Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[Cerin]

In the case of Rape, I can see where there is an argument to be made, but when we get into the realms of convenience and "off-the-rail" babies, my blood starts to boil.

Then you'll understand just how I feel when men deign to make moral pronouncements about something not a single one of them will ever have to face.

[Alatar]

You have no idea what I have faced in my life and never will. Some things are private. However, morality is not limited to those with a womb.

[Cerin]

Alatar, I know that you have never and will never face the realization that you are pregnant.

[Alatar]

Indeed. However, that does not negate my right to my own thoughts and opinions.

[vison]

No, Alatar, it doesn't. But since you will never be pregnant, maybe it would be better if you didn't seem to make assumptions about what women do, nor why they do it.

In the course of nature I can think of no parallel for pregnancy that a man might experience. This is nature. Is it unfortunate? I guess it could be seen so.

But it is what it is.

ALL morality is private.

[JewelSong]

It is very difficult to discuss the issue of abortion civilly. However, I have had civil discussions on the issue with people who are completely on the other side of the fence, so I know it can be done. It is difficult, especially when something is so gut-wrenching (and it IS gut-wrenching, no matter what your beliefs) but it can be done. So, please, let's try to stay civil.

I'm afraid I believe that's a decision they made when they chose to get pregnant.

I would just like to comment on this, because it strikes me as a kind of "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" kind of thinking. It almost seems as if what is being said is that if a women has sex and becomes pregnant, then that's what she deserves. That the pregnancy is kind of a punishment...she shouldn't be out there having sex in the first place.

I am wondering where the line would be drawn in the "choice" to get pregnant. Would age be a factor? If the woman was 14? Or 13? Or 11? Should she be required to carry the pregancy to term? What if the woman was 50? Or 55? What if she was using birth control, but it failed? (Many unplanned pregnancies are the result of failed birth control.) What if she is married, but living in poverty, already has 4 kids and her husband isn't working and isn't going to be working?


(I actually had someone once tell me that a pregnant 11-year old should carry the pregnancy because "people want those babies" and she could "easily have a C-section" if she was physically unable to deliver. I stopped the conversation, because anyone who would force an 11-year-old child to go through pregnancy and surgery is not only on a different side of the fence, but on a different planet that I am.)

There are so many what-ifs. Saying that "Well, the woman chose to get pregnant, so now she has to live with it," strikes me as exceedingly callous towards the woman. How will this help her be a better mother; how will this help her raise the child that she cannot support, did not intend, or that may be severely disabled?

.Frankly I find the idea that a mothers comfort level trumps a childs right to life appalling and horrific. In the case of Rape, I can see where there is an argument to be made, but when we get into the realms of convenience and "off-the-rail" babies, my blood starts to boil.

Here's the thing about abortion in the cases of rape. Even the most vocal anti-abortionists will usually make an exception the case of rape. My question is - why? If the reason for being against abortion is that "abortion is murder" why does that change because of the circumstances of conception? How a child is concieved should not make a difference, should it? So why is it okay for a woman who is raped to have an abortion...if abortion is murder and murder is wrong?

The only reason I can think of goes back to the first part of my post. It's okay in the cases of rape because it wasn't the woman's "fault" that she got pregnant. So she should not have to suffer the consquences of her actions.

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will make abortion more dangerous and harder to obtain, especially for poor women and it will drive many desperate women to self-induced abortions. And it will create children born into circumstances that will result in abuse and neglect.

Women have been obtaining abortions since the dawn of time and will continue to do so as long as they are the ones getting pregnant. I believe that until the fetus can live outside the mother's body, the decision to terminate the pregnancy must rest solely with the person who carries the burden and the risk. Whether I - or you - or anyone else agrees with the decision or not.

[vison]

JewelSong, you have said everything I wanted to say and have undoubtedly said it better.

Cerin asked me above why I think abortion is a great evil. There is no short answer.

I knew, when I was pregnant, that I was carrying a new life in my body. I never thought of that life as "an embryo" or a "foetus", but as a baby. I never had to think about it. I was married, well-off, healthy, ready to be a mother.

I think it is a great evil, because abortion ends a life. I think "life" begins at conception.

But I also think that abortion, while a great evil, is not as great an evil as a woman being forced to have a child she doesn't want.

Her reasons are her own. It is not my right to interfere, to moralize, to judge.

In an ideal world, no pregnancy would be unwanted, no woman would ever seek an abortion. When we get to that ideal world, there will be no problem. In the meantime, let a woman decide for herself.

[Impenitent]

To return to Ethel's original question regarding Roe vs Wade - as an Australian any change will not effect me overtly. However, such a change in the tide would inevitably cause subtle political changes in Australia and elsewhere.

Australia is quite sycophantic, politically speaking, when it comes to the US. Moreover, we have a very vocal pro-Life minority who are as tenacious as in the US. Already, with the last Federal election here, the parliamentary make up has changed, with a seat won by the Family First party (moderately right wing politically and religiously) and we have a health minister who is a practising and outspoken Catholic who has made his personal position clear with regards to abortion.

I think the pebbles will shift.

As it is, abortion is not a right in Australia; various state jurisdictions have more or less rigorous interpretations of how the 'health of the mother' is defined and in some states (Victoria, where I live) the interpretation is sympathetic to women seeking an abortion.

I will not comment on the issue of abortion further, other than to confess that I chose to have an abortion, aged 26. The reasons for that decision will remain private but I emphatically state that it was not a decision taken lightly. It was agonising and I have not 'left it behind'. The knowledge is always there and informs my life.

I deny vociferously that abortion is used by women casually or thoughtlessly as an alternative to contraception, except perhaps by the smallest minority who are...well, I would say socially and emotionally disabled in some way. And no woman goes through it unchanged.

[yovargas]

In my view, as someone who has spent a lot of time in the past pondering the nature of ethics, abortion is the single most difficult moral issue around today. It is a massive moral quagmire that's damn near impossible to sort out rationally. I personally do not know where I stand on the issue.

It is precisely because of this that the thought of the gov banning abortion terrifies me. Abortion may be grey, but it's legal status is absolutely black & white to me. If it happens, making abortions illegal would be the worst thing to happen to my country in my lifetime.

[Sassafras]

Much as I'd like to remain calm, cool and collected about this subject I'm afraid it's impossible for me. I suppose I really should stay out of this but I just can't.

I had an abortion at the age of 22. It was in the dark ages before Roe vs. Wade and I was therefore forced to travel outside the country to Puerto Rico and wander the back streets of San Juan until I found a willing doctor. I had been turned away at the clinic address my NYC gyn had given me because I looked so much younger than my chronological age. Actually, despite terminal naivete, I was lucky enough to find a real medical doctor to perform the surgery instead of some backstreet charlatan.

Jewel said

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will make abortion more dangerous and harder to obtain, especially for poor women and it will drive many desperate women to self-induced abortions. And it will create children born into circumstances that will result in abuse and neglect.

Exactly! Had I carried that aborted child to term instead of only dealing with my own remorse, three lives would have been ruined. My own. The father's and the child's. We were both in college, in the very beginning of our affair and I was, and still am, infinitely too selfish, too self-absorbed, to be a good mother.

Jewel (?) brings up another excellent point. Where are the programs and plans to take care of all of these unwanted children saved from being aborted? Will the mother be counselled? Financially supported? The child removed by the state when she proves unequal to the task by virtue of poverty, drug-addiction, abuse, life-style? Aren't there enough children falling through the cracks now without adding more?

I expect I shall regret this next declaration as it will no doubt bring down a hailstorm upon my head, but in my very personal opinion, it is no more immoral to abort a human than it is to abort any other animal of any other species. I do not believe, in the vast evolutionary scheme of things, that humans hold an exclusive monopoly on the right to life. But this is far too volatile a subject to continue here. So I'll cease and desist for sanity's sake.

Finally, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned it will be a huge step backward.

Until a child is actually birthed from my body it is not a seperate entity.

[Ethel]

Sorry - sort of sorry, anyway - to have opened this particular can of worms. I wasn't really hoping to start a debate on the morality of abortion, because we all have our minds made up - I've never yet seen one change as a result of discussion. I was more interested in people's thoughts about the outcome of reversing Roe v Wade, which I suspect will be lengthy and profound.

Alatar, Whistler, Anthriel - I think abortion is invariably a kind of tragedy resulting from the pressure of circumstances. I am uneasy even about my support for early pregnancy abortion rights. For me it's a question of the lesser of two evils, but please know that I completely understand and respect your positions.

Or, the drug companies will get on the stick and come up with newer and better 'morning-after' pills. Then I suppose we'll be thrown into a religious argument as to how far down the fallopian tube the little egg had gotten when Suzy popped the pill. Eh?

I doubt it. Not about the drug companies, but about the religious arguments. I believe most abortion opponents consider it to be objectionable at any stage, including seconds after an egg is fertilized. Most abortion opponents also oppose IUD's because they prevent implantation rather than conception.

EDIT I should add, however, that I am uncomfortable with reading most nontextual rights into the Constitution. Much though I like the practical effect of Roe, I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the opinion. In an academic, legal sense, I would not be sorry to see it overturned. I believe abortion should be affordable, accessible, and legal to women in all fifty states for well into their pregnancies, if not to the very end of their pregnancies - but I'm not sure it should (or even can) be this way as a matter of constitutional doctrine. However, in light of the - shall we say, nonprogressive - nature of many states, I would sooner have what I believe to be faulty con law doctrine than have women experience the practical effects of inaccessibility of legal abortion. Some here would call this hypocrisy, but I am very much a pragmatist when it comes to Supreme Court opinions.

You know, every lawyer I know has expressed similar reservations about Roe v Wade. This includes my closest friend, who is thoroughly pro-choice. I've not read the opinion myself - I seem to be incapable of reading Supreme Court opinions. I would be a terrible lawyer. (Mind you, I can read programming manuals and hex dumps... we all have our own strengths and weaknesses.) I have also read that those who signed the opinion did not intend for it to grant abortion on demand. But it pretty much did, and that's a "right" - however you feel about it - that has been in place for more than 30 years. A generation. To me, that's the salient point.

I think abortion should be available on demand without limit.

This position is logically defensible, as is the position that no abortion should ever be permitted, even one second after fertilization, on the grounds that it destroys a human life. But it doesn't seem practical to me, and I doubt you really mean it. The frontiers of prematurity have been pushed back pretty far - to somewhere around 25 weeks. Surely you don't mean that you support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy - I'm talking about a healthy fetus here, not one hopelessly compromised by anencephaly or similar - at, say, 8 months?

It really comes down to one person. No, not Alito, and not Roberts either. The true decision-maker is Anthony Kennedy. My best guess is that he will allow abortion rights to be further whittled down, but that he will not vote to overturn it. Remember, Kennedy joined in O'Connor's majority decision in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case in which O'Connor upheld Roe but redefined it in a way that was more restrictive but more legally supportable (in my opinion). Since that time, Kennedy has been more willing to but additional restrictions on abortion rights then O'Connor has been, but there is no reason to belief that he will reverse himself and vote to overturn it altogether. I don't think that he will allow himself to be pressured by the conservative justices to join them; he certainly has gone his own way on many issues. And I doubt that "Chief Justice Roberts" will have nearly the standing or influence that Justice Rehnquist wielded, at least not for another 15 or 20 years.

This may well be so, Voronwë. I think it's reasonable to conclude that Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens are solid pro-Roe votes. Kennedy is now the swing vote. I do not envy him. He is Catholic, and personally opposed to abortion. Surely he's the one the others will work on. And the others are not fools. I don't have much respect for Thomas, but Scalia and Roberts and Alito are intellectual heavyweights. They can persuasively argue points of law as well as morality. I surely would not want a decision of this magnitude to rest on my shoulders, alone.

Ethel, I think the Anti-Abortion forces will be smarter than to try and outlaw abortion outright. That would probably create concern among 'mainstream' America about the logical consequences, such as trying doctors and women for murder (not that a fringe element wouldn't absolutely delight in that). And as you said, that would take away an enormous political advantage from Republicans, except perhaps on a state-by-state basis.

Pretty sure you are wrong about this. See here, for instance. This "war" has been fought too long and too hard for abortion opponents not to insist on having their way once Roe v Wade is overturned.

The questions that concern me have to do with consistency on the abortion question. Why is it ok for frozen or extra embryos to be destroyed but it's not ok for a woman to abort a very early pregnancy?

An interesting question. Actually, a very interesting question. Generally speaking, most abortion opponents don't make much of an issue of this. (Some do, though, in fairness.) But... this is worth further investigation. The people who, out of desire for a child, have dozens of embryos created and, often, several implanted hoping that one might "take" - and then have to have some of them surgically removed - do not generally receive the same type of opprobrium. Why is that? To me it suggests that the debate is about something a little different than the absolute sanctity of human life. But that's just me.

I can't imagine a self-possessed woman deciding to abort in the fifth or sixth or month of pregnancy after carrying the fetus that long.

At what point, for example, is Down's Syndrome diagnosed?

In my day it could only be diagnosed with amniocentesis, at about 16 weeks. At 16 weeks of pregnancy, I had felt life within me. I can't imagine choosing to abort at that point, and in fact I chose not to have amniocentesis because I didn't think I could handle it. (I was 32. The docs suggested it but didn't insist.) I believe there are earlier methods now. But I will say this: if I had had the procedure done, and it had shown a hopelessly compromised fetus, I would have aborted at that point. Why carry a child to term who cannot live? A Down's Syndrome child, though... God forbid I should ever have to make such a choice. I had a cousin who was Down's Syndrome. She was a lovely little girl. But... I was 32 when I had my first, and as it turned out, my only, child. I greatly reverence those who are able to care for a child with special needs. Could I have done so? I do not know.


Teremia - lovely posts.

I will not comment on the issue of abortion further, other than to confess that I chose to have an abortion, aged 26. The reasons for that decision will remain private but I emphatically state that it was not a decision taken lightly. It was agonising and I have not 'left it behind'. The knowledge is always there and informs my life.

This was brave, Impish. And you have inspired me to be brave as well. I, too, had an abortion. I was 20. It was terrible in so many ways. It was something I felt I had no choice about. I will not say more.

[JewelSong]

Sass, I am glad you are physically okay. Something like that could easily have led to death from septicemia.

I think it is important that people share their stories....because it puts a human face on what is sometimes a theoretical issue. What I think opponents of abortion fail to understand is the absolute desperation of many of these pregnant women.

A wanted pregnancy is a wonderful thing. Even an unexpected pregnancy can turn out to be a joy, if you have the means and the ability to see it through.

But an unplanned pregnancy can be horrific and terrifying and drive women to all sorts of actions. It is not something you can realize unless you have experienced it or seen it up close and personal.

[IdylleSeethes]

As a male, I have to say I am very offended by the direction in which this discussion has gone. If you look back through the thread, you should see it was more than the last incident.

Before I get started on that though, let me state my position and understanding of the main issue - abortion.

- I think abortion is sometimes necessary, or at least an equitable choice

- I think the choice to have an abortion haunts many people and even destroys some lives

- I think for some people an abortion is a minor inconvenience, like annual visits to the dentist

- I agree with tolkienpurist that Roe v Wade is bad law

- I doubt Roe v Wade will be dumped

- I hope someday we can create a proper legal framework for abortion

- I have worked around social services for about 37 years and have been exposed to most of the causes and consequences of family problems

- Within my own family, there is a person for whom abortion is a minor inconvenience. When you are on drugs, not much else really matters. So you get pregnant easily and you get rid of it easily. In those millions of similar situations, the would-be child has been the beneficiary of an extremely selfish act.

I only say these things to show that I am not some radical conservative. I consider myself pro-abortion, although I wonder about late abortions.

Family Rights

I have serious problems with the denigration of men and parents in abortion discussions. It is totally preposterous, in this very narrow area, that some people think that there should be a discontinuity in normally accepted rights and responsibilities. Parents are responsible for children until they are emancipated (the proper legal term). Married couples have sworn an obligation to each other. One of the primary purposes of marriage, at least historically, is procreation. The importance of family is currently discounted in our society and marriage has almost dwindled to a financial relationship between any two people, but it still has meaning morally and legally.

It is wrong for us to assume that the family is a threat to the individual. The assumption should be that the family is important to the recovery of the individual. The individual should have the right to show cause why this is not the case, but barring a sworn declaration and/or evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to just assume it is damaging, to require those who otherwise have legal responsibilities for the individual's physical and emotional well-being, to be notified.

Right to an opinion and to express it

Now that I have proven to some that I am not capable of thinking logically, let me say that applying logic for the purpose of solving any problem is a useful exercise and, in my experience, not limited to a particular gender. I know quite a few people whose careers have consisted of studying problems with no hope of direct experience. That does not mean their opinions are worthless. Drawing correct conclusions does not require direct experience. I will not murder someone just to find out if it is wrong. I doubt that it would be very informative. In fact, a single person's experience is statistically insignificant and in scientific study, direct experience by the investigator has come to be frowned on. Determining consequences and evaluating their importance does not require that one be a participant in the experience.

Men have rights to opinions and to the expression of them too. I don't pretend to speak for women, but I can speak of women. Like most men, I've been surrounded by them most of my life, and unless there is a concerted female conspiracy to present a false front, us men have managed to pick up a little bit along the way. Please don't discount us.

[vison]

While Ethel didn't want a discussion of abortion, as such, the result of her question was inevitable.

It is such an intensely personal question! No one who has considered it deeply can fail to be torn in two.

My position is, yes, abortion on demand without limit.

I do not foresee a horde of women seeking late-term abortions. I have confidence in my sisters, and believe that most women would not have one. Should one decide she needs one? How can I say that it should be forbidden? What right have I? Why one day and not the next?

Even the most ardent anti-abortionist will make an exception "if the life of the mother is in danger": up to and including the birth process itself! If the birth will kill the mother in labour, it has always been the ethical position of doctors and the church to save the mother's life even at the cost of the baby's. Modern medical techniques might have rendered that situation less likely, but some are, after all, speaking of ethics and morals and the "rights" of the unborn.

I truly believe it should be as "aside" from the law as any surgical procedure. By the same token no doctor should be required to perform abortions against his will, nor should any hospital be required to provide operating space for the procedure.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, no doubt the US will become a patchwork of "abortion" states and "anti-abortion" states. Well-off women will be able to do what they've always done: go elsewhere and pay. Others will have abortions anyway, and I, for one, remember what that means.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, a generation down the road the battle will be fought all over again, and that is a sad, sad thought.

[Ethel]

As a male, I have to say I am very offended by the direction in which this discussion has gone. If you look back through the thread, you should see it was more than the last incident.

I actually don't see why this discussion should be particularly objectionable to males. Please explain.

- Within my own family, there is a person for whom abortion is a minor inconvenience. When you are on drugs, not much else really matters. So you get pregnant easily and you get rid of it easily. In those millions of similar situations, the would-be child has been the beneficiary of an extremely selfish act.

I agree that this is deeply repugnant. But... you want your drug addict relative to be raising a child? What kind of decent outcome is possible for such a child? You know - forgive me, I'm going into anecdotal mode again - one of the things that really haunts me is... I worked with a woman in California who often talked about her complicated relations with her in-laws. About how the drug-addict sister had become pregnant, and wanted to abort, but her siblings had shamed her into carrying the child to term. But, y'know, she was a drug addict. And eventually her drug dealer boyfriend beat the child to death. Was that better than an early abortion? I ask in all sincerity.

Men have rights to opinions and to the expression of them too. I don't pretend to speak for women, but I can speak of women. Like most men, I've been surrounded by them most of my life, and unless there is a concerted female conspiracy to present a false front, us men have managed to pick up a little bit along the way. Please don't discount us.

We do not discount you. We love you, and want you to be part of our lives. But... you will never know how it feels to be a 20 year old woman, unexpectedly pregnant by a man who has no wish to marry you or even be involved with you any more. This is just a fact. You do not know because you cannot know. So it feels a little unfair to have you judge us, for you can never walk in our shoes.

[anthriel]

Alatar, Whistler, Anthriel - I think abortion is invariably a kind of tragedy resulting from the pressure of circumstances. I am uneasy even about my support for early pregnancy abortion rights. For me it's a question of the lesser of two evils, but please know that I completely understand and respect your positions.

Actually, Ethel, I didn't state my position.

I was just letting Alatar know that I was glad he stepped in with his opinion, even though his take on this problem is not the one likely to be the most popular. His thoughts do echo the thoughts of many, many people, though, and I'm glad he felt strong enough to share them.

That's all.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Idylle, I really think you should re-read the posts before yours, and rethink some of your post. No one is saying that you are I or anyone else do not have a right to express an opinion. But it took incredible guts for Imp, Ethel and particularly Sassy to share there own painful, personal experiences, and I believe that your comments devalue their courage.

That having been said, I'm not going to participate in the debate on the morality of abortions. I would only ask that each person that participate in this discussion make an attempt -- before posting -- to put yourself in the shoes of the person on the other side of the issue from you. I don't ask that you succeed in doing so, only that you make the attempt. I can't ask anything more then that, and I believe that if everyone makes the honest effort, it will be enough.

As to whether Roe v. Wade is "bad law" I have to disagree with both tp and Idylle. I think that Roe v. Wade, particularly as modified and explained by Justice O'Connor in Casey, is perfectly good law, and a fine example of creative legal thinking. If Roe were to be dismissed as "bad law" on the grounds that y'all are citing, most of the law of land would have to go with it. The law is, and must be, a flexible beast. One step naturally leads to another. Roe is a perfectly natural extension of Griswold, and everyone (read: Roberts and Alito) agrees that Griswold is good law.

[nerdanel]

Hi Idylle. It's good we agree on Roe v. Wade, because we may have ample room to disagree. First, though, let me ask for a clarification:

- I'm confused about what you mean by the denigration of parents in abortion discussions. I cannot recall that happening in this thread - or in most of the abortion discussions I have participated in. To what arguments are you referring? I think you might be referring to something I wrote, so I will respond:

It is wrong for us to assume that the family is a threat to the individual. The assumption should be that the family is important to the recovery of the individual. The individual should have the right to show cause why this is not the case, but barring a sworn declaration and/or evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to just assume it is damaging, to require those who otherwise have legal responsibilities for the individual's physical and emotional well-being, to be notified.

Your wording is somewhat oblique, but I assume you are referring to Jn's original position (from which she retreated) that fathers should be notified if mothers elect an abortion, and my response to the same. Why are you assuming that because a male, a female, and a pregnancy are involved that there is any notion of "family"? It goes without saying that in a statistically significant number of potential abortion cases, the male and female sexual partner do not have legal (i.e. marriage or marriage-like) responsibilities to each other. I do not think that intercourse establishes whether the male partner is a threat or an aid to the post-abortion recovery of the female partner.

Assuming that you are talking specifically about cases in which the parties are married, I fail to see the need for your assumption. If a pregnant wife shares your assumption - i.e. believes her family to be important to her post-abortion recovery (as, of course, they ideally would be) - then she can and should inform her husband and other family members of her decision. However, if she does not share your assumption, she can and should have the right to withhold this information from them. To impose your assumption on her, if she (knowing her specific situation better than you or I possibly could) disagrees, strikes me as incredibly patronizing, offensive, and paternalistic, whether or not you would permit her to petition a court for an exemption.

As for the second part of your argument:

It is a truism that men have the right to hold opinions. It is a truism that people with no hope of direct experience on a subject may nonetheless hold worthwhile opinions on a subject based on their observations.

I'll say it flat-out: of course men have the right to hold opinions on abortion, and surely they are entitled to the same range of opinions as women are. That said, men should be sensitive to the fact that they are holding an opinion on a subject that definitionally cannot affect them as intimately as many women are affected. (This is not to say that men are not often affected tremendously by women's decisions to abort or not to abort fetuses. It is, however, to say that - as JS and Cerin have pointed out - that they cannot know the experience - or even the fear - of unwanted pregnancy.) Men should be sensitive to the fact that no societal decision on abortion will ever force them to carry an unwelcome invader inside their bodies for nine months. No societal decision on abortion will ever force a man to endure an undesired pregnancy regardless of the physical and emotional risks and costs of pregnancy on his own body. So I think it is not unreasonable for the fifty percent of society that IS affected in this more intimate way to remind the other fifty percent of the biological disparity here. To do so is not suggesting, IMO, that men should not hold an opinion.

Similarly, if I cross any lines in an abortion discussion, I would accept a reminder from any woman who has experienced pregnancy or abortion first-hand that I have not experienced these things and should therefore tread more cautiously when talking about them.

Moving on to others' posts:

Ethel:

But it pretty much did, and that's a "right" - however you feel about it - that has been in place for more than 30 years. A generation. To me, that's the salient point.

Well, I feel really good about this "fundamental right", to be honest. (putting aside my reservations about the legal reasoning used to get to "fundamental") However, as guilty as I feel to disagree with the very people who support the result I want (think Casey), I'm not sure that I can jump on the detrimental reliance bandwagon. Perhaps you would be willing to explain why you believe the 30+ years to be the salient point?

Cerin:

Justice Ginsburg said at her confirmation hearing, "The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."

While a judge on the DC Circuit, she made the following remarks:

Academic criticism of Roe, charging the Court with reading its own values into the due process clause, might have been less pointed had the Court placed the woman alone, rather than the woman tied to her physician, at the center of its attention. Professor Karst's commentary is indicative of the perspective not developed in the High Court's opinion: he solidly linked abortion prohibitions with discrimination against women. The issue in Roe, he wrote, deeply touched and concerned "women's position in society in relation to men." It is not a sufficient answer to charge it all to women's anatomy -- a natural, not man-made, phenomenon. Society, not anatomy, "places a greater stigma on unmarried women who become pregnant than on the men who father their children." Society expects, but nature does not command, that "women take the major responsibility . . . for child care" and that they will stay with their children, bearing nurture and support burdens alone, when fathers deny paternity or otherwise refuse to provide care or financial support for unwanted offspring. I do not pretend that, if the Court had added a distinct sex discrimination theme to its medically oriented opinion, the storm Roe generated would have been less furious. I appreciate the intense divisions of opinion on the moral question and recognize that abortion today cannot fairly be described as nothing more than birth control delayed. The conflict, however, is not simply one between a fetus' interests and a woman's interests, narrowly conceived, nor is the overriding issue state versus private control of a woman's body for a span of nine months. Also in the balance is a woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course -- as Professor Karst put it, her ability to stand in relation to man, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen.

(excerpted from Justice Ginsburg's, "Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade")

Lastly:

Ethel, Sassy, Impy - thank you so much for your words.

Teremia, Cerin, JS, vison, yov - many thanks as well.

As for the question of Roe as logical extension of Griswold...will return to that one later.

[yovargas]

To those who understand why the law is seen as "bad", would it be possible receive a brief heavily-laymen's explanation as to why?


(V - the phrase "creative law" scares me! )

[Impenitent]

If I may clarify: My position is not, and never has been, that Alatar (read: a male perspective) is unwelcome or invalid. I understand where you're coming from Alatar, and have an appreciation of your point of view - which is why I recognise that the issue of abortion is so very difficult and complex.

Idylle, I'm not sure what you're point is, though. Or were you also simply making a declarative statement?

As I said previously - the very great majority, when faced with the choice of abortion or carrying a pregnancy, do not make the decision lightly and the decision does impact emotionally and psychologically. The situation with your daughter is heart-breaking, but truly in the minority. I think my point carries, that those who do consider abortion as a convenient alternative to contraception have a social or emotional disability - as is the case in point.