From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In the absence of a compelling reason to have an article on abortion in SW I'm inclined to leave the debate to Wikipedia which already has major articles including --Bob Burton 04:12, 9 Nov 2005 (EST)

and i'll leave my six bits of dissent uderneath a determination that I also concur with.

--Hugh Manatee 06:28, 9 Nov 2005 (EST)

An abortion is the deliberate premature termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of any or all carried unborn infants. The ethics, morality, and legality of abortion is the subject of intense debate throughout the world. It isn't either, as I believe your usage of the term "infant" implies a legal person. Do you really define a 64 cell blastula as a lawful person? Are you unable to see that the implementation of this would reach well beyond what even the Catholic Church considers to be tenant.

U.S. Laws

The current legal status of abortion in the United States is based on the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. This ruling states that abortion is legal prior to the third trimester of pregnancy, after which time a state may regulate the procedure. After viability, the state's interest in fetal protection increases, and a state may more heavily regulate abortion.

The Roe v. Wade decision overturned many state laws regarding abortion by claiming that abortion is a constitutional right and therefore state legislatures did not have the right to follow the will of the citizens with regard to laws on abortion. This is controversial because abortion is obviously not mentioned in the Constitution. And the justices on the Supreme Court are mandated to base their decisions on the Constitution, not their personal opinions and wants.

Have you ever even read Roe v Wade? Why didn't you cite the relevant parts of the decision that you fell back up your specious arguments.

The supreme court that handed down the roe v Wade decision had nothing to do with the morality/immorality of the abortion. It was grounded in the concept that the state has not the right to reach deeply inside of a person and coerce behaviors from them unless it can show a compelling state interest in the coercison.

Once again, a fetus is not a constitutionally recognised person, and this is a proper determination. Should a twelve year old girl who conceived due to a rape be forced to carry the fetus to term? What about conception via incestuous acts of a perverted close relative? Should a woman be forced to carry an anacephalic fetus to the bitter end? Should both mother and fetus die because of a tubal pregnancy? If a woman's pregnancy would cause her certain death before she gave birth, has she the right to decide whether to terminate it?

If you answer affirmative to any of those questions, then you too do not believe that a fetus is truly a lawful person. Instead you would use law to impose your own personal morality upon others. Would this not be a form of unlawful governmental over reach in a free society? If this cam eabout because of a judicial reversal of Roe v Wade, then would it not judicial activism be its cause?

Legal Issue

Most experts on constitutional laws regard the decision on the Roe v. Wade case as a tremendous legal mistake. The Supreme Court interjected itself into what should have been a legislative matter. The Constitution doesn't address this issue, and as the Tenth Amendment affirms, on issues where the Constitution is mute, we have state and federal legislatures to write our laws. The Constitution is sort of the Bible for the United States of America, and the justices of the Supreme Court are essentially the theologians who decide what it means. They aren't supposed to write a new one. They're supposed to figure out what it means. When a change in the Constitution is needed, we have a mechanism to change it.

Most legal scholars believe it would be better for everybody if the matter of abortion was returned to the state legislatures. In that way the people's elected representatives can write the laws in accordance with the will of their electorates. We'd only have a hodgepodge of laws across the country, and in some areas abortion would be illegal if the electorate wants it that way. That's how democracy works.

What we call law is nothing more or less than the public's collective belief, their conviction of what right and wrong is. Whether it's about murder, kidnapping, or running a red light, society decides what the rules are. In a democratic republic, we do that through the legislature by electing people who share our views. That's how laws happen. We also set up a Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which is very carefully considered because it decides what the other laws may and may not do, and therefore it protects us against our transitory passions. The job of the judiciary is to interpret the laws, or in this case the constitutional principles embodied in those laws, as they apply to reality. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court went too far. It legislated; it changed the law in a way not anticipated by the drafters, and that was an error. All a reversal of Roe will do is return the abortion issue to the elected state legislatures, where it belongs.

Simply, just unsubstantiated opinion on your part. Why didn't you offer any statistics showing just what most constitutional experts an dlegal scholars believe about Roe v Wade. Then there would need to be a polling of the persons who think that Roe v Wade went over the line of legitimate juridical action in America, but since it has been established for over thirty years as law, and is abortion is still viewed as a legal act by the majority of Americans, the proper course for a true conservative judge, would be stare decicis, and leave it alone. True conservatives do not rock the lifeboat, poke a stick in a hornet's nest, or intentionally awaken a pack of mad dogs, and instead seek the even keel of the status quo. You would find many "legal scholars" holding this type of opinion. You would find many others who believe that as a principle of liberty, the state has not the right to impose an arbitrary morality upon it citizenry. This is one the of the threads from which Roe v Wade originated. Another is the concept of an equal application of law, and since the wealthy could with much greater ease, travel across stat lines to acquire an abortion, while the poor were unable, the court ruled often in their overturning abortion restriction numerous times before Roe v Wade along these lines.

The Roe decision came about because the Supreme Court had grown weary of hearing too many cases that arose in the controversies bred by illegitimate lawmaking created by elected politicians, and felt that this voluminous caseload was threatening their ability to keep current on other essential cases, so an attempt was made to clearly codify the gray boundry between a compelling state interst, and the liberty possessed by all humans.

Your last claim of democracy's predomination of America is not even close to being accurate. REal Democracy is nothing more than rule by the mob. Freedom has a short brutish life within one. This is why the United States has at its foundations, strong barriers to protect the rights of minorities.

The Science

Although some will say that abortion is not a matter of life and death, arguing that a fetus is not a "person", or a "human being", medical research proves that the fetus is a living organism from the moment of conception.

A sperm has 23 chromosomes and no matter what, even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg it can never make another sperm. An egg also has 23 chromosomes and it can never make another egg. A solitary egg or a solitary sperm does not have the complete genetic code for a separate human being. The ovum and the sperm are each a product of another's body: unlike the fertilized egg, neither is an independent entity. Neither one is complete. Like cells in someone's hair or fingernails, an egg or sperm does not have the capacity to become other than what it already is. Both are essentially dead-ends, destined to remain what they are until they die in a matter of days. This negates one common argument - that the unborn isn't human, or else every time a man ejaculated, or a woman menstruated, an "unborn" dies. Obviously this is ridiculous - a sperm without an egg and an egg without a sperm does not constitute human life.

Once there is the union of a sperm and egg, the 23 chromosomes are brought together in one cell with 46 chromosomes. Once there are 46 chromosomes, that one cell has all of the DNA, the whole genetic code for a genetically distinct human life. It isn't a "potential" human life, or some "other" type of life because something non-human does not magically become human by getting older and bigger - whatever is human must be human from the beginning. Everything that constitutes a human being is present from that moment forward - the only thing added from that point on is nutrition so the unborn can grow. This new life is not a sperm or an egg, or even a simple combination of both. It is independent with a life of its own, and the development is actually self-directed. A sperm can't do that - neither can an egg. They do not "develop".

The baby's blood supply is also completely separate from the mother's. If they were not separate bodies, the mother and child having different blood types would be impossible. If a child's and mother's blood mix, it can be fatal for the child if the Rh factors are different. There is a shot to prevent this, but if there is not, and the blood of different Rh factors mix, the baby can die.

Nobody but idiots would claim a fetus is not alive, but so is a tumor, do you carry it to term? What is claimed is that a fetus is not a lawful person, Sorry if it sounds brutal, truth hurts sometimes. Can you honestly claim that you can conceive of no instance where a termination of a pregnacy whould be both lawful and proper? Of my examples offered previously, I'll just stick with a tubal pregnancy, otherwise nown as "ectopic pregnancy":

Background: An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized ovum implants at a site other than the endometrial lining of the uterus.
Frequency: In the US: The incidence of ectopic pregnancy in 1992 based on aggregated inpatient and outpatient data was 108,800, or 19.7 per 1000 reported pregnancies. Females taking fertility drugs have a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy than that of females not taking such drugs.
  • Ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester, and it is a cause of significant morbidity. It is responsible for 10% of maternal deaths.
  • Surveillance data for pregnancy-related deaths in the United States for 1987-1990 revealed 1,459 deaths. Ectopic pregnancy accounted for 10.8% of these deaths.
Verena T Valley, MD and Christopher A Fly, MD, "Pregnancy, Ectopic", eMedicine dot com, October 18, 2005
Is this not a sound medical reason to have a pregnancy terminated? It is not the fetus who has been found guilty of a capital offense here, it is just an act of nature. If the fetus is a lawful person, then both mother and fetus would e condemned to die. Once there is an admission that a medical decision trumps the moral argument, then there is an admission that abortion is not "murder" after all, but a personal health choice, in which the government in a free society has not the right to intruded upon.


Even most medical texts and pro-choice doctors agree with pro-choice geneticist Ashley Montagu, who has written: "The basic fact is simple:life begins not at birth, but at conception." The beginning of human life is not a religious, moral, or philosophical issue; it is a scientific and biological one. From the time those 23 chromosomes become 46 onward, the unborn is a living, developing individual with a unique genetic makeup.

Many people think abortion is acceptable because it's done before the fetus is what they consider "viable." However, viability is not something which should be used to determine whether someone is "human enough" to have the right to live, since viability is based on current medical science. Medical science does not determine when someone becomes human. Ten years ago, a 25 week-old fetus could not survive outside the womb. Now it can. Maybe in ten years, a 15 week old fetus will be able to be sustained outside the womb. Does this mean that the fetus, in 1999, is not human, but a fetus of the same age in 2007 is somehow more human? The point of viability constantly changes because it is based on medical technology, not the fetus itself. What if one hospital had the technology to keep a 20 week old fetus alive but another hospital only had the technology to keep a 28 week old fetus alive? Is the fetus "human" and worthy of life in one hospital but not in another?

Those are pro-choice and downright pro-abortion claim that abortion "liberates" women, when in actually it does not, in fact it instead "liberates" men. Abortion on demand liberates men who want sex without strings, promises, or responsibility. And if the woman has the baby? "Hey, that's her problem. She could have obtained an abortion - she chose to carry the child; let her pay for her choice." Abortion also "liberates" others - not the pregnant woman. For instance, employers do not have to make concessions to pregnant women and mothers. Schools do not have to accommodate to the needs of parents, and irresponsible men do not have to commit themselves to their partners or their children.

Depends upon your definition of viability, doesn't it? I would think that viable implies an ability to servive, not just outside of the mother;s womb, but outside of the synthetic wombs of the neonatal wards also.

And finally, I'd just like to inquire of you, why the hell you believe your overly simplistic views of abortion are a proper topic for this website?