"Roe v. Wade; Actual quotes from the Pro-Choice bible"

2002 | BedRock

[BedRock]

These are actual excerpts from ROE v. WADE

"Section IX"

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. ..they outline at length and in great detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is ever established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment. The appellant concluded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word (person) is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

Further excerpts...

"...it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of provacy she possesses must be measured accordingly..."

The matter that the Court addressed here is that after a certain point the privacy issue established by the founding of this case on the Fourteenth Amendment at some point loses it's relevance as pertaining only to the woman, because the longer the pregnancy is allowed to progress, the more relevant the State's rights become in "protecting potential human life, specifically after "the point of viability" set by this very Court.

Another excerpt..

"...conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)

So from what I have just transcribed from the case of Roe v. Wade clear distinctions can be made with logical assumptions concerning the laws of medicine and nature.

We are now so medically advanced that we no longer have to rely on natural means of conception, there are alternative options readily availiable. BUT, these new leaps in medicine need NOT apply in LENGTHENING the viability of the unborn in the womb when it comes to a "woman's right to choose" verses the need to protect "potential human life" as described in ROE V. WADE.

We can also deduce from such reasoning that an endangered reptile, or bird whose eggs are laid, since it hasn't became a breathing, "living" life sustaining being, isn't protected under it's "parent's" protective clause, because it hasn't yet became what is deemed "protected."

[BedRock]

This is one and a half pages of a seven page document I wrote sometime ago on the issue of Roe v. Wade and it's hypocrisy with today's medical knowledge, how we treat animals, and so on. It just goes to prove what kind of animal we as humans are becoming when we fight with each other in order to maintain the right to kill our own children while at the same time try to justify upholding the sanctity and rights of animals while our own are slaughtered in government funded buildings with protection provided even against those against the act from practicing their first amendment rights in protest.

[BenLurkin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1023585/posts

[BedRock]

Have they thought about what they will do when they run out of girls to pro-create with?

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - MURDER ALERT

[APFel]

Great work. Thank you.