotiation.

Well I got a better solution and compromise that no one will like.



Then pull it out!!!

For some reason both sides find this absurd...

I got Turnea calling it a human, others are calling it "independent" take it out, put it in a test tube and watch the damn thing grow!! If it dies.... God willed it so!!

Oh, the other side may not like it because depending on how big it is they may have to cut the woman open... An we don't want to mess up her bikini line.

Also though this may be a more expensive procedure I think where government assistance is needed, it should be given.

Now we have a situation where no one is "murdering" the unborn, simply removing it. If it doesn't live, it is only because it wasn't as independent as we thought.

I think Cruisingram is correct, though... there can be no compromise. And which ever side wins.... It is not my problem There was a debate about whether men should be able to financially abort their children for the exact same reasons a women physically abort theirs. Funny to say, all those for choice were all of a sudden against choice, while many pro-lifers were like "what's good for the goose..." After that debate I realized it isn't just about people having power over themselves, just women being empowered, period. So I am all for a compromise as long as it makes both sides mad.

Cut'em open and pull it out..... who's with me on that

What I wanted to say is that one cannot have a constructive debate by just stubbornly holding to ones own opinions. This whole debate is, in my opinion, way to much black and white. If one doesn't want to try to understand his/her opponents viewpoints / arguments, what's the use of having a debate?

I am not taking a side on this topic (I am not a U.S. citizen and have grown up in a completely different country), but I would like to see some empathy for other peoples opinions and some good constructive debates, not a harsh, stubborn Pro - Contra battle that is leading to nowhere.

As to your first comments, do you really see the discussion about abortion in the same light as the war against Japan and Nazi Germany or the struggle between England and the U.S. colonists (two events that had a big and profound impact on the whole world)? If you do, this discussion about some legislation towards abortus will never end and in fact is hopeless.

Maybe this link will help to see how other countries have tried to deal with the problems around abortion
(click on annual review of population law, followed by Abortion laws)

How pathetic we can joke about a matter as serious as abortion. That some take it so lightly. This only proves that many people’s hearts have been hardened and do not value human life.
We are a country of self-righteous people put themselves first.

What a pathetic answer. I suppose nothing on earth is your fault nor is it your problem.





I can’t even comment on this quote. God help us.

Lord Helmet

I was curious to why you made no comments about my posts concerning the medical information and quotes by experts concerning when life begins.

Remember you were so sure I was lying.

Well you certainly did post a number of places where textbooks state that life begins at conception.

However, perhaps you should have read what I wrote before responding to it in this manner. I will post it for you again if you like, so there is no confusion.

'Most medical textbooks, where they make any inference about the beginning of life AT ALL' are clear in their separation between 'life' and pesonhood'. After all, a fingernail is 'alive', it is not a person.'


Your original statement was clear, that you believe medical textbooks support your exteme position in this debate. That is simply not the case and is a misrepresentation.

Of course a zygote is alive, so is a fingernail and a skin cell. So is a kitten and a carrot. However I think you will find, as I said in the first place, medical textbooks tend to be VERY careful to differentiate between 'life' and personhood, and they rarely to NEVER make comments about the need for protection or legal status or equality of a zygote to a born child.

There can be no clearer example of this than the fact that some of the textbooks YOU cited in an attempt to misrepresent their position also seem to have no problem with abortion, describing it as terminating a peganancy with no reference to murder, killing or imorality.


Again, I am not trying to dimiss or negate your opinion (despite the fact thats what you are consistently doing to me) but to pretend that the medical community is somehow uniformly anti-abortion is a complete misrepresentation.

Of all the doctors I know, they all recognise the need for legal abortions. Now I dont know many, so it can hardly be considered a sample size, but I suspect that, just like the majority of Americans overall, (as I showed in the polls I posted) most doctors recognise the need for legal abortions.






Actually, life clearly does not 'begin' at conception. Why do I say that? because a zygote at conception, while it is alive (though nothing more than a clump of cells) is no MORE alive then the sperm was that created it. In fact, the sperm with mobility and intent and instinct, shows significantly moe signs of 'life' then the zygote does. Thus life does not 'begin' at conception, it existed prior to conception.


Perhaps you can show me medical reasons why a zygote is more deserving of legal protection than a sperm cell?


As to your second point, I know you can't believe that Roe vs Wade should not be overturned, but you are in a small minority of Americans with that opinion; and please remember it is nothing but an opinion, with no more (or less) validity than my opinion.


Lordhelmet...



What the heck does that have to do with anything? I mean seriously here? That same point could be made were we debating the price of cheese, and it would be just as invalid.

Unless (which I assume you are not) you are comparing pro-choice people to the Nazis, I cannot begin to fathom the relevance of this statement.




True enough. And those democratic principles have spoken. A vast majority of people in the US do not want Roe vs. Wade overturned, and a strong majority of people in the US want abortions to be legal and available, subject to some basic legislation.

You, lordhelmet, are one of those second majority, who want abortions to be legal. In fact your entire position on abortion seems to be one big compromise between the pro-choice and pro-life camps. So why, may I ask are you now speaking out against compromise on the issue?

I cannot speak for all on the pro-choice camp, but I personally place enormous value on human life. The problem is that your opinion is that a zygote is the same as a birthed child, while the opinion of others, including the majority of people in your country, disagree.


Hey, on that note, a thought.

If you say abortion is murder, which you do loudly and frequently, then I assume you also want miscarriage put on the books as manslaughter? Clearly with a miscarriage there was no INTENT to kill on the part of the mother, but a criminal investigation will need to take place to determine of manslaughter charges (murder without intent) should be laid.

That is your point right? That a zygote deserves full personhood and legal status as if it were an adult?

azchurchmouse, I've been wondering about what goes on inside the mind of a die-hard abortion opponent such as yourself. Let's review some political facts:

1. The number of people who share your position has held constant at about 20% for the last 30 years. (You questioned this number earlier; you can find it on the page I linked to earlier presenting an overview of many polls on abortion.)

2. There has been no change in any of the basic polling numbers about abortion for many years, despite all the education campaigns on the part of both sides.

Your position is a small minority position. Therefore, it is almost impossible that your position will ever be made into law. Yet you and your colleagues continue your efforts in this direction. I have always wondered why you engage in such Sisyphusian behavior. I can imagine some possible explanations:

a. I know that we will fail, but the principle is so important that I feel morally obligated to continue this futile crusade.

b. Everybody I know is opposed to abortion, so I think that the polls are wrong.

c. Even though past educational efforts have failed to change the overall numbers, I believe that if we try really hard, we can still change people's minds.

d. We have made some progress on such issues as parental notification and partial-birth abortions, so if we keep chipping away, eventually we'll win on all counts.

Could you tell me which, if any, of these beliefs motivates your continued efforts in this direction? Are there other beliefs that motivate you in this hopeless effort?

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about. I suspect you have me confused with another poster.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade will NOT make abortions illegal in this country. And, if you insist is the case, the "vast majority" want abortions, we'll have them; as a result of legislation, NOT as a result of judicial fiat.

The democratic process has NOT spoken. We make laws via legislation, not through opinion polls. Roe v. Wade took the debate off the table from a legal point of view.

I don't like Roe because it's an example of judicial misconduct. That court ignored the constitution, the text of the constitution, and the meaning of the constitution and manufactured a new "right" that fit their social agenda.

That's wrong. And what liberals keep forgetting is that the same sort of judicial tyranny could be turned on them or in any number of directions. What would the left think, for example, if a first amendment case came before the court and they read into the first amendment that ALL of the press, even child pornography should be legal? If they did such a crazy thing, no amount of legislation could prevent the exploitation of children. Our society, via legislation has decided that child pornography is immoral, unethical, and illegal. It is, therefore, against the law. The same is true for homicide, theft, etc. We make MORAL JUDGMENTS as a matter of course. Abortion is one of those issues that requires a debate and a resolution of where we draw the lines via the democratic process.

Judicial activism is wrong. Roe should be overturned as a bad judgement. The record should be corrected.

And, if Americans want legal abortions, they should vote for pro-abortion legislative candidates and presidents (and governors). Then, we can fight it out in the halls of congress and in the oval office; not behind closed doors in the USSC chambers.

I don't know why the left fear the democratic process on this issue. Perhaps they don't have the "overwhelming majority" on their side as they claim?

Pathetic??? Hmmm please stop with the melodramatics... Oh the tragedy...

People will always frame this as an emotional issue... it is not. It is an issue of power and influence. It is an issue where people wish to dictate their beliefs upon others. And when they got shut down by the courts... well, they got pretty upset. Thus so many references to Roe vs. Wade.

How emotionally attached can someone get to an embryo... especially when it is not theirs?? Did they look into his or her eyes.... No... First because it has no eyes, second because it has no gender... it... is an it a thing.... Do people sympathize with the emotions of what the fetus is going through?? Ummm it has no brain... no brain... no emotions. And even when it has a brain, i would believe it has to be "on" before it can feel anything.

As for the hardened hearts....

Take a quick look at the board... note the people who are against abortion....
now, go look at a debate that concerns war note the people all for killing people. Notice anything.... strange?? Take a look at death penalty views as well... see any inconsistencies. I can say the most consistent in all three would be P.E. She generally despises the taking of any human life, whatever the form... but most of the pro-life crew... like I said, it's about power and control... of OTHERS.

According to this this there are over 150,000 orphans in America. Maybe some more soft hearted pro-life people can take the time to fill out some paperwork and bring that number down to zero! If you get your way there are just going to be more, right?? I mean, my Dad is big time pro-lifer, he has adopted three kids, maybe if some of the millions of other prolifers who have adopted zero, take the time to adopt one...



Ahhhh... right back to you, but which one of us has put themselves and their views first.

It, in no way, "helps" me to allow abortions. I do not benefit. I do not find my position to be "righteous", can you honestly say the same?? I doubt... Others have offered compromises... what have you offered??

And my guess is the founding fathers would allow the individual to make their own choice.


Don’t know the reasons why one of our members had an abortion but the fact remains they did and probably because there were choices. If this was an “on demand” abortion and they made this choice after Roe v Wade they were given an opportunity, within the law, to have this procedure in a clean medically sanctioned facility. Just because there’s a law that prohibits “on demand” abortion doesn’t mean it will come to an end. We’re a resourceful lot.


Sorry, but this doesn’t belong in the hands of bought and paid for representatives. It’s not a complicated issue (removing all emotions). Yes - with stipulations similar to those proposed by Erasmussimo, or no. It’s one the general population can easily grasp and decide for themselves at the federal level in order to avoid the potential state vs state conflicts.


So ignore the wishes of the masses and allow me to shove my morality down their throats? You sure have a twisted idea of democracy and self rule.


You might as well ask your self with a Republican President and Republican congress why they haven’t enacted legislation. After all it’s one of their battle cries. You think they believe in the polls that indicate the majority of Americans feel it should be a choice and that quite possibly if they enacted legislation it could end their careers?

And to answer the questions, yes I would vote on something similar to Erasmussimo’s proposal and here’s why.

If this issue gets no where in our life time it will have to be addressed at some point in the future. We talk today of ‘peak oil’, but some time in the future we’ll be discussing ‘peak water’, ‘peak wheat’, ‘peak real estate’, all the key resources that we consume for our existence as we then discuss "peak population". As the world continues its exponential growth social engineering will become an integral part of our government. Whether its birth control devices or fertilized embryo options, population control will have to be addressed.

And one side may not get their way.