The majority of the US Supreme Court now have been appointed by "pro-life" Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush, Bush)-- John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy. 5-4. Why has Roe not been overturned? Wasn't the enitre argument the Republican Party made to "pro-lifers" that if they "voted for Republican Presidents, they'd appoint pro-life Justices and overturn Roe"? Okay...why hasn't that happened?
Probably because they haven't had to address it. Until someone brings a case to the Supreme Court and actually challenges Roe they probably won't do anything about it.
Even if I was pro-choice, I would still support the repeal of Roe Vs. Wade. Regardless of the moral issues about abortion, Roe Vs. Wade seems like a violation of state's rights.
Because I don't think it's the state's place to make laws over people's healthcare. What I do medically with my body is NOT the state's business.
A "fetus" is just a term for that stage of development. It doesn't minimize the fact that it has personhood. for example, "toddler, child, teen, young adult, adolescent", etc, all refer to different stages in the life of a human. A fetus is a human being, just like a child is. Are you kidding me? It has a face, a head, arms, and legs, a body, and it's the same size as a newborn. It's totally capable of moving around and surviving outside of the mother's body, just like a newborn baby. ITS FULL GROWN. IT LOOKS LIKE A NEWBORN AT THAT STAGE! And they can feel pain past 23 weeks. And how can you possibly justify people slicing its body up in the womb? It probably would feel horrible pain. If somebody did that to a newborn, people would be horrified (and rightfully so). Yet because of it's different geographic location, it's supposedly "okay" if they do that to an unborn human being. Don't deny your own words. According to you, even if the baby is almost NINE MONTHS OLD, abortion is okay. It's very sad that you believe that this woman worshiping stuff is okay.
Did jews have legal rights during the holocaust? did blacks have legal rights during slavery? is something okay just because it's legal? Using the law to justify the law is a circular argument. Pro-choicers use circular arguments to cause confusion in pro-lifers. It's a dishonest way to win an arguement. Your opinion is horrible. You believe that it's morally okayfor a woman to have her AN EIGHT MONTH OLD FETUS to have it's limbs torn apart. It can feel pain during that stage. it's physically not that different from a newborn baby. It can survive outside of the mother's body. When people hear stories on the news of newborns and infants being physically abused, they get horrified, and rightfully so. But other than shallow physical differences (such as differences in body systems) late term fetuses are not that much different from newborns. So please do not criticize casey anthony for what she did. abortion is morally no different.
What does that have anything to do with abortions being legal? Even though guns are legal, it's not legal to harm a child with a gun.
So you now admit that a fetus and a child are not the same and are in fact different stages of human development? So much hyperbole. How can you stand debating from such irrational emotion? My own words where? - - - Updated - - - I dunno what does any of THIS have to do with abortion being legal? So how come you get to make strawmen comparisons and nobody else does?
NO. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1-Yes, that has nothing to do with abortion. But the only reason I mentioned that is because toddwv brought it up first. Exactly, it's very off-topic, so let's not talk about that. By dismissing my comments as hyperbole, you are trying to make ME look like the crazy one. You are trying to ignore what I say, because the truth hurts, and deep down inside you know how horrible abortion is, but you still want to justify it to yourself. Please refute my arguments. Please explain why an 8th month old fetus who's fully viable and grown is not a person. Other than shallow differences in the body system (as if that defines a person), and it's location, a late-term fetus is no different than a newborn baby or an infant. - - - Updated - - - Please explain how that's somehow relevant to this topic of abortion.
No he didn't. What I quoted from you came in the post just before todd's. Post #14. Then he made his post in #15 and then you responded by asking what that has to do with abortion in #16. I just thought I'd point out the hilarious irony. Who said anything about crazy? I am just pointing it out for what it is. Whether it has a face or arms or legs or a beating heart are all totally irrelevant to why it should have a right to live over the woman's right to defend her autonomy. There are plenty of animals that we slaughter every day with faces, arms, legs and beating hearts too. All that you pointed out is nothing more than an emotional fallacy. Not really. But I am laughing at how silly the arguments are and how easy they are to apply to any living creature. That's easy. It has not been born yet.
Sam I asked what most would believe was a simple question. Your response to the comment you quoted, was nothing more than the usual talking points used to deflect. We must view the matter of abortion through the eyes of the law as well Sam At what stage does the fetus legally become a person??
No one actually wants to overturn Roe V Wade. The Democrats and the Libertarians see it as a freedom issue. The "social" conservatives see it as a wedge issue and one that they can use to garner votes. Anyone with one eye and half a brain knows that, regardless of how you feel about abortion, it can't be effectively outlawed anyway. So, the "social" conservatives, i.e., authoritarians will continue to use the issue to get votes, while the Democrats and libertarians will continue to support it. The moderate Republicans will stay as far from the issue as is humanly possible.
According to our current laws, at birth. But laws have not always been right. According to the law of the 1800s, blacks weren't persons. according to the law of nazi germany, jews were subhumans. If you were a german citizen living in the 1930s, would you defend Hitler by saying that Jews didn't have the same rights as other people, in the eyes of the law. Not only is your arguement flawed, it's also a fallacy. It's a circular arguement. I am arguing that just because the law says that aborting an 8th month old fetus is okay, that doesn't automatically make it right. Nobody in their right state of mind would argue that slavery was okay and that blacks are of a lower status, just because it was legal during the 1800s. - - - Updated - - - Yes, but it FEELS PAIN! Second of all, why does geographic location determine personhood?
