Rethinking abortion

[Traveler]

There have been some discussions about abortion. I thought I would clear up one very important point and point out why Roe vs Wade needs to be revisited. Below I have provided a link so that any one that desires can look up the “Opinion of the Court”. A main point of consideration is that point at which a fetus becomes “human life”. The question is not about life but human life.

Note that the court issued a decision that a fetus cannot be considered a separate human life during the first trimester therefore the woman can decide, of her own accord to end the pregnancy. Once a fetus is viable on its own all these arguments fall apart. However, the courts have not shown a desire to render a decision concerning a fetus that is developed to the point that it could survive without its mother host.

This is the point at which we should all concern ourselves. It is not about religion, emotions, politics, social studies or what is best for a teenager – it is a discussion about the value of human life. We may not all agree on what is human life – but in the minutes before a child is born does not define when a child can move, think, respond and survive on its own. Any child will die even after birth if not cared for. It cannot be just a question of survival on its own for many of us had to have care even after our childhood in order to survive.

For sure partial birth abortions must end and so must the refusal of care to a child that was born during an abortion attempt and is still alive.

ROE v. WADE

3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 -- was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was "mediate animation." Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.

The Traveler

Edited November 18, 2008 by Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Didn't Roe come back a couple of years ago as a Christian and apologized about lying to the general public and the courts and asked for forgiveness?

[Traveler]

Didn't Roe come back a couple of years ago as a Christian and apologized about lying to the general public and the courts and asked for forgiveness?

She did but that did not chande the verdict.

Here is an idea - Instead of aborting the child - have the child removed from the mother. If we can keep the child alive by whatever method then let the child live under someone else's care.

The Traveler

[PeterVenkman]

She did but that did not chande the verdict.

Here is an idea - Instead of aborting the child - have the child removed from the mother. If we can keep the child alive by whatever method then let the child live under someone else's care.

The Traveler

I was discussing this possibility with someone else earlier this morning. I got no problems with this.

[DigitalShadow]

Here is an idea - Instead of aborting the child - have the child removed from the mother. If we can keep the child alive by whatever method then let the child live under someone else's care.

The Traveler

The problem with that is that it looks like the large majority of abortions are performed at a point where it is not possible to keep the child alive outside the womb so that option isn't available in most cases.

(source)

[Wingnut]

Didn't Roe come back a couple of years ago as a Christian and apologized about lying to the general public and the courts and asked for forgiveness?

[Elphaba]

Note that the court issued a decision that a fetus cannot be considered a separate human life during the first trimester therefore the woman can decide, of her own accord to end the pregnancy. Once a fetus is viable on its own all these arguments fall apart. However, the courts have not shown a desire to render a decision concerning a fetus that is developed to the point that it could survive without its mother host.

You completely misunderstand what [section VI] .3 is.

Section VI is an analysis of the historical attitudes of the organizations listed below. It is not part of the official decision.

The preamble to Section VI states:

It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common law origin (No. 3 cited in your post). Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. (emphasis mine)

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Section VI then goes on to explain the histories and positions of each of the following::

1: ancient attitudes,

2: the Hippocratic Oath,

3: the common law (the part you cited as if it were part of the official decision),

4: the English statutory law,

5: the American law,

6: the American Medical Association,

7: the American Public Health Association, and

8: the American Bar Association

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The court used the analyses above to determine if the defendant (state of Texas) had a sufficient historical basis to justify the Texas statute [outlawing abortion].

Again, the quote from Section VI.3 you cited is not THE decision, and it is wrong to post it as if it were.

Elphaba