FReep this FOX NEWS dot com POLL on abortion!!!

Fox News Dot Com ^ | 6/17/2003 | Fox News Dot Com Poll

[xrp]

Roe v. "Roe"

Should the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion be overturned?

a. Yes, I support Norma McCorvey's efforts. (60%)

b. No, a woman has the right to choose. (36%)

c. Not sure (4%)

[gcruse]

I'm sorry. Adoption might have been better, but what's done is done. And for that matter, the state seems more than willing to take up adoptive babies, but the adoption agencies themselves are hypercritical and racist. They make adopting so difficult you have to wonder if the plan isn't to keep the kids in foster homes until they are too old to adopt.

[First Amendment]

As I mentined, the abortion I committed was before legality. It was easy to find a doctor who would do it in the normal "safe" (for me) manner. The coat hanger stuff is really not a reality. The reason so many women died from abortions was before they had antibiotics. Plus, abortion is actually quite dangerous for women, and nowadays abortion related deaths among women are often called something else on the death certificate.

[gcruse]

:)

[hocndoc]

Forcing parents to not act to purposely and electively kill their children when the children do not pose a threat to the life of anyone doesn't faze me at all.

After all,the parent-child relationship is unique in the world (at least until human cloned embryos are successfully created.). The parents created the child in a vulnerable state. The parents are responsible for the child's well being until he or she can become independent or until they find someone else to care for them. They are responsible for their actions in creating the child.

With current technology, and the nature of physics, chemistry, and the way these work in biology, the mother bears the burden of the care for the child until he or she can live outside the womb. That is no one's fault it's simply a fact. This power/burden does not give the mother or her agent the right to kill a human being and infringe on his or her right to life.

The meaning of "inalienable" rights is that no one can take the right away, only infringe on that right not to be killed or enslaved, or to have property stolen.

I refer you to the Declaration of Independence for the rest of the story.

[First Amendment]

but the adoption agencies themselves are hypercritical and racist.

They are racist in that they don't want white couples to adopt black babies. There is a Freeper - scripter - who has adopted, and he can attest to that. Actually it is the social service agencies I believe, and also black groups.

[Terriergal]

No... we tried to get PBA outlawed. We didn't try to get abortion outlawed completely. Still couldn't do it. Too hard to take a stand and limit a woman's right to choose.

[hocndoc]

Exactly. The parallels between the Dred Scot and R v W decisions are that personal beliefs and wishes (and what the people had become accustomed to, in the case of Casey) were used without factual basis or logic to create an illegitimate law: that certain human beings may be declared to be not protected under law because other human beings do not consider them to be "persons."

[Terriergal]

If you're going to be consistent, you have to allow rape and incest babies to come to term, too. What happened wasn't the kid's fault.

I agree. And I do think they should. And the woman should be very closely supported and counseled throughout to help her through.

However that is the only compromise I see right now. give a person a dose of morning after pill.

[Terriergal]

Watch out, you might get Borked!

[hocndoc]

This has already happened in the case of in vitro fertilization and will become commonplace if cloning of humans is achieved. The technician and the researcher decides/ will decide which humans are to live and which are to die.

[Terriergal]

[Terriergal]

[Terriergal]

[MHGinTN]

You wrote, "And in the absence of adoption, which we would all agree is the way to go, there will be a from of abortion taking place. Back alleys and coathangers are unacceptable." I'm sorry, but sounds suspiciously like 'Killing with a knife is dangerous, so give them a gun.' Prior to Roe, physicians could end a pregnancy that threatened a woman's life. If Roe is overturned, the convenience and expedience categories will stop and abortion will drop precipitously.

That someone chooses to expose themselves to possible pregnancy in no way foists upon society the responsibility to grant special killing rights to the women and girls pregnant as consequences of their voluntary behavior. On the contrary, the voluntary behavior carries with it an implicit contractual rsponsibility to take responsibilty for innocent life dependant because of the voluntary behavior. If I choose to rescue a person from a collapsing building, but I pull them only part way out and then decide to leave them to die, with only minimal statistical risk to my own safety if I continue to bring the person out and being able to fulfill what I began but chose to stop, am I guilty of breach regarding the implicit contract I began?

[Terriergal]

Agreed.

[Terriergal]

Back alleys and coathangers are unacceptable."

Yeah, I'm not sure the baby prefers a scalpel and suction tube over a coathanger.

[hocndoc]

Sentience is not a good marker, since the human species has demonstrated sentience as a general rule, so have cetaceans and some non-human primates. On the other hand, it is not permissible to act to purposefully and electively kill non-sentient humans who have been born (at least in most of the world). I wouldn't demonstrate sentience under general anesthesia, but that wouldn't make me a candidate for purposeful killiing, would it?

Viability is not a good marker, either, as has been recognized by the courts. Viability is an ever-changing marker, one which moves to earlier and earlier stages of development. Humans who are not viable this year might be next year, and more than likely would be in years to come.

Science has no problem identifying human life or that of any other species. Lab technicians and their supervising physicians decide which in vitro fertilization embryos are to be implanted and which are not. The purpose of somatic cell nuclear transfer would be " is precisely to produce just such an entity: one that is alive (rather than nonliving), one that is human (rather than nonhuman or animal), and one that is an embryo, an entity capable of developing into an articulated organismic whole (rather than just a somatic cell capable only of replication into more of the same cell type). "" (The President's Bioethics Council, Report on Human Cloning, Chapter Three:On Terminology http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/terminology.html
And just try to justify the destruction of the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species list by claiming that the egg was simply an embryo or fetus and not viable or sentient - you'll find yourself guilty of breaking Federal Law.

Let's stick to scientific, taxonomical definition of humans rather than personal beliefs and biases that serve only to discriminate and infringe on the inalienable rights of some human beings at the whim of other, more powerful human beings.

[Terriergal]

I also wonder if some girls would think twice (at least) about having sex if it wasn't so easy to get out of the consequences of one's actions?

[Torie]

That is your opinion. You draw your lines, and I draw mine. Both are subjective. Temporary lapses in sentience don't count. Where the rubber meets the road is the life begins at conception group focuses on potential, and the life begins at sentience group focuses on what is happening at the moment. Again totally subjective, and those that deny it, really aren't being candid.

[hocndoc]

And will you show me how you will go about legislating this demarkation? I don't believe that you can make a logical argument that will stand up in a court of law that does not recognize the unborn child as a person and that says that the mother has the sole power to decide whether or not the child will live (except in the case of in vitro fertilization, and soon, in the case of cloning).