Careful now, I am off my meds and the ole neurons are afirin'...
2007-07-26 10:35:35 · 15 answers · asked by nom de paix 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Roe v. Wade used a trimester-based regulatory scheme that was overturned in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
So, whatever the Court held in Roe on that issue, it's not the current law. And I'd have to check the holding to find out if they defined start-of-life at all.
2007-07-26 10:40:30 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Roe v Wade prohibits the government from getting involved in a woman's choices about her body. Has only to do with pregnant women, not fetuses. Have you read the decision? Maybe you should and you'll be better informed next time.
2007-07-26 17:58:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Life doesn't "begin."
Life only comes from other life.
2 living gametes join; 9 months later, out pops junior. At no point did inorganic matter "become" organic. At no point did nonliving material "become" alive. Life comes from life; further, life ONLY comes from life.
Therefore, your argument is moot. Any fetus is as alive as the cells I kill every day when I scratch my bottom in the morning. The question then is not, "when does life begin," but rather, "when do cells become a human?" or "how many cells= a baby?" or "how come the only place rightys want the government is in the womb?"
2007-07-26 17:47:07 · answer #3 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont know about that. But throughout history life has been seen as beginning at birth. Thats what birth means, that you have began to live.
I think the whole idea of life at conception came about as a way to legitimize right to life arguments in the abortion controversy.
I personally don't have a problem with abortion ban..except in cases of rape, incest, and where mom's life is threatened. But I am also ok with a mom's right to choose, with the caveat that we do as much as possible as a society to find out why people have to abort and remove those incentives.
2007-07-26 17:42:29 · answer #4 · answered by ez f 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't. It merely legalizes the procedure until a fetus is at a stage where it can survive outside the womb, so around 7+ months gestation... when the lungs are formed enough to breathe air.
2007-07-26 17:40:26 · answer #5 · answered by tiny Valkyrie 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it doesnt that is why there are currently some scientists trying to prove that point that it does begin before birth to try to get fetus covered under the 14th amendment. Its going to be funny if it is proven in that dems sure love the 14th...
2007-07-26 17:39:06 · answer #6 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
R v Wade never addressed that issue. It was a case that revolved around privacy issues, not science.
2007-07-26 17:41:11 · answer #7 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't say anything about when life begins. I grants women the right to have a choice to have a legal abortion or not.
2007-07-26 17:42:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Roe vs. Wade wasn't about when life began, it was about the right to choose a medical practice for yourself.
2007-07-26 17:37:50 · answer #9 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
It didn't specify when life begins.
It specified abortion was legal until the fetus was viable. That meant about 7 months (28 weeks)....
2007-07-26 17:40:26 · answer #10 · answered by Ken C 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋