The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Roe v. Wade Decision Legalizes Abortion in the US (1973) Options
Daemon
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 28,549
Neurons: 84,825
Location: Inside Farlex computers
Roe v. Wade Decision Legalizes Abortion in the US (1973)

Roe v. Wade was the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the US. In 1970, an unmarried pregnant woman—who was at the time identified only as Jane Roe—filed a lawsuit because she wanted an abortion but could not legally get one in Texas. Her suit aimed to have the Texas abortion law declared unconstitutional as an invasion of her right to privacy as guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. How does Norma McCorvey—"Jane Roe"—view the case today? More...
TheParser
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:29:10 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,669
Neurons: 22,062
After birth control, abortion is the greatest right that a woman has. Why should she have to give birth if she chooses not to?

By not giving birth to an unwanted child, she is doing herself and society a wonderful thing.

The millions of abortions in the United States have prevented the births of millions of babies, including some that would have undoubtedly gone on to cause nothing but trouble in this world.

early_apex
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:53:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 2,281
Neurons: 12,855
Location: Spindletop, Texas, United States
How can you tell, Parser, before birth, whether a child is wanted or not? Not wanted by its mother? Not wanted by anyone?

How can you tell which babies will go on to cause trouble in the world? Or are you saying that of the millions of abortions "some" would have caused trouble, so the death of the remainder was worth it?

"Shut up, she explained." - Ring Lardner
TheParser
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:31:39 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,669
Neurons: 22,062
early_apex wrote:
How can you tell, Parser, before birth, whether a child is wanted or not? Not wanted by its mother? Not wanted by anyone?




Hello, Early Apex:

1. If a woman asks for an abortion, I assume that she does not want the baby.

2. If the woman bearing the fetus does not want the baby, who else would want it?

a. Yes, I have read that some men have wanted the child and have opposed the woman's decision. But I think that the woman should have the final say.

*****

3. I have just read a headline that claims that since Roe v. Wade, there have been 55,000,000 abortions in this country.

a. IN MY OPINION, that's great.
b. Of course, I realize that some people feel that among those 55,000,000 there were some unborn Einsteins.
(i) I feel, however, that there was a greater chance that there many unborn murderers, dictators, con artists. etc. This world already has enough.

*****

Many people sincerely believe that life is sacred and that it a wonderful thing when a baby comes into the world. I just happen to disagree.

Regardless of your or my views, however, it is probably accurate to say that abortion in the United States is here to stay. (Late-term abortions are another thing and will probably continue to be prohibited.)


James

P.S. A few people have even suggested that parents are de facto criminals for having children, knowing full well what is in store for those children: illness, injustice, loneliness, and finally the squalor of death.

MakeClouds
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:52:59 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 1/20/2014
Posts: 39
Neurons: 244
TheParser wrote:


3. I have just read a headline that claims that since Roe v. Wade, there have been 55,000,000 abortions in this country.

a. IN MY OPINION, that's great.
b. Of course, I realize that some people feel that among those 55,000,000 there were some unborn Einsteins.
(i) I feel, however, that there was a greater chance that there many unborn murderers, dictators, con artists. etc. This world already has enough.




I gave birth to three unwanted, unwelcome human beings. It was not me who did not want my children. It was not me who judged them and it was not me who devalued my children, while they were in my womb. It was sick, hateful society who deemed my children unworthy and unwelcome to be born.

I think women who have abortions are criminal and I think people in society who coerce a woman into aborting are also criminal, committing violence and violation against her and her child.

I am firmly against abortion. I conceived a 4th child but could not have it. Instead of abortion, I simply prayed. Enough said.



Professor
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:45:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/9/2009
Posts: 227
Neurons: 42,160
Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States
Daemon wrote:
Decision Legalizes Abortion in the US (1973)

was the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the US. In 1970, an unmarried pregnant woman—who was at the time identified only as Jane Roe—filed a lawsuit because she wanted an abortion but could not legally get one in Texas. Her suit aimed to have the Texas abortion law declared unconstitutional as an invasion of her right to privacy as guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. How does Norma McCorvey—"Jane Roe"—view the case today? More...


Roe herself; in 1995, Norma L. McCorvey revealed that she became pro-life and is now a vocal opponent of abortion. Notwithstanding, i support the families decision. In short, it should be the women's decision with support from the would-be father.

"You reveal your character by what you do with what you have."
early_apex
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:03:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 2,281
Neurons: 12,855
Location: Spindletop, Texas, United States
I, as a man, would not interfere with a woman's choice in this matter. My opinions are colored by the things my wife experienced in her years of working for a a non-profit organization in the adoption business. If you ever saw couples desperate to have a child and the things they often go through in order to adopt, you begin to wonder how the term "unwanted child" ever entered the language. Sort of like the term "overpopulation" - is it a population problem or a food supply/distribution problem? If you ever got a glimpse of how much money is being made in the abortion industry versus how little money is made in the adoption business, you would start to see that much of the discussion is being driven by money, at which point it is hard to sort out people's personal convictions from the expediency of commercial concerns.

"Shut up, she explained." - Ring Lardner
Absurdicuss
Posted: Monday, January 27, 2014 7:34:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,878
Neurons: 30,361
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
The "right" to produce offspring is inalienable and equal between the sexes. It is exercised prior to conception.

Afterward, with the exception of rape and incest, the killing of the not yet born is murder.

It is tragic that women have been driven to view the destruction of the fruit of their womb as a cornerstone of power.

But, I suppose that in a world run by evolution it will work itself out.


@Parser,

Your views on abortion are repulsive and callous.

To characterize the killing, dispatch, elimination, murder of 55,500,000 humans before they were allowed a single day in the sun as "great" comes across to me as psychopathic indifference.

"Now" is the eternal present.
Hope2
Posted: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:12:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,908
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I wonder how many babies AND women lost their lives before Roe v Wade.

A columnist in the Toronto Star wrote the following in an article right after a Canadian doctor, Henry Morgenthaler, died in 2013. He had worked to make abortions legal. 'Disobedient vaginas that must be managed from the outside'. I thought it was a very good description of the perspective of anti abortionists.

I also have never understood why if they are so anti-abortion that the church does not approve of birth control or the morning after pill. They both prevent abortions!

Anyhow, I am beginning to think there is no such thing as sanctity of life the way humans have always, now, and forever, will continue to kill other humans. (And animals.) Maybe the sanctity theory is just a myth set up as a moral to make sure the human race continues. With all the people in the world, I don't think we need to worry about that. Of course most males in the animal kingdom will fight to have their seed propagated.

:::

Dr. Morgentaler -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler


"In 2008 Morgentaler was awarded the Order of Canada "for his commitment to increased health care options for women, his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy and his leadership in humanist and civil liberties organizations."

...For his trouble, the unflappable Dr. Morgentaler stood trial, languished in prison, and received numerous death threats. What drove him to take such risks? "The realization that a terrible injustice was being done to women and the conviction that it was necessary to change the situation to provide help for those who needed it," replies the retired physician via email."




Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
Hope2
Posted: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:34:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,908
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Continued from Wiki -

"The appeal case, R v. Morgentaler, 1988, was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a victory for Morgentaler. The court upheld the original jury acquittal. In addition, it declared that the 1969 abortion law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was thus unconstitutional in the case of R. v. Morgentaler 1988 (1 S.C.R. 30).[34] The court ruled 5–2 that the administrative procedures were cumbersome and unjustifiably interfered with the body integrity of women."[35] On January 28, the law was found to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it infringes upon a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of person."[25]

The five justices wrote three different opinions striking down the law for different reasons: that Section 251 imposed unnecessary procedures and restrictions, restricted access to hospitals, and caused delays; resulted in physical, psychological and emotional risk to the woman; and forced some women to carry a fetus to term against their will.[36]

Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote:
"Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."[25]

Justice Bertha Wilson wrote:
"The decision of a woman to terminate her pregnancy falls within the class of protected decisions [because it will have] profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman… The right to reproduce or not to reproduce… is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being… The purpose of [section 251] is to take the decision away from the woman and give it to a committee."[37]

Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.