General Question

flo's avatar

What does Roe Versus Wade say in the fewest, simplest words?

Asked by flo (12974points) November 23rd, 2016

What does Roe Versus Wade decision say in the fewest, simplest words?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Does it say no abortion after a certain number of weeks?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Abortions are between a women, her doctor and God. Is the one that I heard the most often.

zenvelo's avatar

No state regulation of abortion in the first two trimesters.

From Wikipedia:

The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life.

Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

flo's avatar

I still don’t get it.

flo's avatar

If you’re 5 months and 29 days pregnant, you can end the life of the fetus at any time for no particular reason?

flo's avatar

And you can end the life of the 6 months and older fetus/unborn child too, sometimes?

And does it mention the right of father of the unborn child at all?

josie's avatar

Disclaimer- I do not give shit one way or the other if a woman has an abortion. That is her business and none of mine
But the answer to your question is this-...
That moral approval of the Eugenics movement is a prerogative of the Federal Government, and not the state governments.
Anybody who thinks the abortion debate has anything to do with women’s freedom has drunk the kool-aid.
It is all about limiting the procreation of “undesirable elements” in the society.
Shame on East Coast intellectuals to imagine that they could protect their ivory towers by convincing the likes of you and me that legalizing the abortion of poor non white fetuses was a Government mission.

The appeal to middle class white women is a diversion. It is all about keeping the population of poor, dumb etc. people under control by the Federal Government.

Shame on them for engineering it. Shame on you for believing it is good.

zenvelo's avatar

The father has no right in the abortion decision.

Yes, Roe v Wade would have allowed abortion at 5 months 29 days. Subsequent court rulings have restricted abortion more to viability of the fetus. And, regulation of abortion beyond 6 months were up to the states.

flo's avatar

If the father tried to kill the fetus he would be charged with murder or attempted murder ? Is that correct?

zenvelo's avatar

Well, most likely, since the only way he could do that would be to severely injure the mother.

JLeslie's avatar

The father has no rights regarding abortion. Once the baby is born the father has a right to fight for visitation or custody if the baby is born out of wedlock.

If the father tried to kill the fetus he would have to harm the mother, so at minimum that would be an assault on the mother. I think it varies by state whether killing the fetus is considered murder or not if done by someone other than the mother aborting.

I think without Roe v. Wade abortion would be completely illegal except probably in the case of the pregnancy threatening the life of the mother. Even then who knows how that would be carried out. A lot of people and I guess religions put the life of the fetus first, which is beyond my comprehension.

@josie You can’t be serious. Plus, even if that were the case, as long as the women you describe are choosing to abort who cares?

MollyMcGuire's avatar

It was a case built on a privacy Constitutional issue. The holding is that our right to privacy allows us control over our own bodies. The case was not about abortion. We are heading for a landmark case giving the unborn Constitutional rights and when that happens the Court will overturn itself the first case that makes it up there. The unborn’s right to life will outweigh the privacy right of the mother. I fully expect to see this regardless of who is sitting on the Court. And for me, it cannot happen too soon.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@josie Your argument might have a long shot at making any kind of sense if it weren’t for the fact that your government limits abortions among poor women. Aren’t they exactly the “undesirable elements” whose procreation you think the government is limiting?

I know women who have chosen to have abortions. It is not a decision made lightly, and the government is not a part of the decision process. They are not being “engineered”. What a load of utter horseshit from a person who can never be in a position to have to experience the decision or to have every copulatory act be a risk of being put in that position. Where’s the middle finger emoji on this thing?

JLeslie's avatar

@MollyMcGuire Even if the fetus is given the status the same as a person who has already been born, we don’t require people to save the life of other people. No one forces you to give me blood, even if I’m going to die without it.

flo's avatar

Privacy? How does privacy come into it? This is not about having the woman to expose her body to strangers. Child Protection Services is not about just the bad things people do to their children in public.

@zenvelo There has been a case (I’m sure there’s more than one case ) where someone who doesn’t want the baby, got the woman to injest or inhale something to kill the fetus without doing visible harm to the woman. In any case, the point is if the man or his mother or whoever ever tried to or killed the fetus they would be charged with attempted murder or murder, why? because it’s a person’s life. There is no talk of viable or not viable or 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester about it. It’s straight forward. Even if you’re the one who gave birth to the newborn baby or child of any age, you don’t own the baby or child of any age. Same thing if the unborn child is seconds or months before being born.

@JLeslie actively killing an unborn child is nowhere near not volunteering to give blood to save a person. And I hope you will respond to my response to @zenvelo too.

@MollyMcGuire and @dappled_leaves Absolutely.

flo's avatar

@dappled_leaves…only about the part re. the conspiracy theory.

Mariah's avatar

The man gets charged if he injures the woman to cause death of the fetus because the fetus is not inside of his body. His bodily autonomy is not threatened so he has no right to decide the fetus’s fate. The woman’s is, so she does.

flo's avatar

Edited to add:

@Mariah He gets charged because he is responsible for the death of a person. And that makes sense. What if only the father gets charged for shaking /beating etc his newborn to death, (eventhough mom and dad did it equally, or mom did it more) because they said “It came out of her body, she has the right to choose to do whatever she wants with what came out of her body”

zenvelo's avatar

@flo Quit making up what you think are parallel examples, but are vastly different. A mother has no right or exemption to abuse a child that has been born.

Why do YOU think you have the right to dictate to another woman that they must carry a fetus to term? Since when are you the arbiter of other women’s health an body?

flo's avatar

@zenvelo A mother has no right or exemption to abuse a child that has been born,” Good, at least the the pro abortion side believes that.

flo's avatar

@zenvelo Vastly different: not donating blood and ending an unborn child’s life from @Jeslie post above:
“No one forces you to give me blood, even if I’m going to die without it.”

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther