A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Here is an explanation of Roe v Wade written by tempest on the Catholic Community Forum:
Texas had a law that made it a criminal offense to abort a fetus because the human fetus is the new human life of a person. Roe fought against this law on behalf of all women so that the act of removing a dead fetus could be included in her private right of autonomy with regard to her body.
The first way to show the creation of abortion rights as unfounded is to uncover the weakness upon which the “right to privacy” is based. I do believe there is a God-given right to privacy among men and women, but this right is NOT codified in the Constitution, and admittedly teeters on the weak inventions of five justices from *Griswold *to Lochner.
But attacking the very grounds of privacy is cumbersome and mostly legal jargon.
I only need one ground to show the weakness of Roe v. Wade. I will take for granted that we have a general right to our private and separate existence from government intrusion. The second question is: is the right of women to kill their fetus’s a specific right found in the general right of privacy? The Supreme Court blew it in Roe v. Wade, although they voted in favor of abortion anyway. Its very simply an badly reasoned opinion.
The Court says about the woman’s fetus:
*“if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” *
So, if a fetus is a person, then it can not be constitutionally killed by anyone. But the court attempts to punt this basic question and admits:
“when those trained …are unable to arrive at any consensus,” “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.”
So, because we can only admit that a human fetus may or may not be a human being, and because there is no consensus, we will let the individual woman face this question alone and leave abortion a private right of a pregnant woman.
This was the judgment that dismantled all laws against abortion:
*“we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas my override the rights of the pregnant woman.” *
So, the Texas law only claimed that a human fetus was a person, but since there is no consensus, we will not agree that Texas may ratify its own theory to override proven rights of privacy.
If they stopped here, *Roe v. Wade *would be logical. If they stopped here, all abortion would be totally legal - up until the moment of live birth, the logic would dictate that the life of her fetus was her private matter.
However…
*“with respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the compelling point is at viability.” *
Ahhh, so at viability, when something “potential” becomes undeniably important to the state and society, even though we won’t define it as an actual human being, the state can step in and regulate when, where, who and how someone kills a fetus. This is to protect the mother’s health (safe abortions only), and protect society’s interest in new life that is potentially able to be born.
THE CONTRADICTION:
There is no clear definition of new human life. - a minor premise of the argument against Texas’ law.
The state may not adopt one theory of human life. - this is major premise of the argument.
Conclusion: the Texas law cannot stand.
THEN, the state MAY adopt a law to protect potential human life - in the third trimester, abortion is only to save the mother’s life and health - not legal simply by her choice.
Yet in order to step in, the state has defined the human fetus as “potential human life”.
Here is my argument that defeats Roe v. Wade.
If a thing is a potential life, it can not possibly be at the same time actual human life. I am not a potential human life - I am an actual human life. I am a potential old man, and when I was a baby, I was a potential adolescent - but at all times, since I existed - I existed as an actual human life. This is simple logic - the kind the court is required to employ to build consensus.
BUT the state tells a woman at 6 months, she possesses a “potential human life”. THEREFORE, she can not possess an actual human life.
THIS MEANS THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY ADOPTED A THEORY OF HUMAN LIFE. The fetus is clearly not an actual human life since it has been defined clearly as a potential human life, and what is only potential can not in the same respect at the same time be actual.
So in order to throw out the Texas law, the Supreme Court said you can not adopt a theory of human life, but then they adopted a theory of human life (namely the fetus must not be a human) in order to regulate all abortions.
They refuted themselves by regulating abortion at all.
Continued…
Texas had a law that made it a criminal offense to abort a fetus because the human fetus is the new human life of a person. Roe fought against this law on behalf of all women so that the act of removing a dead fetus could be included in her private right of autonomy with regard to her body.
The first way to show the creation of abortion rights as unfounded is to uncover the weakness upon which the “right to privacy” is based. I do believe there is a God-given right to privacy among men and women, but this right is NOT codified in the Constitution, and admittedly teeters on the weak inventions of five justices from *Griswold *to Lochner.
But attacking the very grounds of privacy is cumbersome and mostly legal jargon.
I only need one ground to show the weakness of Roe v. Wade. I will take for granted that we have a general right to our private and separate existence from government intrusion. The second question is: is the right of women to kill their fetus’s a specific right found in the general right of privacy? The Supreme Court blew it in Roe v. Wade, although they voted in favor of abortion anyway. Its very simply an badly reasoned opinion.
The Court says about the woman’s fetus:
*“if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” *
So, if a fetus is a person, then it can not be constitutionally killed by anyone. But the court attempts to punt this basic question and admits:
“when those trained …are unable to arrive at any consensus,” “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.”
So, because we can only admit that a human fetus may or may not be a human being, and because there is no consensus, we will let the individual woman face this question alone and leave abortion a private right of a pregnant woman.
This was the judgment that dismantled all laws against abortion:
*“we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas my override the rights of the pregnant woman.” *
So, the Texas law only claimed that a human fetus was a person, but since there is no consensus, we will not agree that Texas may ratify its own theory to override proven rights of privacy.
If they stopped here, *Roe v. Wade *would be logical. If they stopped here, all abortion would be totally legal - up until the moment of live birth, the logic would dictate that the life of her fetus was her private matter.
However…
*“with respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the compelling point is at viability.” *
Ahhh, so at viability, when something “potential” becomes undeniably important to the state and society, even though we won’t define it as an actual human being, the state can step in and regulate when, where, who and how someone kills a fetus. This is to protect the mother’s health (safe abortions only), and protect society’s interest in new life that is potentially able to be born.
THE CONTRADICTION:
There is no clear definition of new human life. - a minor premise of the argument against Texas’ law.
The state may not adopt one theory of human life. - this is major premise of the argument.
Conclusion: the Texas law cannot stand.
THEN, the state MAY adopt a law to protect potential human life - in the third trimester, abortion is only to save the mother’s life and health - not legal simply by her choice.
Yet in order to step in, the state has defined the human fetus as “potential human life”.
Here is my argument that defeats Roe v. Wade.
If a thing is a potential life, it can not possibly be at the same time actual human life. I am not a potential human life - I am an actual human life. I am a potential old man, and when I was a baby, I was a potential adolescent - but at all times, since I existed - I existed as an actual human life. This is simple logic - the kind the court is required to employ to build consensus.
BUT the state tells a woman at 6 months, she possesses a “potential human life”. THEREFORE, she can not possess an actual human life.
THIS MEANS THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY ADOPTED A THEORY OF HUMAN LIFE. The fetus is clearly not an actual human life since it has been defined clearly as a potential human life, and what is only potential can not in the same respect at the same time be actual.
So in order to throw out the Texas law, the Supreme Court said you can not adopt a theory of human life, but then they adopted a theory of human life (namely the fetus must not be a human) in order to regulate all abortions.
They refuted themselves by regulating abortion at all.
Continued…
). Then the push is on for supreme court justices who will overturn Roe v Wade. I know this sounds like a pipe dream right now, but with God, all things are possible. :yup:
