Another Abortion Argument

[GMDino]

(05-27-2016, 12:17 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I disagree because namely Roe v Wade is based on a lie. 

(05-27-2016, 01:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Which is?

https://azconservative.org/2013/01/21/roe-v-wade-based-on-lies-dishonesty-pagan-culture/

Quote:Roe v. Wade was based on lies, dishonesty and pagan culture. Conservatives were not yet organized enough to oppose the left-inspired string of Supreme Court victories that began in 1947 and radically altered the identity of the United States.

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his Roe decision, “We are also told that abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman era, and that it was resorted to without scruple. Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn,” and “ancient religion did not bar abortion.”


Ancient religion? Whatever happened to liberals’ so-called separation of church and state? Greek and Roman law? Since when has the U.S. operated by Greek and Roman law, or even Scottish law as Sen. Arlen Specter asserted during the Clinton impeachment?



Norma McCorvey, alias “Roe” in Roe v. Wade, is today a pro-life activist. She saysRoe v. Wade, “was all based on a lie. It was a lie that I told. Initially, I had told (attorney) Sarah Weddington that I had been raped, and I was not raped. I only went to one place, so I wasn’t seeking it (abortion) real hard. I had asked Sarah Weddington if there was any place I could go to have an abortion. She said she didn’t know of any place, when she had already gone to Mexico and had an illegal abortion. I think that she just needed to have a plaintiff pregnant. They explained to me that they were only going for the State of Texas. I didn’t know that they were going for the whole world. I think we all have the same dream: we’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”

Which is a bit of cherry picking that results in it being repeated as the whole truth.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html

Quote:In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face. 


Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions. 

However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.