ShamMol said:
No offense, but Paragraph 2 of section b is the worst thing to cite for you for one main reason. it isn't controlling-it is state court where the supreme court of the united states trumps it.
Quote:
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
They don't speculate as to an answer, but they do in roe v. wade set the limit at 3 months until states can regulate abortion (you shoudl read what they can do...fascinating). People don't agree and never will.
If you skip down to Is a fetus a person in this article (the rest is complete drivle, trust me) it is quite interesting...actually most of it is drivle too...hell, read it and laugh with me, they make a mockery of pro-choice.
Actually, it is only the wording in Section IX B Paragraph 2 which permitted the Justices to rule that abortion could be legal. What it says, in simpler terms, is that we really don't know what is going on inside the womb. We don't know if it is really a live human being. And because we don't know, we'll permit abortion.
If, on the other hand, the Justices agreed with Texas that there was, indeed, a live human being in the womb, how could they have permitted that human being to be summarily killed? They couldn't.
So, they did the next best thing, they copped out by saying that, and here come the really important words, "AT THIS POINT in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
If Justice Blackmun had the opportunity to be present at a twenty-first century full color live motion real time ultra-sound scan of his pregnant daughter's baby cavorting in the womb, and was even able to observe its gender, could he possibly have written the word "speculate"? Certainly not.
If he had access to the twenty-first century research findings of world-class geneticists whose work has led to knowledge, understandings and proofs that were never even dreamed in 1973, could he possibly have written the word "speculate"? Certainly not.
If he knew that 'preemies' weighing less than twelve ounces routinely survive and thrive, that surgeons open the womb, reach inside, and perform surgical procedures to correct birth defects, that the incidence of death of women in childbirth rounds to a statistical percentage of zero because it is far less than one percent, could he possibly have written the word "speculate"? Certainly not.
Well, in 1973, he did the best he could with the extant knowledge available to him. He passed the buck to a later court at a later time. Isn't that what his words say?
This is now 2005 and the development of man's knowledge has increased exponentially, has it not? There is nothing left to question. The time has come to recognize the truth, step out from behind Justice Blackmun's words and accept the fact that today, there is no longer a need for speculation.
Geneticists, through their brilliant research into DNA have discovered that at the moment that the twenty three chromosomes from sperm unite with the twenty three chromosomes in an ovum, a new, unique living human being is concieved. It is distinct from both of its parents in that is has its own specific identity, its own DNA, and may be of either gender.
This has been confirmed thousands of times through the the in-vitro process which in which eggs fertilized in a petri dish,then implanted in a womb, produce a baby which is indistinguishable from one resulting from sexual intercourse.
While it occupies the womb as a place of warmth, safety, and shelter while receiving nourishment from the host mother, the child is a totally separate and fully distinct person. Not only does the mother supply these things to the baby during the first nine months of its life, but must continue to provide these necessities to the child for quite a few years after it emerges from the womb.
I believe that any argument, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice which is not based solely upon fact is worthless. Religion and emotion have no place in these discussions. They simply confuse the issue.
Would you favor me with comments restricted to the above and cite the areas of agreement as well as disagreement. In the case of disagreement, it would be helpful to avoid statements based on emotion and elaborate factually.
