Common Sense

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
That is kind of goofy...the reasoning that I have heard from the the pro death penalty people is that a convicted criminal has been found guilty and that is the punishment whereas, a fetus hasn't committed a crime and therefor deserves to live.

But this is a whole new thread, I believe!

Rob

Yes it is, but why kill this juggernaut of a thread!!!!

Actually, in Roe v. Wade, the USSC recognized the judicially created and much debated and perhaps falsely maligned "right to privacy" included the right of a woman to terminate a fetus in the first trimester for any reason. The Court based its decision solely on the time that a fetus could survive or sustain life outside of the womb; The Court used the term "viable" or "viability." Thus, the Court, after much discussion including ancient Greek History, determined viability of the fetus outside of the womb began after the end of the first trimester; they termed the end of the first trimester as the "compelling point" at which they drew the line of allowed abortions for no medical cause.

The Court determined Roe over 30 years ago on January 22, 1973. Medical science has advanced in strides since then. So, I wonder if the Court will revisit their rationale regarding this "compelling point." I am not saying the Court should overrule Roe. I am just saying the advancement of medical science has made the Court's sole reasoning for the dispositive "compelling point" in the Roe decision somewhat specious. Surely now or in the very near future a fetus will be able to be created and brought to term totally outside of the womb. I submit that will be the death of the effect of the Roe decision – but perhaps not the death of abortion because I think all states have laws allowing abortion. The demise of Roe would not automatically rescind these laws. Rather, the Legislators would have to rescind them or the courts would have to over turn them, which without Roe, they would be free to do.