• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roe v Wade Was Wrongly Decided

but I think the price of that principle has been too high in this case.

?? that implies the Court is supposed to predict the price of the decisions it makes when it is only in the business of Constitutionality
 
This is a theory, not a fact.

After Roe vs. Wade, abortion was a made up issue by the far right wing to rally Evangelical voters and give them something to be angry and passionate about so they'd go the polls, evangelicals are shot for shot one of the most reliable voters in the entire body politic and this issue is a major driver.

If not abortion, it would be something else and today's poisonous political landscape comes from far more complex causes than just abortion.

Once it was a difference in political theory and policy ideas.

At this particular moment it's a difference of reality as we know it.

One could argue actually, that, that started with Climate Change Denial in the 90's... Something you unfortunately propagate at an incredible rate.

But in closing, female reproductive rights should not be up for debate, Big Government Conservative Theocratic busybodies are virtually the only people concerned with this nonsense and I wish they'd just bugger off with it.

That's your perception based on your own beliefs about abortion. You can't use your beliefs and opinions about abortion to come to a conclusion about pro-life people. We don't believe abortion is "female reproductive rights". We look at abortion as the killing of an innocent human. There's nothing "big government, theocratic or busybody" about wanting innocent lives to not be snuffed out, is there?

I'm of the pro-choice crowd and the reason for this is because I firmly believe the right for a woman to choose what is in her best interest on the issue of child birth is enshrined in our founding documents, "liberty...endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights". The "endowment" IMO is free will - the ability to choose for ourselves what's in our own best interest. Liberty assures this "freedom" to make decisions that concern our person on our own without imposition from government whether at the state or federal level.

I've read Row v Wade a number of times and one thing the Supreme Court made clear was despite the moral question of the medical practice, no woman should be denied this medical procedure nor should the states make obtaining this procedure so difficult that it was nearly impossible to have one. Yet, hardline, right-wing politicians continue to seek ways to make having an abortion more and more difficult, let alone halt them entirely. The way I see this contentious issue is this:

Life doesn't start a conception. The building blocks for life, however, do. The fetus remains in a developmental stage until it reaches gestation. It's at that point when the abortion should not be terminated because the fetus has reached "viability" from a medically defined developmental standpoint. But even at this point, the fetus isn't "alive". It's still developing. IMO, it is only after the fetus is either birth or retrieved from the womb via cesarean section and is able to breath on its own (or competent medical authority believes in it's changes to survive on its own in cases of premature birth) is the child "alive". Until then, the fetus has no viable brain activity. It can't reason for itself nor can it support itself with life sustaining activity without the presence of its host mother. I know people will disagree with me on this and point to other "living aspects", i.e., fetal heartbeat, but a man or woman on life support can have a heartbeat as well, yet be declared brain dead while also being incapable of breathing on his or her own. This is why laws concerning self-termination or assisted suicide have become so contentious as well in the wake of the Florida case involving Dr. Kevorkian.

While I agree that late-term abortions should be outlawed except where concern for the life of the mother is concerned, I fully support the right of a woman (hopefully in full consultation with her significant other and private physician) to choose what's in her best interest as to whether or not to have an abortion. And as long as those rights are enshrined in our founding documents, I don't think they should be taken away no matter how one feels about it on moral grounds.
 
Life doesn't start a conception. The building blocks for life, however, do.

Yes, it does.

The fetus remains in a developmental stage until it reaches gestation.

Gestation is the entire process. I assume you mean viability. And ... really? No more developing after that?

It's at that point when the abortion should not be terminated because the fetus has reached "viability" from a medically defined developmental standpoint. But even at this point, the fetus isn't "alive". It's still developing.

This is dumb. A fetus is alive the entire time unless it is dead. There is no such thing as "alive". And - I thought you just said it wasn't in the "developmental stage" after that. I think you're confusing yourself here.

IMO, it is only after the fetus is either birth or retrieved from the womb via cesarean section and is able to breath on its own (or competent medical authority believes in it's changes to survive on its own in cases of premature birth) is the child "alive".

This is the stupidity I'm talking about with pro-choice people. And conservatives are anti-science??

Until then, the fetus has no viable brain activity.

Until the exact moment the child is born there is no "viable brain activity"? I mean - seriously. You're just making things up here.

It can't reason for itself nor can it support itself with life sustaining activity without the presence of its host mother. I know people will disagree with me on this and point to other "living aspects", i.e., fetal heartbeat, but a man or woman on life support can have a heartbeat as well, yet be declared brain dead while also being incapable of breathing on his or her own. This is why laws concerning self-termination or assisted suicide have become so contentious as well in the wake of the Florida case involving Dr. Kevorkian.

Again - another ridiculous comment. You're comparing a living, developing human with a brain dead adult. You honestly --- think about this before answering -- you honestly believe that a fetus has NO brain activity while in the womb? Their brains ONLY come to life at birth?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it does.



Gestation is the entire process. I assume you mean viability. And ... really? No more developing after that?



This is dumb. A fetus is alive the entire time unless it is dead. There is no such thing as "alive". And - I thought you just said it wasn't in the "developmental stage" after that. I think you're confusing yourself here.



This is the stupidity I'm talking about with pro-choice people. And conservatives are anti-science??



Until the exact moment the child is born there is no "viable brain activity"? I mean - seriously. You're just making things up here.



Again - another ridiculous comment. You're comparing a living, developing human with a brain dead adult. You honestly --- think about this before answering -- you honestly believe that a fetus has NO brain activity while in the womb? Their brains ONLY come to life at birth?

Well, Josie...

You have your opinion and, thus, your position on the subject matter and I have mine. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's stupid. It simply means we disagree on the merits.
 
Well, Josie...

You have your opinion and, thus, your position on the subject matter and I have mine. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's stupid. It simply means we disagree on the merits.

Yes, it does mean it's stupid. Saying a child has no brain activity until it's birth is a ridiculous, anti-science comment.
 
Yes, it does mean it's stupid. Saying a child has no brain activity until it's birth is a ridiculous, anti-science comment.

The brain-death argument is a logical dead end no matter what for the pro-choice side. To carry the analogy to its logical conclusion the brain dead adult would fully recover and live a full life.
 
Yes, it does mean it's stupid. Saying a child has no brain activity until it's birth is a ridiculous, anti-science comment.

Don't parse my words, suga. I said "Until then, the fetus has no viable brain activity. It can't reason for itself nor can it support itself with life sustaining activity without the presence of its host mother."

One would be foolish to think a fetus has no brain function at all. But has the brain developed enough in those first 3 months to sustain life beyond rudimentary reflective motor skills? Most scientific evidence suggests not.

Now, you can disagree with me on this if you want, but that's my position on the matter. Until the fetus is developed fully enough with basic functions to sustain life on its own outside the womb, IMO it is not alive. It is merely continuing to develop into becoming a human being. I'm not suggesting that they are disposable at any means. I am saying, however, that (ultimately) it is the woman's right to choose if she desires to give birth and hopefully she makes this decision in careful consultation with her partner/spouse and her doctor.
 
Don't parse my words, suga. I said "Until then, the fetus has no viable brain activity. It can't reason for itself nor can it support itself with life sustaining activity without the presence of its host mother."

One would be foolish to think a fetus has no brain function at all. But has the brain developed enough in those first 3 months to sustain life beyond rudimentary reflective motor skills? Most scientific evidence suggests not.

Now, you can disagree with me on this if you want, but that's my position on the matter. Until the fetus is developed fully enough with basic functions to sustain life on its own outside the womb, IMO it is not alive. It is merely continuing to develop into becoming a human being. I'm not suggesting that they are disposable at any means. I am saying, however, that (ultimately) it is the woman's right to choose if she desires to give birth and hopefully she makes this decision in careful consultation with her partner/spouse and her doctor.

Sexist name-calling noted.

And, again, your opinion that a healthy, developing fetus isn't alive is science-fiction.
 
Yes, it does mean it's stupid. Saying a child has no brain activity until it's birth is a ridiculous, anti-science comment.

I wish some common sense would come out of conversations like this.

People, people, people...ask yourselves to step out of fantasy opinion world and consider the countless numbers of fetal dissections that have been done on every stage possible - over and over and over. There is absolutely no stages of development that's been repeatedly documented that details every microscope detail from top to bottom.

Every possible neutral developmental stage is charted n a way that there is zero doubt about what point a brain is capable of functioning in way that sentience, feeling pain, etc, etc, can even occur.

Gezzzzus ...I'm beginning in wonder how many members have delayed brain functions.

Fetal development research has been going on for decades...fricking decades!
 
Leaving any power up to the States is an oxymoron in todays political climate. The Federal gov is out to get as much power as they can. The states are basically powerless little guppies.
 
I wish some common sense would come out of conversations like this.

People, people, people...ask yourselves to step out of fantasy opinion world and consider the countless numbers of fetal dissections that have been done on every stage possible - over and over and over. There is absolutely no stages of development that's been repeatedly documented that details every microscope detail from top to bottom.

Every possible neutral developmental stage is charted n a way that there is zero doubt about what point a brain is capable of functioning in way that sentience, feeling pain, etc, etc, can even occur.

Gezzzzus ...I'm beginning in wonder how many members have delayed brain functions.

Fetal development research has been going on for decades...fricking decades!

better not to spread your legs than to kill your baby! Simple solution!!
 
That goes for you too...James.

liberals would rather have fun and kill the baby that results. In the Republican 1950's sex was associated with love. Liberals have killed love.
 
liberals would rather have fun and kill the baby that results. In the Republican 1950's sex was associated with love. Liberals have killed love.

Gezzzus Gawd - not the Liberal bull**** again...

This ain't the 1950s and the Republicans have ALWAYS been just as sinful as any Democrat (conservatives or liberal). Where the hell do you come up with this stuff?
 
Republicans have ALWAYS been just as sinful as any Democrat

abortions, divorce, illegitimate children, and crime were 10 times less in Republican 1950's. The Democrats have attacked and destroyed love and family.
 
I am pro-choice. Nonetheless I believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. It should have been left to the states.

I suppose that depends largely on how one views America. I would point out that if we are a mere confederation of independent sovereign states, then the BoR is reduced to being virtually pointless. I do not believe that it is so, and must therefore reject the notion that the states are completely independent. The BoR must apply to all states or else, again, what is the point of having it? Some say it is meant to apply only to the fedgov, but IMO that argument falls flatly dead in its face. How could it be that the fedgov would be mandated to respect the rights of men, whereas the states could do as they please? That makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.

Therefore, the states (and I question the very existence of any "state", to wit: Freedom Is Obvious: The "State") are not in fact free to do as they please, as some of the more ardent proponents of the 10A would have us accept. In fact, I reject "states' rights" completely because the only rights that exist are those of the individuals. Are "states" authorized to murder their people? Are they authorized to make any Law whatsoever? If "no" to murder and "yes" to Law, where then is the line drawn between "yes" and "no"?

When one places notions such as "state" under the withering light of competent examination, the absurdities that they are become apparent to intelligent, rational, and honest men.

Therefore, your very premise is flawed. How can something be decided by an entity that possesses no independent existence of its own? The only place "state" exists is within the confines of the skulls of individual human beings. If I wave my magic wand and immediately thereafter you and I were the only two people on the planet, I would have to ask "show me the 'state'", to which you would then be either left standing and wondering where it went, or the light would come on as you twigged to the fact that there is no "state" and never has been, save for in the minds of men. "State" is pure vapor and shade. It is nothing at all, and yet our belief drives us to act as if the truth were otherwise. If this does not demonstrate the power of mind, then I suppose nothing could.

The verdict has poisoned our national politics for decades and made SCOTUS nominations political death matches instead of the sober exercises of judgment they should be.

I cannot disagree with you here. I strongly concur.

I understand that in principle a right is a right and should not vary from state to state, but I think the price of that principle has been too high in this case.

You either believe in rights, or you do not. Price has nothing to do with anything, save one's distaste for the cost of freedom. Freedom is not what most people think. It is, in fact, a real bitch.

On the one hand we have the exhilaration of pure freedom. On the other hand we find the requirements of freedom - the "costs", if you will. Among them are intelligence, integrity, honor, respect, self-control, learnedness, accountability, respect for others, respect for self, and the willingness to pay the price to be free, as well as to assume ALL its responsibilities. This is why so few people are interested in it, preferring pretty slavery over it, so long as they are permitted to lie to themselves and each other in saying that they are, in fact, free.

Abortion should be allowed or prohibited on a state by state basis. Our national politics would be far healthier.

I am not certain this is the case. Methinks we are best served by minding our own businesses. What a person does not make public should remain private and immune to prying eyes. Anything other than this opens the door to tyranny, especially that of good intentions, which is the worst form of them all.
 
Back
Top Bottom