Lilith have you read the decision? I have included a good summary at the bottom but if you want to go to the opinion, it addresses viability quite extensively… notice in the opinion summary below privacy only prevails over “life” prior to viability because the unborn baby has rights also that the state can choose to protect. So while the opinion was focused at the legality of a physician performing the abortion… the legality stemmed from the woman’s right to privacy up to the point of viability at which point the baby’s right to life would prevail.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
What is a terminated pregnancy… it is the destruction of fetus… what is a fetus according to the dictionary…
fe·tus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
Wordsmithing does not change the facts. I ran a large women’s health group, every OB/GYN would have said a fetus is an unborn baby. You can’t change biology with a word. So if a fetus is an unborn human baby, why do you want to deny that it is… does it make you feel better about the abortion process? If you have to deny a fetus is an unborn baby, then you better re examine your feelings on the issue of abortion.
When you are honest with yourself about what an abortion is, you are more likely to arrive at a reasonable compromise between pro choice and pro life advocates. For most people today that compromise is at the point of “viability” and so they embrace Roe v Wade even if they are pro life as long as they understand what the ruling is… others remain opposed to abortion since they support the unborn baby having full rights upon conception… once a baby has full rights then according to Roe v Wade abortions are not legal.
Those who support pro choice often do not understand the limits on that choice. And as viability is lowed to 20 weeks from the 24–28 week timeframe in Roe v Wade, pro choice advocates are getting more uncomfortable with the issue of viability.
Concurrently, the biological sciences are discovering more and more about the gestation process. Somewhere between 6–8 weeks the unborn baby experiences pain including when an abortion is done. But that pain is a “reflex” like you withdrawing your hand from a hot stove even before you understand why… But by 20 weeks that unborn baby is experiencing pain just like you do… and in some states it is now legally required to provide anesthesia to the unborn baby for abortions after 20 weeks.
Think about that… the baby without anesthesia would feel the same pain you do if you were torn apart by someone scraping you into pieces… if you ever witness an abortion the reality of the brutality of the process for an abortion once the baby is largely formed is horrific… which is why only one of the over 50 Ob/Gyns in the physician group I manged would do abortions on demand.
My point is simple, there are two lives to consider when abortion law is under review. Trying to ignore the baby’s life by saying things like “They are not “babies that have died”. They are pregnancies that have been terminated” is simply not true. Yes, it is a terminated pregnancy, but a baby did die in nearly all cases. While in a few cases, an abortion is done when the baby has already died in the womb then that is a different issue, but no one is debating that.
Why do you feel so compelled to deny the baby’s life? As a society we terminate life when we apply the death penalty to criminals or when we go to war and in some cases when we assist delivering drugs needed to commit suicide in “right to die” states. The issue with abortion is determining when a mother has the right to take an unborn baby’s life in her own self interest.
Your last paragraph is full of statements that are simply misleading. Some women do feel guilt about putting their children up for adoption, but most don’t according to recent studies. Some women feel guilt about having an abortion after they have one, but most don’t, again according to recent studies. I get you are a pro choice advocate, but laying out one set of facts, denying other facts, and making statements that are simply not true does not advance the issue.
Finally suggesting abortions have effectively held down population growth is a lousy argument for abortions. In some countries abortions are done to avoid having daughters. Both of those uses for abortion are reprehensible. Do you feel women choosing to have abortions to avoid having daughters is okay? If abortion is an effective tool to control population, should governments have the right to demand a woman have an abortion if she gets pregnant with a third child. Another terrible argument in favor of abortion is that crime rates began declining about 18 years after Roe v Wade was passed, suggesting the a number of the aborted babies would have been criminals. But if that is the argument, then should we mandate abortions on women whose children have a high probability of becoming criminals? I don’t believe that is the case, though it was one reason the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in abortions.
There are people that believe abortions can be used to make society better, they scare me.
Given the reality of abortion and what it really implies, the best answer seems to be that women that have had unprotected sex and have access to the relatively low cost (the generic version is around $25) “morning after pill” should take it immediately. At that point, any life has no neural function and termination of the pregnancy will have the least effect on all concerned since no one knows for sure if the woman is pregnant or not. But as the baby develops there comes a point long before giving birth, that the baby is a fully functioning human learning and thinking and experiencing pain and even joy. When that point arrives, it is hard to justify abortion in all but rare cases.
And so rather than arguing for or against abortion, the argument needs to be centered on linking the abortion decision to the mother’s health, the baby’s development, and other situational factors that society can accept as a “humane” and compassionate in lieu of the circumstances.
This is a good summary of the Roe v Wade decision… but if you intend to argue it… read the whole thing first…
Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Primary Holding
A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.
The majority found that strict scrutiny was appropriate when reviewing restrictions on abortion, since it is part of the fundamental right of privacy. Blackmun was uninterested in identifying the exact part of the Constitution where the right of privacy can be found, although he noted that the Court had previously located it in the Fourteenth rather than the Ninth Amendment. The opinion applied a controversial trimester framework to guide judges and lawmakers in balancing the mother’s health against the viability of the fetus in any given situation.
In the first trimester, the woman has the exclusive right to pursue an abortion, not subject to any state intervention. In the second trimester, the state cannot intervene unless her health is at risk. If the fetus becomes viable, once the pregnancy has progressed into the third trimester, the state may restrict the right to an abortion but must always include an exception to any regulation that protects the health of the mother. The Court, which included no female Justices at the time, appears to have been confused about the differences between the trimester framework and viability, which are not necessarily interchangeable.
White argued that the political process was the appropriate mechanism for seeking reform, rather than letting the Court decide whether and when the mother should be a higher priority than the fetus.
Rehnquist expanded on the historical elements of White’s argument. His originalist approach led him to conclude that state restrictions on abortion were considered valid at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, so its drafters could not have contemplated creating rights that conflicted with it.
More concerned with doctrinal sources than Blackmun, Douglas pointed out more forcefully that the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Ninth Amendment is the appropriate source of the right of privacy.
Burger felt that two physicians rather than one should be required to agree to a woman’s request for an abortion.
Ironically, Norma McCorvey later repudiated her advocacy of the abortion cause and became a pro-life activist, arguing that abortion should be illegal.
