The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Luddly Neddite]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

What gets me is how certain liberals seek to devalue human life by defining it as anything but, it then somehow justifies their "feel good" attitude when they do in fact go through with it. When we look at an embryo of a dog for example, we know it belongs to a dog. If it belongs to a snake, a snake. At that point in time, we know the life of those respective animal has begun. But if we look at a human embryo, it ceases to belong to the progenitor or of the species that spawned it. It is no longer life, but a clump of homologous cells to be treated as a pervasive disease.

Those liberals in class warfare arguments cry "if you stop welfare, you'll hurt the children!" Ironic they care about the welfare of a child outside of the womb, but not inside; both of them being one in the same. In more irony, almost everyone who commits murder is condemned for taking a life. That life only matters when it is outside of the womb, not inside. For example, let's use the dog and snake again. If we killed the unborn fetus inside, we would be condemned for killing an animal. The animal is an animal whether it be in the womb or outside. Wait, what?

First, I hate that ignorant RWs compare non-human animals to human animals.

Second, to non-human animals, we are gods. We decide every day which should live and which should die.

Third, I have never hesitated to abort non-human animals.

Fourth, welfare does benefit children as well as other human beings. That humans take care of other humans in that way, sets us apart from non-human animals.

Fifth, some little twerp who refuses to even support himself really should stick to what he knows best - mooching and playing games.

Sixth, fetuses are not babies.

Finally and most important, HUMAN men and women own their own bodies and have control of their own reproduction. No one has the right to deny that and that's as it should be. Period.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The notion that abortion is 'murder' is ignorant and unfounded, completely unsupported by the facts of law:

'The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992

Many conservatives and others hostile to the right to privacy will of course deride and ignore the Constitution in this regard, which is consistent with the contempt many conservatives have for individual liberty, and the desire many conservatives have to compel conformity.

Thank you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes, that is abundantly obvious.

If I was I would be pro-abortion evidently. Herr Stormentrooper.

Well, that's interesting, Frau Fotzenficker. Because I am a Jew, and I am pro-life.

Didn't go so well for you, what, Frau Fotzenficker?

I am a Jew, as well. See, Herr Stormentrooper?

View attachment 35763

Fascinating. Now, did you rip up your dolls as a little girl, too???

Nothing like pro-abortionists like to rip up real, live, human dolls.

You?

I never played with dolls. I am a dude. Enjoy your ripped up dolls.

 

[Carib Gyal]

If I was I would be pro-abortion evidently. Herr Stormentrooper.

Well, that's interesting, Frau Fotzenficker. Because I am a Jew, and I am pro-life.

Didn't go so well for you, what, Frau Fotzenficker?

I am a Jew, as well. See, Herr Stormentrooper?

View attachment 35763

Fascinating. Now, did you rip up your dolls as a little girl, too???

Nothing like pro-abortionists like to rip up real, live, human dolls.

You?

I never played with dolls. I am a dude. Enjoy your ripped up dolls.

You're a MAN? Good lord, dude, buck up. You write like a butt hurt old woman.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, that's interesting, Frau Fotzenficker. Because I am a Jew, and I am pro-life.

Didn't go so well for you, what, Frau Fotzenficker?

I am a Jew, as well. See, Herr Stormentrooper?

View attachment 35763

Fascinating. Now, did you rip up your dolls as a little girl, too???

Nothing like pro-abortionists like to rip up real, live, human dolls.

You?

I never played with dolls. I am a dude. Enjoy your ripped up dolls.

You're a MAN? Good lord, dude, buck up. You write like a butt hurt old woman.

Real men use big words and write in complete sentences, oh ugly tribal creature. Not my fault you never had a real man.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet another abortion thread and yet another failure on the part of those opposed to privacy rights to present a solution to the problem that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I am a Jew, as well. See, Herr Stormentrooper?

View attachment 35763

Fascinating. Now, did you rip up your dolls as a little girl, too???

Nothing like pro-abortionists like to rip up real, live, human dolls.

You?

I never played with dolls. I am a dude. Enjoy your ripped up dolls.

You're a MAN? Good lord, dude, buck up. You write like a butt hurt old woman.

Real men use big words and write in complete sentences, oh ugly tribal creature. Not my fault you never had a real man.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You, on the other hand, write like a constipated old lady, oh member of the hook nose tribe. Not my fault your memoirs are all about clogged facial pores.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If the child is American, it is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness.

The onus is now on PolitcalSpice to produce this "guarantee"!

I see much squirming ahead in her immediate future.

FYI that one is a "keeper"!

Must you let everyone know what an imbecile you are?

Well....by this point it is common knowledge.


"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the ..en.wikipedia.org/.../Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happines..Wikipedia

Thank you for admitting that you could not produce this imaginary "guarantee" of yours, PoliticalSpice.

FYI the DofI is not the Constitution and has no legal standing. The Constitution was written for the purpose of defining the role of the government. Lastly your "creator" didn't grant you any rights and most certainly doesn't protect any of them. (Hint: try finding your "inalienable rights" in your bible, they don't exist.)

Of course I did.

It's the mission statement of the United States of America.

A "mission statement" is not a guarantee, PoliticalSpice. You need to take a remedial English language class at your local community college because you are using terms you don't understand. That much is obvious to everyone in this thread by now.

Hey, she might benefit from Obama's college plan. LOL!

 

[Carib Gyal]

No wonder you ran off with the sewer man. lol.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yet another abortion thread and yet another failure on the part of those opposed to privacy rights to present a solution to the problem that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

The Constitution doesn't have any case law. Perhaps that's why you're not perceiving any difference in these debates. You're stuck on stupid.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The OP and others opposed to privacy rights have submitted only subjective, irrelevant personal opinions and religious dogma in support of their failed argument, having no bearing whatsoever on the right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution.

There's no "privacy right" to kill people.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

T

1. "When morality became privatized, the questions “what is right” became “what is right for me.” Feelings rather than reason became the arbiters of behavior. Rather than traditional taboos, only religiously based moral judgment was deemed taboo. The harm caused to abandoned spouses or children by adultery or desertion- harm that can be objectively documented in rates of ill health, depression, educational underachievement, criminal behavior- was all but ignored, while damage done to people’s feelings by condemnation of their adultery or desertion was considered unforgiveable.
2. Abortion was judged in terms of the “right” to happiness of a woman whose body was the custodian, as compared to the moral question of the intrinsic value of an early human being and the respect that should be afforded it." Phillips,"The World Turned Upside Down," chapter 14.

Apparently it is okay for parents to "terminate" their children as long as its done in private.

Please go on to explain your point.

The prochoice crowd is using "The right to Privacy" to justify the legality of abortion. Logic would dictate that it's okay to terminate children if done in private.

And when Andrea Yates drowned her children in a bathtub, according to the Left, she was just exercising her right to privacy in procuring a 12th trimester abortion. I think South Park even did an episode on that, Eric Cartman's mom sleeping with Bill Clinton to convince him to legalize 28th trimester abortions so she could kill her 8 year old son.

 

[JoeMoma]

T

1. "When morality became privatized, the questions “what is right” became “what is right for me.” Feelings rather than reason became the arbiters of behavior. Rather than traditional taboos, only religiously based moral judgment was deemed taboo. The harm caused to abandoned spouses or children by adultery or desertion- harm that can be objectively documented in rates of ill health, depression, educational underachievement, criminal behavior- was all but ignored, while damage done to people’s feelings by condemnation of their adultery or desertion was considered unforgiveable.
2. Abortion was judged in terms of the “right” to happiness of a woman whose body was the custodian, as compared to the moral question of the intrinsic value of an early human being and the respect that should be afforded it." Phillips,"The World Turned Upside Down," chapter 14.

Apparently it is okay for parents to "terminate" their children as long as its done in private.

Please go on to explain your point.

The prochoice crowd is using "The right to Privacy" to justify the legality of abortion. Logic would dictate that it's okay to terminate children if done in private.

And when Andrea Yates drowned her children in a bathtub, according to the Left, she was just exercising her right to privacy in procuring a 12th trimester abortion. I think South Park even did an episode on that, Eric Cartman's mom sleeping with Bill Clinton to convince him to legalize 28th trimester abortions so she could kill her 8 year old son.

As long as my mother is alive I live in fear. She has told me many times that she brought me into this wourld and that she can take me out of if.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If the child is American, it is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness.

The onus is now on PolitcalSpice to produce this "guarantee"!

I see much squirming ahead in her immediate future.

FYI that one is a "keeper"!

Must you let everyone know what an imbecile you are?

Well....by this point it is common knowledge.


"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia, the ..en.wikipedia.org/.../Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happines..Wikipedia

Thank you for admitting that you could not produce this imaginary "guarantee" of yours, PoliticalSpice.

FYI the DofI is not the Constitution and has no legal standing. The Constitution was written for the purpose of defining the role of the government. Lastly your "creator" didn't grant you any rights and most certainly doesn't protect any of them. (Hint: try finding your "inalienable rights" in your bible, they don't exist.)

Well in the beginning God Created.... and in that we find our rights set forth in that one act.

We can't know what God does and does not... we can only reason such from the means to reason God provided for us.

The Constitution was written for the purpose of defining government. Government which rested upon the principles set forth in the Charter of American principles... where our rights were set forth as the authority for our having claimed our independence.

Which is the same authority on which we presently claim our rights.

Do you know what that's called?

I'm going to hazard a guess, that ya don't... .

 

[toxicmedia]

Here you pro life dumbass drama queens, read about Roe V Wade from someone other than your religious politicians who lie to you about what the decision represented.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Controversial from the moment it was released, Roe v. Wade politically divided the nation more than any other recent case and continues to inspire heated debates, politics, and even violence today ("the culture wars"). Though by no means the Supreme Court's most important decision, Roe v. Wade remains its most recognized.

At the time Roe was decided, most states severely restricted or banned the practice of abortion. However, these restrictions were challenged amid the sexual revolution and feminist movements of the 1960s. In 1970, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, brought a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman, Dallas area resident Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), claiming a Texas law criminalizing most abortions violated Roe's constitutional rights. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Roe claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment. The lawsuit was filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country District Attorney, in a Texas federal court. The Texas court ruled that the law violated the Constitution. Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case throughout 1971 and 1972.

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.

Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Yes... we've read your incitement to murder already.

It wasn't acceptable yesterday and STILL isn't acceptable.

 

[Mr. H.]

Here you pro life dumbass drama queens, read about Roe V Wade from someone other than your religious politicians who lie to you about what the decision represented.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Controversial from the moment it was released, Roe v. Wade politically divided the nation more than any other recent case and continues to inspire heated debates, politics, and even violence today ("the culture wars"). Though by no means the Supreme Court's most important decision, Roe v. Wade remains its most recognized.

At the time Roe was decided, most states severely restricted or banned the practice of abortion. However, these restrictions were challenged amid the sexual revolution and feminist movements of the 1960s. In 1970, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, brought a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman, Dallas area resident Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), claiming a Texas law criminalizing most abortions violated Roe's constitutional rights. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Roe claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment. The lawsuit was filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country District Attorney, in a Texas federal court. The Texas court ruled that the law violated the Constitution. Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case throughout 1971 and 1972.

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.

Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.

So it boils down to a woman's "right to privacy".

Make that "zone of privacy".

In the first trimester.

After that, it's all about the woman's health.

Was someone left from the equation here?

 

[toxicmedia]

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Yes... we've read your incitement to murder already.

It wasn't acceptable yesterday and STILL isn't acceptable.

It doesn't matter what you accept.

And apparently you can't even accept the dictionary definition of murder.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You're stuck on stupid.

Ironic!

 

[toxicmedia]

Here you pro life dumbass drama queens, read about Roe V Wade from someone other than your religious politicians who lie to you about what the decision represented.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Controversial from the moment it was released, Roe v. Wade politically divided the nation more than any other recent case and continues to inspire heated debates, politics, and even violence today ("the culture wars"). Though by no means the Supreme Court's most important decision, Roe v. Wade remains its most recognized.

At the time Roe was decided, most states severely restricted or banned the practice of abortion. However, these restrictions were challenged amid the sexual revolution and feminist movements of the 1960s. In 1970, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, brought a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman, Dallas area resident Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), claiming a Texas law criminalizing most abortions violated Roe's constitutional rights. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Roe claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment. The lawsuit was filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country District Attorney, in a Texas federal court. The Texas court ruled that the law violated the Constitution. Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case throughout 1971 and 1972.

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.

Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.

So it boils down to a woman's "right to privacy".

Make that "zone of privacy".

In the first trimester.

After that, it's all about the woman's health.

Was someone left from the equation here?

No, it's not "what it boils down to", the mother's health does come before and undeveloped fetus, and it should.

It's a just, and rational compromise.

Furthermore, Roe V Wade does not address the complete lack of attention pro life arguments pay to pre/post natal care for the women forced by the government to put their lives on hold to carry babies they either don't want, and/or are incapable of caring for.

The right will say "adoption not abortion", but I see no organized proposal to ensure adoption by fit parents. Forced pregnancies and the resulting adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary situation.

Women forced into carrying babies can show vastly varying levels of dedication to pre natal care.

If pro life folks who basically plan to enslave women for 9 months, had put more thought into what happens after that unwanted baby is born, I might give shred of consideration to the pro life argument if they addressed that aspect.

But I've mentioned that more than once on this thread, and the pro lifers circle back to their soap boxes and ignore it