Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe V. Wade?

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Agree that irresponsibility is rampant among both men and women in the bedroom.

So your solution to the problem is to punish them by forcing an unwanted child to be born, and likely to be raised in a less than suitable environment?

Great solution.

Hell, as long as you are into the government deciding these important issues, why not punish the sexually irresponsible through forced sterilization? That is the kind of approach a country like Red China would take.
You're damn right I think adoption is far preferable to death, yes. I have two adopted nieces living in the furthest thing from a "less than suitable environment."

I think it would be terrific if there was a reversable sterilization technique. Then we could all screw as much as we want and not have to worry about conception until we're emotionally and financially prepared to do so.

As far as forced sterilization, heck, I'm all for it in the cases of those welfare moms who keep pumping out kids just to get bigger payments from the state. Many of those kids grow up unloved, in squalor, with no role models other than the drug dealer on the corner, get no education, and turn to crime. Look at that if you wanna gripe about being raised "in a less than suitable environment."
 
Quote from dgabriel:



A lot of men live under such harsh restrictions already 777, in bad marriages. But the point is an excellent one and the others you made are important.

1. The abortion rights issue is one that touches upon conceptions of such fundamental rights, the seemingly inviolable right to one's own body, the right to life, of a fetus, viable or not. Surf's argument is somewhat flawed. Viability was the basis for certain of the Supreme court's decision as they marked the 24 week point in gestation, the stage of viablity outside the mother as deemed by the medical establishment, as the beginning of personhood for the fetus and the protective rights so accorded it.
Thus under Roe V. Wade ( I think, maybe this was decided later) the 6 month point made abortion illegal.

2. However, this is unsatisfying to many and outrageous to some since the right to life in this case seems to be arbitrary and illogical. If the fetus can't survive ex-utero it is okay to abort but if it can survive it cannot be aborted. This counterintuitive idea compounds one of the real tragic elements to the entire issue, the lack of defense by the unborn. The other tragic element is forcing the full term pregnancy and condemning a child to be born to a mother which does not want it.

3. There seem to be inconsistencies on both sides of the aisle. The majority of pro-lifers support capital punishment and the majority of pro-choice oppose capital punishment. If the sanctity of life is to be respected as a fundamental precept, then capital punishment must be opposed. This is the view of the Catholic church.

4. There are fundamental rights at stake and significant social policy questions in a world of diminishing resources and extreme population growth. There are 6 billion people and in 40 years there will be 10 billion. I recall in another thread that someone noted that the Chinese have a cost effective method of dispatching with its drug dealers: they are shot in the head. The Chinese government also encourages abortion as a population control.

5. The issues of diminishing natural resources against a growing population in my opinion will eventually prevail over the fundamental questions.

6. Much of the heat in the abortion rights issue can be removed by harnessing and promoting the advancing medical and pharmeceutical technologies that can more safely easily and effectively prevent pregnancy. The problem here is that the pro-life lobby has been effective in staving off the introduction of new birth control methods, several of which have been developed in Europe. For the pro-life movement, the issue is not just about protecting the unborn, it is about opposing lifestyle choices that threaten a sense of social order.

1. unfortunately, history has shown many times, that the law and ethics, morality and sense are not always in line with one another. as an american citizen, i respect and abide by the supreme courts decisions, but i do not agree with all of them. no one knows when "life" begins and for the supreme court or even the medical establishment to state they do is foolish.

2. killing a potential human life is far worse than condemning a child to a mother who does not want it. many people have risen above very very bad circumstances to add to the good of society. i am 100% for FULL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS in all matters, except when those rights infringe on others as when one's right to an abortion infringe upon the rights of the potential human life to exist.

3. yes, i concur with this. EXCEPT in horrendous, with out doubt cases when capital punishment may be permissible.

4. not accurate. one cannot extrapolate population growth in that manner. natural population control measures like war, disease, etc etc will certainly keep your projection from occurring. in addition, population growth is cyclical, ebbs and flows and sometimes becomes non existent as another poster pointed out on this thread ( japan ). i know nothing about chinese policy and cannot comment on your statements.

5. not accurate

6. i agree with you on these points. most pro lifers seem to have some alternative motives and research must continue for better and more effective contraceptives. furthermore, the pro life lobby needs to spend money on adoption and abortion alternatives if they are to be taken seriously.

best,

surfer
 
Quote from marketsurfer:


2. killing a potential human life is far worse than condeming a child to a mother who does not want it. many people have risen above very very bad circumstances to add to the good of society. i am 100% for FULL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS in all matters, except when those rights infringe on others as when one's right to an abortion infringe upon the rights of the potential human life to exist.


Since we don't know if the fetus is actually "life" you cannot make this statement from fact.

Many unwanted children wish they were never born.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Many unwanted children wish they were never born.

Yup, especially those born to those welfare moms. And you're against forced sterilization?
 
Quote from marketsurfer:



1. unfortunately, history has shown many times, that the law and ethics, morality and sense are not always in line with one another. as an american citizen, i respect and abide by the supreme courts decisions, but i do not agree with all of them. no one knows when "life" begins and for the supreme court or even the medical establishment to state they do is foolish.


best,

surfer

My perspective, is that given there is no scientific proof that a fetus is life, it cannot be considered murder.

Yes, many do believe it is murder based on their religious beliefs, but until such time that science can establish that fact, it is just a medical procedure.

If you are serious about your taking away the right for women to have an abortion, due to the protection of life, should men be given the right to legislate how women care for their children when born? Should men legislate that women should breast feed, stay at home rather than work, not smoke or drink during pregnancy, diet, etc.? Where does it end?

The central issue, is who gets the right to decide?

A woman on a case by case situation, or the government made up of men who make the laws?
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Since we don't know if the fetus is actually "life" you cannot make this statement from fact.

Many unwanted children wish they were never born.


it's the fact that we don't know if the fetus is life, why abortion is the wrong choice. it has nothing to do with religious beliefs but rather thought and reason have led me to these conclusions. the fetus, life or not, cannot decide for itself therefore it must be protected untill it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that it is not "life".

surfer
 
Quote from marketsurfer:




it's the fact that we don't know if the fetus is life, why abortion is the wrong choice. it has nothing to do with religious beliefs but rather thought and reason have led me to these conclusions.

surfer

If the fetus is not life as human life is legally defined, then there can be no murder.

I failed to see you establish through thought and reason that a fetus constitutes life, in the same way a child once born is life.

The fetus is "potentially" a child, but the issue is at what point from conception to birth does it constitute the same legal protection as granted to children and humans living outside of a womb.

To further complicate it, bring in the cloning issues.

It is the separation of church and state that is the core of our constitution, and laws are "supposed" to reflect moral and ethical decisions devoid of religious and political bias.


Personally, I am against abortion, see it as a very last resort for a woman, yet also believe it is not my final decision to make, but hers.

 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



If the fetus is not life as human life is legally defined, then there can be no murder.

I failed to see you establish through thought and reason that a fetus constitutes life, in the same way a child once born is life.

The fetus is "potentially" a child, but the issue is at what point from conception to birth does it constitute the same legal protection as granted to children and humans living outside of a womb.

To further complicate it, bring in the cloning issues.

It is the separation of church and state that is the core of our constitution, and laws are "supposed" to reflect moral and ethical decisions devoid of religious and political bias.


Personally, I am against abortion, see it as a very last resort for a woman, yet also believe it is not my final decision to make, but hers.



you are continually missing my point. i don't establish that it is life only that it may be life. this is a logical and reasonable assumption. it is because we do not know if the fetus is a child and the fact that is may be is exactly why it must be protected at all stages of development. this is not a male/female or religious issue ( athough many confuse it to be ) but rather an issue of everyones rights born and unborn. the fundamental right to life supercedes most other rights. if the fetus is not human life, then abortion is no big deal. if the fetus is human life, abortion is a big deal. no one knows the answer to this question. unless you are a nihilist like dan, you must side with the possibility that it is life untill proven otherwise, not the other way around.

best,

surfer:)
 
Quote from bobcathy1:

Hmmm.
This argument is not theoretical to me.

I am now past menopause, so pregnancy is not an issue now.
I was taking birth control and got pregnant twice.
While I was married to a good Catholic,
by the man who is now my husband but then was a boyfriend.
I did not hesitate to have an abortion twice within a year.
And got permantently sterilized after.
You see, pregnancy would have resulted in a retarded and deformed baby.
So it is not wrong in my eyes.

It always cracks me up when men decide what is right for women.
They have no friggin clue.

no YOU are the one that's friggin CLUELESS!!

It's not about YOU, it's all about another potential LIFE!

Quit thinking of yourself for once!
 
Back
Top