quote:

And, there will never be a time when the moral issue isn't present. At least if there is a medical and scientific consensus, there will be some point in time at which it becomes a legal issue. That is, aborting the fetus after that point is an infringement on it's right to life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

And, there will never be a time when the moral issue isn't present. At least if there is a medical and scientific consensus, there will be some point in time at which it becomes a legal issue. That is, aborting the fetus after that point is an infringement on it's right to life.

And by consensus that it not "the moment of conception" we can't even know for sure when exactly that is - by moral, scientific and legal consensus, it's about 3 months into gestation.
Anything else?

quote:

2) Roe. Roe Roe Roe Roe Roe. If you didn’t read the case, and just went by Internet discussion, you’d come away with the impression that Roe not only made it impossible to regulate late-term abortion, but that it was the only case that had ever been decided concerning abortion. The actual finding of Roe? The state has no compelling interest in regulating abortion in the first trimester, and needs to provide for a life-of-the-mother exemption in the later term. The actual case out of which most of the current regulation is based? Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which introduced the undue burden test, which allows for certain amount of state intervention even in the first trimester.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
Roe v. Wade only decriminalizes elective abortion in the first trimester, regardless of whatever disinformation you've been being fed. After the first trimester, it's only legal in medical emergencies when the life of the mother is threatened, what is called "late term abortion", and in those cases it's unlikely either will survive.
If elective abortions are being performed past the first trimester, i.e., elective meaning the life of the mother is not threatened, then it is not covered by Roe v. Wade.
It's typical for the anti-choice faction to play up the small percentage of medically necessary late term abortions, in word and image, to create the illusion that this is standard procedure, it is not, and abortion clinics can and have been prosecuted for performing late term abortions that were not medically necessary.
Medically necessary late term abortion account for only a fraction over 1% of all terminations of pregnancy, the remainder of are all performed in the the first trimester, 61% of those under 9 weeks, well before the end of the first trimester.
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/four-months-three-weeks-and-two-days-of-poor-arguments/

quote:

2) Roe. Roe Roe Roe Roe Roe. If you didn’t read the case, and just went by Internet discussion, you’d come away with the impression that Roe not only made it impossible to regulate late-term abortion, but that it was the only case that had ever been decided concerning abortion. The actual finding of Roe? The state has no compelling interest in regulating abortion in the first trimester, and needs to provide for a life-of-the-mother exemption in the later term. The actual case out of which most of the current regulation is based? Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which introduced the undue burden test, which allows for certain amount of state intervention even in the first trimester.

Again:
The state has no compelling interest in regulating abortion in the first trimester, and needs to provide for a life-of-the-mother exemption in the later term.
That's Roe in a nutshell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
Exactly!
I remember the pain of learning that another attempt at pregnancy had failed when my soon-to-be-ex and I were trying to have kids. When you thought that a life was there, and then it wasn't, you grieved. No, there was no heartbeat, but you still sought out that life.
That said, until the pro-life folks are willing to take full responsibility for the kid's welfare (yes, I used that word intentionally, as in the one government program), they don't have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. All they can do is try to get the kid safely out of her body by some means that either doesn't inconvenience her or that reimburses her for the cost of her time and effort. To do otherwise is stealing, which I think is mentioned in the bible, yes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I completely agree. I am not "for" overturning Roe v. Wade. I'm for repealing it. If we overturn it, the Fed's are still making a decision for which they have no authority. It needs to be repealed, rescinded, whatever it's called.

What decision are they making? Are they telling women they have to get one?

quote:

Edited to ask: If the Federal Government pays for abortions or funds organizations that provide abortions, is that, too, implicitly endorsing a particular religious belief?

The government funds blood banks, for example. There are a few religions who do not agree with such. Are you saying the government endorses a religion by funding those?

Really? What authority does the Federal government have in deciding whether or not abortions are legal? That answer is "no authority." I am not saying the Federal Government needs to outlaw abortions. I am saying that the Federal Government has no authority to have an opinion on this. Period. End of discussion.

But do get all puffed up and indignant. I have said time and time again that I am not "for" barring anyone from getting an abortion. Not a single person who wants to do that. For me, and me only, I find abortions to be reprehensible and infringing on the rights of the fetus. And, that is a moral stand I take. For me. Not for you. Not for your neighbor. Not for anyone else, but me. You don't agree that abortion is morally reprehensible. Good for you. We actually agree that abortions should not be illegal. Why you piss and moan so much about my stance, I don't know.

I am not going to address your blood bank diversion until you actually answer the question I posed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Perhaps I didn't express it clearly enough, but you seem to have missed my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I think Dworkin is 100% correct, namely that the debate and concern about abortion is religious. The Bible's commandment of "thou shalt not kill" covers a woman's fetus, who is a life created by God.

Conception and the fetus are a soul put on earth by God to serve a purpose. Its a violation of religious ethics for man to interfere with this because a child might be inconvenient or unwanted. Its also a sin to kill an innocent life created by God.