I just saw a question on abortion and not one answer even mentioned this landmark case.
2007-07-05 10:41:58 · 15 answers · asked by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
eldad,what is with this river thing and you?
2007-07-05 10:53:34 · update #1
20 years ago there were two cases in fact decided one was lesser known than the first . .. they call it a "landmark" . .. ironic . .. those who say they LOVE their children have been murdering them . .. let's put some numbers in perspective . .. there are 300,000,000 people in the usa . .. and there have been 50,000,000 children murdered under this law in the past 20 years . .. don't be surprised when teh storm comes . .. when tribulation strikes . .. when there is nuclear war . ..
2007-07-05 11:02:57 · answer #1 · answered by jesusfreakstreet 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Technically, Roe vs. Wade is a null statement in an abortion argument. With Roe vs. Wade, Congress created a law that just "stuck". Congress doesn't have the ability to write a bill and deem it a law. I'm pro-choice, but I also know that it's a null point when you're arguing with someone who's pro-life, they'll turn it around on you.
2007-07-05 17:50:46 · answer #2 · answered by Alley S. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's probably because just about everyone knows that Roe extended the right to privacy to cover a woman's right to consider and have access to an abortion as an option.
2007-07-05 17:46:05 · answer #3 · answered by parcequilfaut 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Roe vs. Wade is only significant in the discussion of the legality of abortion. It has no moral significance. The supreme court affirmed slavery at one point in history, but that had no moral value.
2007-07-05 17:47:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I am aware of it and I am British. In my country it was a Bill passed by a man named David Steel in the 60s that legalized it. He was a member of the Liberal Party, as was David Alton, whose attempts at overturning it came the closest to success.
2007-07-05 17:48:52 · answer #5 · answered by Citizen Justin 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Um, the date of the case was given, that's a bloody mention, dear.
2007-07-05 17:46:11 · answer #6 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well you get your feet wet when you wade, but you are dry in a boat when you roe.
(OK abortion, I know.)
2007-07-05 17:48:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes and the person who they were suing for has totally recanted and wishes to nullify it and they still say No. Yeah we know all about the blood thirsty people involved.
2007-07-05 18:02:19 · answer #8 · answered by Midge 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its significance is quickly fading -- just his year, the Court overturned it regarding dilation and extraction. Before long they'll overturn it completely.
2007-07-05 17:46:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2007-07-05 17:54:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋