Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Abortion in the United States?

Unlike other Western countries, there is still a very active and healthy (in my opinion) abortion debate in the US. There are so many ethical angles and special circumstances in which to view this issue. Here are a few questions:

1) The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 codified into federal law (not state law) that a fetus killed during a crime committed by someone other than the carrying mother is a felony. Would this apply if the mother beforehand strongly indicated that she intended on pursuing an abortion?

2) Since states have the power to put limits on abortion, could a state thereby restrict abortions to the first trimester, and have mandatory counseling, waiting periods, and parental consent, etc.?

3) If a Supreme Court case came up whose decision results in Roe v. Wade being appealed and therefore abortion made illegal, what punishment do you think would apply to the mother or the doctor? Would it be along the lines of manslaughter (as the fetus cannot communicate to others on whether or not it wants to be aborted, let alone have an opinion)?

4) Since the phrase "right to life" is not in the Constitution, which also makes no mention of "personhood" or murder, isn't abortion simply interpreted as legalized killing?

5) Do you consider the ban on partial birth abortions contradictory to Roe v. Wade?

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    1. There is no way of knowing whether the mother in such a case was seeking abortion unless she had already made an appointment for one and was assaulted or murdered before she was able to go in for it, an extremely unlikely event. The vast majority of the time this law ends up applying to the murder of the mother as well.

    2. Roe v. Wade would need to be overturned before any ban or major restriction could be placed on abortions at a state level, and it could still be struck down by the supreme court if it is found unconstitutional.

    3. In a case where abortion was made strictly illegal it would most likely be considered murder or manslaughter.

    4. It could be interpreted as such in a legal manner. Though the death penalty would also be considered "legalized killing" as would the death of an evader at the hands of a bail agent (bounty hunter).

    5. Roe v. Wade did not really set specific time-lines on what would be considered the mother's choice. It is assumed that by the time an abortion would be considered "partial birth" a mother would have definitely already known she was pregnant and had plenty of time to make a decision about whether or not she wanted to have a baby, thus her original choice was that to keep the baby, or she would've sought abortion sooner.

  • 1 decade ago

    1) No. Contrary to the religious fanatics, the UVVA does not apply to abortion

    2)States do not have the power to restrict abortion. The first trimester restriction was, in fact, part of the Roe v. Wade decision. Later USSC rulings have nullified that restriction (erroneously, in my opinion)

    3) Even if Roe were overturned (an appeal would have no bearing) it would be possible for states to criminalize abortion. But not to define it as manslaughter or any other form of homicide. Again, contrary to the religious fanatics, the fetus is NOT a person under the law--and never has been.

    4) No. You misinterpret the intent and meaning of the Constitution. First, it does not "grant" rights. Second it specifically states that any rights not specifically enumerated (listed) nevertheless exist, and are protected--they are "reserved to the people, or to the states"--and may not be taken away by the federal government.

    5) No. Nor is that an "opinion." Roe v. Wade clearly did not allow partial birth abortions. See answer #2. Nor would the USSC at that time have even considered allowing partial birth abortions. That is due to later decisions which are primarily due not to "liberals" but to the tactics of the religous right. By attempting to stereotype anyone who spoke out against their religious extremism on the topic, they legitimized the (equally extreme) pro-abortion elements at the fringes of the pro-choice side, thereby opening the door to allow them to get extreme procedures like partial birth abortion legalized.

    I suggest you read more about Roe v. Wade. Any good Constitutional Law book on civil liberties and civil rights will have a good section on it. Look under political science, not law books.

  • 1 decade ago

    To divide and conquer

    Or they just killed the next Hitler, rapist or murderer.

    Yes, the world IS overpopulated and getting more so every day, sure we can all just line up in Australia with our little barren gardens and die, because we won't have any WATER. There is allot more needed in this world then space. Simplistic solutions such as yours indicate someone that doesn't really think anything through.

    While I do not think that abortion is by any stretch of the imagination a good thing but I don't think anyone should have the right to make that kind of life changing decision for someone they don't even know.

    Personally I believe in aggressive birth control including the day after pill and IUDs.

  • ash
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    All sides really need to stop judging and start cooperating to reduce abortions. Back in the day, Roe v. Wade came in when husbands were still getting away with "forbidding" their wives from using contraception. Women had to have sex with their spouses and could not get away with using birth control, the family doctor would rat them out to the husband. So there were clinics set up that would give you bc pills and not tell your husband if he asked. The wonderful fantasy fifties spawned a lot of these laws, and now that husbands no longer can control their wives, divorced women are no longer looked down upon as slutty bimbos, and single mothers are no longer looked upon as the scum of the earth, we need a new approach that reduces abortions. But don't you ever again dare to try and control women's reproductive lives.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    No. Outlawing abortion won't give up the practice. Outlawing abortions will basically inspire women persons to apply hazardous practices to terminate undesirable pregnancies. greater acceptable that the abortion occurs in sterile clinics than in grimy alleyways. in case you fairly want to give up abortions in us of a, convince human beings to no longer have them while confronted with an unplanned being pregnant. finally, the lack of call for will close maximum abortion clinics.

  • 1 decade ago

    All I know is that as of today 12/16/08 Roe v. Wade is the law. You may have wanted to post this in ethics and law.

  • 1 decade ago

    With every abortion you just possibly killed the cure for aids or cancer.

    You just killed something that for a time had the potential to lead the

    world in new fields of science and mathematics. You just killed some one who could have been a beautiful wife or a respectable loving husband. You just killed some one who could have been some ones father or mother. You just killed an endless possibility of greatness and human growth.

    YOU JUST KILLED THE ONLY PERSON WHO WOULD EVER LOVE YOU!

    I could go on and on like this for days...

    Don't be fooled by the BS. The world is not over populated. It is just

    extremely poorly managed. You could fit every person on the planet in

    Australia with enough room for their own garden.

    That would leave the entire rest of the planet completely empty.

    You could have just killed the one who lead us out of this ****.

    Notice I didn't use religion or God any where.

    It doesn't take any of that to realize that abortion is wrong.

    You guys are right about the choice, but the choice ends for you when you choose to have sex. Choices have consequences. After that your "choice" is made for another person.

    Abortion is an eject button for those who can't deal with irresponsibility.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think that a woman should have the right to choose,

    I don't think that's even an option for someone else to be able to tell her what to do with HERself,

    Though I don't believe you should do it if you wait to long, I think you should do it as soon as possible if you are going to do it.

    But I still think it's up to a woman, not up to a country or a state.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Roe vs. Wade must go.

    On that day, look for violence and mayhem, with blood running in the streets. If you take away the "right" to murder your unborn for convenience, this is what will happen, just like in France where those spoiled young people practically burned the entire country down when they couldn't get their way.

    Windows will be broken and you could see people hanging from lamp posts.

    Already, look at what the homosexuals are doing when they didn't get their way with sodomitic marriage. They're roaming the nation and committing vandalism and attacks on people that the media is doing its best to conceal.

    The wrong people all need to be put in their place and our country needs to be restored to sound law. We also need to impeach that scumbag, Barack Hussein Obama, or better yet, block his inauguration because of falsification, fraud and possibly treason.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/797761/co...

  • 1 decade ago

    what a women does with her body is no one buisness but her own.

    i don't really have an opinion on the other stuff because im not to educated on the matter but im very opinionated on peoples life choices.. basically, people should mind there own businesses and keep there opinions to themselves unless asked for it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.