Do Pro-Choicers Really Honor Roe?


The most common
argument I hear from pro-choice women in response to most anything I write on
the subject is, "this simply is no one’s business but the woman’s."  Even if there is a moral dimension to this,
it’s up to the woman to make the ethical calculus.

That may be right,
that may be fair – but it is not what Roe v. Wade says.  Many of the comments assume that there is an
inviolable Constitutional right to abortion at any time.  But in the majority opinion Justice Harry
Blackmun wrote, "Appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is
absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time,
in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not
agree."

The fact that 84% of
Americans support banning abortion in the third trimester would indicate that a
large chunk even of pro-choice voters believe that while the woman’s right is
sacrosanct in the earlier parts of the pregnancy, as time passes, the fetus
itself begins to have rights, too.

Politically, common
ground efforts should steer clear of the late term abortion debate, at least in
phase one.  I raise it to make a simple
point: Roe v. Wade did not grant women an inviolable, universal, unfettered
right to choose.   So discouraging debate
with the assertion that pretty much no one other than the pregnant woman has
any standing to offer an opinion is not only counter-productive but against the
spirit of Roe.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    So then you are saying that you support the holding in Roe v. Wade? And have you also read Doe v Bolton, its companion case? It held that women must have access to legal abortion at any time during their pregnancy, including the third trimester, if their life or health is endangered. The scope of both of these decisions changed and narrowed since then. But since you are supporting Roe and the right to privacy — you know what, I, a pro-choice person, agree with you. Now that IS common ground.

  • http://acrimonyastraea.livejournal.com invalid-0

    This is the problem with making reproductive rights all about Roe. Roe was a major victory for women’s rights, but it isn’t the end-all, be-all of reproductive rights. I don’t see any reason why I should have to couch my advocacy for reproductive justice in the “spirit” (whatever that means) of a court decision made entirely by men.

    Roe is a court decision; it doesn’t make up the entirety of the issues nor does it reflect the beliefs of all people who would like abortion to remain legal.

  • invalid-0

    I continue to wonder if people would right a clarifying opinion like this (women’s rights are not “sacrosanct”) were men’s rights to make a decision about their bodies in question. From day one I have always wondered how such things would play out if men were the ones with laws being written around and about them. Interesting that we have no reference point. Even more interesting that we probably never will.

  • invalid-0

    Is the premise of your post really about finding common ground? Because it looks a lot like you’re casting your opponent’s position in a contrived, extreme light, and then pointing out the flaws in that position. Talk about being counter-productive.

  • amie-newman

    for beginning the conversation.

    While it is true that Roe v. Wade did not allow for unfettered access to abortion at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy, I think to a certain degree the discussion about the ways in which pro-choice women discuss legal abortion access (“This is simply no one’s business but the woman’s”) is a discussion of semantics.

    The truth is that Roe v. Wade allows for abortion in the third trimester or after viability only if the woman’s health is in danger. So, the reality of Roe v. Wade’s basis is that it is a careful balancing act between the welfare of the woman and the welfare of the fetus.

    But when women say, “My body, my choice”, women mean that we should be afforded the trust to be able to weigh the welfare of the fetus inside of us with our own welfare and make the best decisions we are able with our health care provider. I think there is tremendous fear out there that women are not capable of making clear, respectful, sound decisions when it comes to pregnancy.

    I also agree with the poster who wrote that Roe v. Wade isn’t the final and only say on legal abortion access. I appreciate your attempt, Steven, to get at what I think is important here – for me, it is a great reminder that Roe v. Wade really does seek common ground weighing the welfare of both woman and her fetus.

    Amie Newman

    Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

  • invalid-0

    Perhaps some would be interested in these facts about “Roe” and some personal observations.

    “Roe”, her real name is Norma McCorvey, is a friend of mine and totally against abortion now, no exceptions. She has admitted publicly that she lied about being raped in order to get her case into court and then she ended up changing her mind and never had an abortion; surely her daughter is grateful for that since she came close to being killed by abortion.

    I have read a number of posts on this site and I’m surprised at some of the outright exaggerations and dishonest claims by seemingly educated and inteligent women, specifically that there is a “need” for abortion the same as there is a need for cardiac surgery. Quite a stretch don’t you think? For crying out loud women pay to get pregnant. Does anyone pay to directly be inflicted with heart disease?

    Is there really ever a “need” for abortion? Absolutely not. If there is a ever a need, even for the life of the mother, please someone give me some medical details that I haven’t come across for 20 yrs during my medical career. BTW, I have worked as a Registered Nurse for over 20 years, including in ob/gyn. It is never a “need”. So, please ladies, be honest, you don’t “want” the kid, that’s the reason for the abortion. Needs and wants are very different things.

    It has been my observation over the years that it was dishonesty that got “Roe vs Wade” through the door and it is dishonesty that continues to propel the pro-abortion aka pro-choice women.

  • invalid-0

    The reason why this post is important for common ground is precisely that your position–that only the mother should be able to balance the interested of the fetus against her own–is that of a tiny minority in the United States and against the law of the land. Once we admit that at times the interests of the fetus over-ride those of the mother–something a large majority of Americans agree with–we can have broader discussions about just how this should play out. I don’t think the fear is with women per se…its with human nature. People are by nature selfish…we don’t want to share rights with homosexuals, with racial minorities, with women, with the undocumented worker, with children, with the poor, with those who cannot afford health insurance. Why would abortion be a special case where people suddenly have perspective and make fair choices–especially when so much is at stake? The recent discussion over sex-selection abortions is perfect evidence that women and men make horrific choices about which the State has a clear interest.

  • invalid-0

    BTW, I have worked as a Registered Nurse for over 20 years, including in ob/gyn.

    No, you haven’t. Because if you had, you would know about ectopic pregnancies. FAIL.

  • invalid-0

    To be clear, in my above post when I use the word “abortion” I am referring to the direct and intentional killing of a pre-born human being.

    Even in treating an ectopic pregnancy, the direct and intentional killing of the preborn human being is not necessary, but the child may die as the result of the mother’s treatment to save her life by the removal of the affected fallopian tube – an unintended and tragic consequence.

  • invalid-0

    No, I don’t honor Roe. I honor women’s rights. I don’t think Roe was a perfect decision; the reason I don’t want it overturned is because it’s better than nothing at all.

    Yes, I want abortion to be legal, full-stop, regardless of what the “spirit of Roe” is. It’s a good thing my moral judgments aren’t dependent on what the majority of Americans think or what a handful of white dudes decided a few decades ago, or else I might find myself accepting your tortured arguments.

  • invalid-0

    Sorry, anonymous, I am. See below for my clarification.

    My point is, bottom line, there is never a reason for the intentional and direct ending of the life of a pre-born human being at any stage of development. None.

  • invalid-0

    Sorry, anonymous, I am. See below for my clarification.

    So, you’re against abortion except when it’s unavoidable. Nice that you’re willing to concede at least that much.

    My point is, bottom line, there is never a reason for the intentional and direct ending of the life of a pre-born human being at any stage of development. None.

    So you would have forced a nine-year-old pregnant with twins to carry them to term, even though she would have died from the physical strain on her body. Your beliefs and values are your own, but I’m glad that most people are not as devoid of empathy and compassion as you are.

  • invalid-0

    You are advocating “the removal of the affected fallopian tube,” which is unnecessary in the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, for no other reason than to play a semantic game of claiming that the procedure is not abortion because it does not have a “direct” result of the death of the embryo. Never mind that the death of the embryo is no less certain with this procedure than with any other.

     

    You are advocating the mutilation of healthy tissue. Any moral system that would call for this is contemptible.

     

    The outrageous part of all of this is that this policy of mutilation is reportedly in force in many Roman Catholic hospitals today.

  • invalid-0

    It’s only contemptible if you (1) don’t take science seriously, and (2) disregard the difference between directly killing a fellow member of our species and attempting to love and care for her while foreseeing her likely death. It is unlikely you’ll see that, however, was your word indicate you’d rather spew venom than attempt to understand your opponents position.

  • invalid-0

    Anonymous @ 6:26…please try to understand your opponents position instead of accusing them of not taking science seriously.

  • invalid-0

    “The fact that 84% of Americans support banning abortion in the third trimester”

    This is not an accurate statement. Approximately 22% of Americans support banning abortion completely in the third trimester. The rest of Americans allow abortion in the third trimester in the case of specific exceptions, such as life of the mother, health of the mother, mental health of the mother, rape, incest, age of the mother, gross fetal abnormality, genetic abnormality, etc.

    It will be difficult to find ‘common ground’ unless the facts are accurately reported.

  • invalid-0

    This is sophistry. The idea that it is morally superior to force the woman to sacrifice her future fertility so that the zygote can be killed accidentally instead of preserving that fertility by giving her RU-486 is equivalent to saying that hitting a child in the head is murder but withholding food so that they starve to death is “an unintended and tragic consequence”. Any doctor or nurse who doesn’t ‘intend’ to remove the ectopic conceptus so the woman’s life can be saved shouldn’t be practicing medicine.

  • invalid-0

    Ah, more name-calling. Always what you like to see on a common-ground site. Nice.

    Your post shows that just don’t understand ethical theory. If there is no difference between direct abortion and a tube removal there is no difference between a terrorist who targets civilians and a bomber pilot who targets military installations but foresees and does NOT intend that some civilians will be killed. Your analogy doesn’t even come close.

  • invalid-0

    Parents obligations to their children are actually stronger than they are to strangers including those strangers at a military installations. You actually do have an obligation to feed your children and that that your children don’t die through starvation, even if you claim the death from starvation is unintentional. There is no such duty to strangers, including those at military installations.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not sure I fully understand your post. However, I can say that one most certainly does not have a duty to feed one’s child if doing so means that the mother will die. That is the analogy to removing a tubal pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not claiming the do have to die. A military or stranger scenario has nothing to do with parents obligations to their children. Re-read crowepps.

  • invalid-0

    The idea that it is morally superior to force the woman to sacrifice her future fertility so that the zygote can be killed accidentally instead of preserving that fertility by giving her RU-486 is equivalent to saying that hitting a child in the head is murder but withholding food so that they starve to death is “an unintended and tragic consequence”. Any doctor or nurse who doesn’t ‘intend’ to remove the ectopic conceptus so the woman’s life can be saved shouldn’t be practicing medicine.

  • colleen

    The fact that 84% of Americans support banning abortion in the third trimester

    Steve,

    I don’t believe this to be anywhere near accurate and strongly suggest that you recognise that your audience here isn’t composed of anti-abortion extremists willing to believe anything you say. May I suggest that you consider the fact that your audience here is different than the one you are used to and please take the time to back up claims like that with cites from reputable sources.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    That doesn’t help. I wasn’t comparing the level of duty. I was comparing the type of reasoning used to differentiate between intending to kill vs. merely foreseeing but not intending death.

  • invalid-0

    Colleen,

    Steve Waldman?

    He does not understand the meaning of “facts” and “reputable sources.”

    Health Provider 45

  • invalid-0

    Re-read crowepps.

  • invalid-0

    You are advocating “the removal of the affected fallopian tube,” which is unnecessary in the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy

  • invalid-0

    There were other plaintiffs in Roe v Wade who are still solidly prochoice and gratified that they were part of the case for reproductive freedom.

    And, unlike Norma McCorvey, who never had an abortion, she knew the horrors of illegal abortion.

    Read here –Roe Plaintiff Restates the Case She Helped Win.

  • invalid-0

    The removal of the fallopian tube itself is not necessary.

  • invalid-0

    Anonymous @ 6:26pm: My response was measured. I offered a critique of the issue at hand. I certainly could have vented at length on Catholic “morality,” but this would not have been germane.

     

    I consider my understanding of the RCC’s health care Directives and moral system in general to be adequate.

     

    I take science very seriously. You will not catch me making unsupported claims that my opinions are supported by science.

     

    I am fascinated when people use language like “the difference between directly killing a fellow member of our species and attempting to love and care for her while foreseeing her likely death.” [emphasis added] Why can’t you admit that death of the embryo is certain? Removal of a fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy hastens the death of the embryo, same as flushing the tube would. These rationalizations in deference to an unsupportable claim that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother are pathetic.

  • invalid-0

    J.T.:
    “You know you’ve done something WRONG if your actions result in the creation of an unwanted child.”

    Me:
    When a Female is raised to submit yourself to your husband, she does not feel she is doing something Wrong, to have Reproductive Sex with her husband.

    The Male planets the seed, and should be responsible for the Fruit/Child the seed makes, whether Genetic or Physical Defective Children, or Multi-births, and conjoined births.

    Adam and Eve were born Equal Clone Adults, not Children, and were Good Fruit, they started Reproducing Children by Body Birth, Bad Fruit. Why?

    Were the Adam and Eve Clone Equal Society, ‘Innocent’ as to what made Heterosexual Body Birth Evil Fruit, on the Tree of LIFE?

    When the Snake/Male Member deceived them, they did begin Evil Fruit on Earth.

    Celibacy began, for Monks and Nuns in All Religions. Where did Human Celibacy come from, before Jesus’ Celibate Movement?

    There is an Asexual Designation for Humans, besides the Heterosexual Designation which makes GLBT Designations.

    Bill:
    “My position is that abortion should be seen as the least evil of a series of evil choices — and thus must remain legal.”

    Me:
    Body Birth Humans have Killed Each Other, and All Life and their Eco System ever since, so what is legal in the eyes of God?

    The Wages of Body Birth Sin, is Death to a Planet. Body Birth Humans, lost their Virginity ‘in the beginning’, and have Evolved since the Planetary Flood.

    Humans again Reproduced by Body Birth, up to the High Tech Science Fetus and Clone Reproduction, like Adam and Eve Generation.

    Eternal Physical Life is for High Tech Purebred Human Male and Female Clones, ‘After Birth’, on Planets and in Spaceships.

  • paul-bradford

    Amie,

     

    First you say "we should be afforded the trust to be able to weigh the welfare of the fetus inside of us with our own welfare and make the best decisions", then you say, "there is tremendous fear out there that women are not capable of making clear, respectful, sound decisions when it comes to pregnancy."

     

    From my perspective, you’re mixing apples with oranges.  Only really paternalistic or misogynist individuals doubt that women are "capable of making clear, respectful, sound decisions when it comes to pregnancy".  Overwhelmingly, people would agree with the statement that a pregnant woman is the best person to decide whether an abortion would be the right decision for her.  The debate is about whether a mother is the best person to decide whether an abortion would be the right decision for her child.

     

    The position of PLCC is that it’s always desirable to allow parents to make decisions on behalf of their children — but that it would be foolish to deny that, in reality, many women are making abortion decisions that are devastating to their own children.  My observation is that, in many circles, it’s taboo even to point this out.  

     

    Some people believe that the pope is infallible, others seem to believe that mothers are infallible.  Neither group likes it when you challenge their belief.

     

    I’m a Catholic, but I’m not of the belief that a person would have to be anti-Catholic to suggest that the pope is wrong about something.  I wonder if you would be willing to agree that a person doesn’t have to be anti-woman to suggest that mothers can be wrong about something. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • invalid-0

    Paul, I have a quote for you:

    If we truly want to preserve a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, we need to accept that sometimes women will abort for reasons we might not agree with. Really, being pro-choice doesn’t mean thinking every abortion is a good idea. It means realizing that the only person who should truly have the right to determine whether it’s a good idea is the mother, and protecting her rights means allowing her to make decisions we might not necessarily support.

    It’s like free speech, Paul. Sometimes, people are going to say things that are false, or hurtful, or otherwise bad. But we know that if we were to put some entity in charge of regulating speech, to address “bad” speech, it would have a chilling effect on a lot of legitimate speech as well.

    Reasonable regulations on late-term abortion are akin to laws against yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Anything more than that, however, and you are curtailing freedoms in a manner not befitting our country.

  • invalid-0

    Your post shows that just don’t understand ethical theory.

    I wasn’t talking about ‘ethical theory’. I was talking about which medical procedure best saves the lives of the tens of thousands of women who will have this complication annually during their pregnancy. Your solution, based on sentimentality and concern for the ‘conscience’, would likely render them sterile. More medically appropriate solutions would not.

    The problem with restricting medical treatments based on ‘ethical theory’ is that it overlooks the wellbeing of actual live people in order to coddle the sensitivities of those who can’t cope with the self-evident fact that pregnancy is risky and Nature is cruel.

    I don’t think there is any ‘moral difference’ between the suicide bomber and the bomber pilot when it comes to killing civilians. The civilians are just as dead either way.

  • invalid-0

    But you need a rational defense of your position, don’t you? Apparently, your ethical theory is just straight up consequentialist. You think there is no moral difference between a terrorist who intentionally targets civilians and a bomber pilot who is not targeting them but forsees (but does not intend) that they might be killed. Now, I don’t think you actually believe this, but rather that you were cornered into it by someone challenging you. But this is the problem with the pro-abortion rights crowd on these forums: its almost pure emotive reaction from you guys with little to no rational framework backing it up. If there is going to be common ground you need to join the rational method of the pro-life side and actually have a charitable discussion/argument rather than emotive shouting.

  • paul-bradford

    People who are interested in making comparative judgments about abortion compare abortions by two determining factors: the age of the fetus and the hardship suffered by the mother.  

     

    The more developed the fetus is, according to this logic, the more baby-like s/he is and the more interest the society has in considering him/her a person.  The later an abortion is performed the ‘worse’ it is.

     

    The other factor is the hardship of the mother.  Aborting in order to preserve the mother’s girlish figure is a ‘bad’ reason; aborting because the mother has cancer and cannot receive chemo treatment if she’s pregnant is a ‘good’ reason.

     

    The more one is committed to a Pro-Life or a Pro-Choice position, the less either of these factors matter.  A Pro-Lifer who’s genuinely convinced that human life begins at conception is as opposed to an abortion in the seventh week as s/he would be to an abortion in the seventh month.  A Pro-Choicer who believes that a woman’s pregnancy is her own business would argue that an abortion that took place only days before the ‘due date’ wasn’t any more morally problematic than the use of Plan-B. 

     

    As far as hardship goes, a Pro-Lifer would contend that no amount of hardship on the mother’s part could possibly justify her killing off her child.  The Pro-Choicer would be completely unmoved by stories about women aborting for ‘frivolous’ reasons because any reason would be sufficient — and no reason should be reviewed by others.

     

    "Reasonable regulations on late-term abortion" sound like ‘common ground solutions’, but not to people on the Pro-Choice or Pro-Life side.  They’re only solutions to people who are Faux-Choice or Faux-Life.

     

    "If we truly want to preserve a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body" then we will take the Pro-Choice point of view, which is that a pregnancy is a function of a woman’s body, like lactation or menstruation, and a woman is justified in accessing any medical intervention she desires in order to regulate it according to her wishes.  The other point of view, the Pro-Life point of view, is that pregnancy is actually a function of the child’s body and that anyone charged with the duty of making an abortion decision has to decide based upon the interests of the child.

     

    To the extent that mothers understand, accept and meet their responsibility to act in the best interest of their children, abortion regulation is unnecessary.  To the extent that we, as a society, want to protect everyone’s privacy in making medical decisions regarding his/her own body, abortion regulation is impossible.  PLCC takes the position that it’s foolish and counterproductive to try to prevent determined women from accessing an abortion.  Our efforts are strictly educational.  We want to support the parents of the unborn in meeting their responsibilities to their children. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • steven-waldman

    Dr. Warren Hern and Colleen,

     

    The poll was conducted by Gallup for CNN/USA Today, January 10-12 of 1,002 adults nationwide. 

     

    The question was:

     "Thinking more generally: Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy? How about [see below]?"

     

    The answers:

    "In the first three months of pregnancy" — 66% legal, 29% illegal

     

    "In the second three months of pregnancy" — 15% legal, 68% illegal

     

    "In the last three months of pregnancy" —  10% legal, 84% illegal

     

  • invalid-0

    Except, of course, that “thinking generally” doesn’t cover the type of abortions that are actually DONE in the third trimester, does it? When those specific types of abortion are asked about, the figures change:

    Abortion should always be legal: 25%

    Abortion should be legal most of the time: 24%

    Abortion should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother’s life: 37%

    Abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions: 10%

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

    Polls that assume that abortions done in the third trimester are done for the same reasons as those done at six or eight weeks don’t provide a lot of helpful information in finding ‘common ground’.

  • invalid-0

    You think there is no moral difference between a terrorist who intentionally targets civilians and a bomber pilot who is not targeting them but forsees (but does not intend) that they might be killed.

    You are substituring affiliation and motivation for morals — the fact that the ‘terrorist’ is not in an organized military force does not necessarily mean that his/her cause is unjust. The fact the bomber pilot is part of an organized military force or kills from a distance does not in and of itself absolve him/her of making the choice to ‘accidentally’ kill civilians when it is known that is a likely consequence. Killing is killing. Sometimes it may be absolutely necessary in self-defense or defense of country, but being a ‘terrorist’ or being a ‘bomber pilot’ doesn’t in and of itself make it either moral or immoral.

  • invalid-0

    Now, I don’t think you actually believe this, but rather that you were cornered into it by someone challenging you. But this is the problem with the pro-abortion rights crowd on these forums: its almost pure emotive reaction from you guys with little to no rational framework backing it up.

    eh? re-read crowepps.

  • invalid-0

    Why do you want to talk about everything but the point I’m making? You claim to think that there is no moral difference between a terrorist WHO INTENTIONALLY TARGETS CIVILIANS and a bomber pilot WHO IS TRYING TO AVOID CIVILIANS but targets military installations while foreseeing but not intending that some civilians will die. For those of us who can make such a moral distinction, we can make the very same distinction between a direct abortion which intentionally targets the prenatal child, and a tubal removal which does not. You are consistent…but I don’t think its actually because there think there is no difference between the terrorist and bomber pilot above. I think its just because you don’t want to give up your previously held position.

  • invalid-0

    equivalent to saying that hitting a child in the head is murder but withholding food so that they starve to death is “an unintended and tragic consequence”.

    Both are considered to be killing your child. And if the child is an infant both of these methods are considered forms of infanticide. The fallopian tube is not some ‘military installation’ scenario. Several other corrections have already been made to the original post to point out that removal of the fallopian tube itself is not whats actually necessary to save the womans life. Removal of the fallopian tube itself removes healthy tissue.

  • invalid-0

    Re-read Arium too.

  • invalid-0

    Who brought up that it is the mutilation of healthy tissue in the first reply.

  • invalid-0

    believe that while the woman’s right is sacrosanct in the earlier parts of the pregnancy, as time passes, the fetus itself begins to have rights, too.

    I believe it should be medical standards, not laws. In late pregnancy, an abortion cannot happen without help of doctors & other medical staff.

    I don’t know of any late abortion “problem” that wouldn’t be better handled by medical standards than laws, especially if abortion was reintegrated into general hospitals and general family practice. The problem with “reasonable” restrictions written by politicians is they often aren’t “reasonable”. It always seems that it’s OK to discuss the obligation of a woman to her fetus is divorced from the risks of pregnancy. I don’t think it’s OK to say that providing “proof” isn’t demanding acceptance of unreasonable risk.

    I don’t agree fully with Roe, but I do believe it is a “compromise” — and further compromise isn’t needed. Rather, laws that are trying to limit early abortion access should be off the books and a doctor’s ability to protect the health of a pregnant woman shouldn’t be sacrificed for the sake of “common ground”.

    Since the number of late abortions is proportionally so small compared to the proportion of early abortion [Thank you for supporting a woman’s right to choose early abortion] it really is much more appropriate to let medical standards handle the mater of late abortion. It’s a much better fit. I would prefer to discourage people to not try to practice medicine without a liscense — strangers trying to interfere with the complex situations that tend to exist when a woman & her doctor are considering late abortion will cause harm and unnecessary risk.

  • invalid-0

    …ladies, be honest, you don’t “want” the kid, that’s the reason for the abortion.

    Hmmm, hence the term “unwanted”. Yep, sometimes women have abortions just because they don’t want a a kid. So now what?

    …dishonesty that got “Roe vs Wade” through the door

    Mmmmm, no. I’m pretty sure it was the overwhelming evidence of harm to women through illegal abortions, the deaths, the disfigurements and infertility, the septic wards in every hospital, the fact that even though abortion was illegal women still took their lives and their health into their own hands to end unwanted pregnancies. Stop painting a faux rosy picture of life before Roe v. Wade, it never existed.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not claiming the do have to die.

    ….in any case of self-defense. Self defense includes taking direct measures to kill to save your life.

  • invalid-0

    I’m quoting myself @ 9:41 to make my previously made statement from a couple posts up clearer.

  • invalid-0

    The other thing that both of your ‘moral distinctions’ have in common, so far as I can see, is that in both cases the person making the distinction sustains no damage and instead the pain and loss are all shoved off onto somebody else.

  • invalid-0

    A parent can give up custody but until they are able to give up physical custody, upon which it falls on someone else (also in the case of other caregiver arrangements or abduction)…. the second method of withholding food is just as much an act of them killing as the other…even if they hire a third party to do it. Granted, a threat to ones life may justify killing….but the second method of withholding food until the child dies is considered an act of killing a child.

  • invalid-0

    “The reasons for a third-trimester abortion were:

    * In 40%, an earlier test indicated that a defect existed but not how serious it was. Doctors delayed and re-tested to see if the defect was serious enough to be life-threatening. Some genetic conditions can be mild or severe, so to prevent unnecessary abortions the doctors waited.
    * In 37%, an earlier test failed to find the serious defects that showed up later.
    * In 18%, a diagnosis for this kind of defect can’t be made until the third trimester. This often seems to include anencephaly, a fatal birth defect.
    * And in the remaining 5%, doctors or parents delayed the decision to abort. I correlated this with what I’ve read about doctors ordering yet another another test to make sure, waiting for a referral, parents not able to believe the news, having hysterics and going home, and praying for a miracle.”

    http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/what-causes-third-trimester-abortions/