Then you aren't fully aware of my position. The abortion issue represents a clash of rights between individuals. Under our legal system, when a clash of rights exists, the rights of the one must give way to the more fundamental rights of the other. The right to live, being the most fundamental right of all outweighs all other rights unless one is an imminent threat to the life of another in which case, self defense is justifiable.
If a woman's life is iin genuine danger, then she does have the right to kill in self defense, even if the one threatening her life bears no ill intent.
Are you saying that you believe that she owns another human being? Perhaps a refresher visit to the Constitution is in order for you.
Check your history to see how often landmark cases are overturned by subsequent generations. Being a landmark case is no inidcation that it was a good decision. All too often, landmark cases are landmark cases because they fill an agenda as was the case with roe. You speak of the "considered" opinion of roe. Have you ever read the case transcripts or the majority decision. There is a reason that a very large number of legal scholars, even those who are pro choice believe that roe is the worst decision the court has ever made. It casts about thousands of years in history looking for justification, it attempts to justify itself based on biblical passages and on and on. The supreme court is supposed to decide the CONSTITUTIONALITY of cases, not cast about through world history in an attempt to justify a decision that fits a pre existiing agenda.
I believe I have been through this before, but I will go through it again lest you continue to believe that I am simply dismissing the roe for some personal reason.
From the roe decision:
Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life.
This "assumption" is the basis for the roe decision and it has long since been proven wrong.
"Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term." Pp. 147-164.
For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.
The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.
Those striking down state laws have generally scrutinized the State's interests in protecting health and potential life, and have concluded that neither interest justified broad limitations on the reasons for which a physician and his pregnant patient might decide that she should have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy
As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.
We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability.
The fact is that whenever the child was mentioned by the court, it was called a potential human life. In order to justify their decision, they had to assume that the unborn was not a human being because they knew perfectly well that to admit that the child was alive and human was to admit that it was a living human being and in the eyes of the law, all living human beings are persons and all persons in this country are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.
The court created a theoretical right for a woman to terminate a potential human life. They did not fabricate a right for a woman to kill a living human being. Their assumption was clearly wrong and in the decision itself, they admit that should legal precedent for the personhood of the unborn ever come to exist, that roe will collapse as unconstitutional. That legal precedent now exists in a rather large body of state law, federal law, an both state and federal case law.
I have poured over both the transcripts, the majority decision, and the miniority decision of roe attempting to rationalize the decision. At one time, I held the indefensible pro choice positon. Now I welcome you to visit roe and try attempt to make a rational defense of it. Hell, compare roe to other decisions. There are distinct differences in the use of language and the logic by which a finding is made. There are no other cases that cast about in ancient history in an attempt to justify a decision. By and large, supreme cases are justified by case law and the constitution itself. roe stands out like a leison on the face of the court in its agenda based motive. Legal experts have been trying since the decision was made and all attempts stink of sophistry and doubletalk.
