Is today. I'm just curious as to what people think about it, and I would like to hear some opinions. This is cross-posted to other places.
Note to moderator(s): I am posting this here and not on the flameboard because of the respect and confidence I have in regard to the people on this board to keep this civil and not elevate it into a flame war. If this does elevate into a flame war, please move this to the flameboard at your discretion.
Objectivity:
This case was decided with the rights of women, who are alive. There is NO disputable evidence suggesting that living women are dead, right? Roe v. Wade forces all states to respect a woman's right to an abortion if carrying out the pregnancy could interfere with her health, regardless of the stage of pregnancy (this is the ground on which the partial birth abortion ban was stricken down). Roe v. Wade also establishes a woman's right to privacy under the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments. It also demands that all states allow abortion for reasons including and excluding a woman's right to health in the period before a fetus could survive outside the womb. It devides the pregnancy cycle into 3 trimesters, and states are allowed to choose which trimesters abortion is allowed for reasons excluding health.
Before Roe v. Wade, 5,000-10,000 women died every year from unsafe, unclean, illegal abortions, many self-induced. In addition, many women were injured or permanently disfigured from these processes.
Now, for supported subjectivity.
I have neither heard conclusive evidence nor unflawed logic suggesting that unborn children are alive or not alive (more on this later). However, I have heard conclusive evidence and unflawed logic suggesting that pregnant women are alive. The bottom line is, by criminalizing abortion, you are NOT Pro-Life. You are Pro-Death. You support the death of women that will kill themselves by unsafe abortion processes. You have the naive opinion that criminalizing abortion will stop it. Criminalizing abortion will reduce the rate, yes, but it will not completely stop it, and innocent women will die.
More on this, it is completely unfair to say that women who became impregnated by rape are not allowed the right to have an abortion. Is it really hard to understand that someone would not want to bring the child of someone who assaulted her into this world? It is just that a women is forced to put her life on hold because someone sexually assaulted her and created a prospective life? It most certainly is not.
I have previously stated that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a hypocrisy in our government. However, according to United States law, it is not. Roe v. Wade provides a woman's right to privacy and health. It condones a woman's right to choose to continue or end her pregnancy. The Unborn Victims of Violence act protects a woman's right to choose to continue her pregnancy. This Act states that it is a crime to violate this right, and in my opinion, fortifies Roe v. Wade. I have been unable to find a United States statute defining the moment when a child is considered alive, therefore, this Act cannot conflict with any existing statutes.
As far as logic to determine when a child is alive, Roe v. Wade specifies that abortion is guaranteed to women when a child is considered unable to live outside of the womb. This logic, however, is flawed. Babies are unable to survive without someone to take care of them, so by this logic, people are alive until they are considered self-sufficient.
The logic that life begins at conception is also flawed. This logic states that because the cell can grow and divide, it is alive and has a right to live. By this logic, apoptosis (programmed cell death) is morally wrong, and without apoptosis we'd all die (cells would not be allowed to destroy themselves, which is a problem in cases such as cancer).
Then of course, there is the argument that life begins at birth. Because of the mechanisms that children can perform before birth, it is difficult to make a conclusive case stating that life begins at birth. Children removed from the womb before natural birth can live in many circumstances. However, the reasons suggesting that this logic is flawed can be found in my first examination of a method used to determine when life begins; children are not self-sufficient at birth.
Abortion is not a natural process; it involves the intervention of outside technology to remove a child from the womb. Uninterfered with, with the exception of miscarriages, these children would eventually be brought to life. I do not support abortion, however, I do support a woman's right to choose. It is NOT my decision or anyone's decision but the woman's to choose or end her pregnancy. To conclude, I support Roe v. Wade and it would be a major setback in women's rights if this statute were to be repealed by examination of the predomanantly right-wing supreme court. However, I do believe that the majority of the justices on the supreme court are truly interested in interpreting and defending the constitution of the United States of America, and will conduct themselves accordingly when asked to rule on these cases.
Edited for Typo.
Note to moderator(s): I am posting this here and not on the flameboard because of the respect and confidence I have in regard to the people on this board to keep this civil and not elevate it into a flame war. If this does elevate into a flame war, please move this to the flameboard at your discretion.
Objectivity:
This case was decided with the rights of women, who are alive. There is NO disputable evidence suggesting that living women are dead, right? Roe v. Wade forces all states to respect a woman's right to an abortion if carrying out the pregnancy could interfere with her health, regardless of the stage of pregnancy (this is the ground on which the partial birth abortion ban was stricken down). Roe v. Wade also establishes a woman's right to privacy under the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments. It also demands that all states allow abortion for reasons including and excluding a woman's right to health in the period before a fetus could survive outside the womb. It devides the pregnancy cycle into 3 trimesters, and states are allowed to choose which trimesters abortion is allowed for reasons excluding health.
Before Roe v. Wade, 5,000-10,000 women died every year from unsafe, unclean, illegal abortions, many self-induced. In addition, many women were injured or permanently disfigured from these processes.
Now, for supported subjectivity.
I have neither heard conclusive evidence nor unflawed logic suggesting that unborn children are alive or not alive (more on this later). However, I have heard conclusive evidence and unflawed logic suggesting that pregnant women are alive. The bottom line is, by criminalizing abortion, you are NOT Pro-Life. You are Pro-Death. You support the death of women that will kill themselves by unsafe abortion processes. You have the naive opinion that criminalizing abortion will stop it. Criminalizing abortion will reduce the rate, yes, but it will not completely stop it, and innocent women will die.
More on this, it is completely unfair to say that women who became impregnated by rape are not allowed the right to have an abortion. Is it really hard to understand that someone would not want to bring the child of someone who assaulted her into this world? It is just that a women is forced to put her life on hold because someone sexually assaulted her and created a prospective life? It most certainly is not.
I have previously stated that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a hypocrisy in our government. However, according to United States law, it is not. Roe v. Wade provides a woman's right to privacy and health. It condones a woman's right to choose to continue or end her pregnancy. The Unborn Victims of Violence act protects a woman's right to choose to continue her pregnancy. This Act states that it is a crime to violate this right, and in my opinion, fortifies Roe v. Wade. I have been unable to find a United States statute defining the moment when a child is considered alive, therefore, this Act cannot conflict with any existing statutes.
As far as logic to determine when a child is alive, Roe v. Wade specifies that abortion is guaranteed to women when a child is considered unable to live outside of the womb. This logic, however, is flawed. Babies are unable to survive without someone to take care of them, so by this logic, people are alive until they are considered self-sufficient.
The logic that life begins at conception is also flawed. This logic states that because the cell can grow and divide, it is alive and has a right to live. By this logic, apoptosis (programmed cell death) is morally wrong, and without apoptosis we'd all die (cells would not be allowed to destroy themselves, which is a problem in cases such as cancer).
Then of course, there is the argument that life begins at birth. Because of the mechanisms that children can perform before birth, it is difficult to make a conclusive case stating that life begins at birth. Children removed from the womb before natural birth can live in many circumstances. However, the reasons suggesting that this logic is flawed can be found in my first examination of a method used to determine when life begins; children are not self-sufficient at birth.
Abortion is not a natural process; it involves the intervention of outside technology to remove a child from the womb. Uninterfered with, with the exception of miscarriages, these children would eventually be brought to life. I do not support abortion, however, I do support a woman's right to choose. It is NOT my decision or anyone's decision but the woman's to choose or end her pregnancy. To conclude, I support Roe v. Wade and it would be a major setback in women's rights if this statute were to be repealed by examination of the predomanantly right-wing supreme court. However, I do believe that the majority of the justices on the supreme court are truly interested in interpreting and defending the constitution of the United States of America, and will conduct themselves accordingly when asked to rule on these cases.
Edited for Typo.
.