Personally, I can't imagine anybody supporting such a barbaric practice. Though I'm glad the Supreme Court upheld the law, I still find it disturbing that this practice even has the support to garner a fight.
Yo, Met... thanks for the sig! GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just wanted to convey in layman's terms what the current law is.
It's a little crude, sorry.
This is the way the SC looks at abortion. The Mother has a privacy right in her own body. That right is unchanging. She will always have it. This is represented by the red line.
The question is, are we comparing that right to something that is a more important right?
The Blue line is the Government's interest in protecting the unborn. Notice that it increases over the time of the pregnancy. The intersection point is the point of viability for the unborn (As science advances, this moves back).
When the blue line it is below the red line, the Mother's rights are considered more important. When the blue line is above the red line, the Government's interest in protecting the unborn is greater than the mothers rights. Hence, no Abortions when the blue line is higher.
In conclusion The SC really stood pat here, and kept this as is. The test didn't really change, which is interesting. It may show a reluctance to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The thing about abortion is balancing the rights of the woman/mother with the rights of the child. The problem lies in determining when that conglomeration of cells becomes a human being with rights. Is it at birth? Is it at conception? If it’s in between, where is it?
That’s the problem, and the answer is as much dependent on science as philosophy. There is no consensus, and until there is this debate will go on.
Never really thought about it in the form of the chart that you laid out, very interesting. And yeah the SC is very reluctant to overturn Roe v. Wade they have been in the past and they will more than likely be the same in the future.
(and why do we keep getting out links from Foxnews???)
BGbootha
General Manager
Posts: 3830
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Yards this season: 0
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Teaching is the Greatest Job in the World!!! (during the Summer)
TBM has an amazing point there.... and that graphic is pretty much how it is.
In any case, as a moderate with strong moral beliefs, I am actually very pleased that this is continuing to be banned.
While I would like R v W to be overturned, I know it never will be, so I'm at least a little relieved that we're staying put instead of moving in the opposite direction.
knapplc wrote:The thing about abortion is balancing the rights of the woman/mother with the rights of the child. The problem lies in determining when that conglomeration of cells becomes a human being with rights. Is it at birth? Is it at conception? If it’s in between, where is it?
That’s the problem, and the answer is as much dependent on science as philosophy. There is no consensus, and until there is this debate will go on.
Currently, the cases don't even take the rights of the unborn into account. They only take the rights of the government to protect the unborn into account.
But, time will only tell where the test ends up, however. As science advances, that may very well become part of the equation.
danleroi22 wrote:TBM has an amazing point there.... and that graphic is pretty much how it is.
In any case, as a moderate with strong moral beliefs, I am actually very pleased that this is continuing to be banned.
While I would like R v W to be overturned, I know it never will be, so I'm at least a little relieved that we're staying put instead of moving in the opposite direction.
I disagree, I think it will be overturned. Plessy v. Fergusson was overturned on the basis of additional scientific evidence, spesifically the study of how African American children precieved themselves, and the dolls representing thier race.
I think it is only a matter of time before new scientific evidence regarding abortion arises, and, if this court is still intact at that point, I think that they will overturn it.
knapplc wrote:The thing about abortion is balancing the rights of the woman/mother with the rights of the child. The problem lies in determining when that conglomeration of cells becomes a human being with rights. Is it at birth? Is it at conception? If it’s in between, where is it?
That’s the problem, and the answer is as much dependent on science as philosophy. There is no consensus, and until there is this debate will go on.
Currently, the cases don't even take the rights of the unborn into account. They only take the rights of the government to protect the unborn into account.
But, time will only tell where the test ends up, however. As science advances, that may very well become part of the equation.
But isn't the "government interest" essentially taking the rights of the unborn into account? Isn't the government pretty much advocating for the unborn? If not then they need to get out of the debate entirely, I think, since they have no right to tell us what to do in other aspects of health care.
As science advances I believe that removing the unborn from the woman at a very early stage, perhaps as early as the first detectable moment, and growing it to term ex vivo will be viable. I have to believe this ability will be feasible from a medical standpoint within my lifetime, if not within the next 10 years (ballparking, since I have done zero research on this).
At that point the debate may become largely moot, and abortion rates may plummet.
Then we’d have to determine what to do with all of those children, of course. So the debate would change.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Nfl Fan » Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:15 am 
The SC really stood pat here, and kept this as is. The test didn't really change, which is interesting. It may show a reluctance to overturn Roe v. Wade.
