I found this to be quite interesting. Apparently the majority of American's favor keeping Roe vs. Wade in tact:

Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Nov. 3-5, 2004. N=844 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.


"The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, or nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?"

11/2004

Uphold: 61%
Overturn: 34%
Unsure: 5%

I think the President should nominate Supreme Court Justices who will vote to overturn Roe VS Wade. It has been on the books way to long, thanks to all the liberals.

That is one reason why I was worried that Kerry might win the election. Bush, hopefully will be strong and appoint Justices that are as conservative as he.

Roe vs. Wade and the eventual repeal is also one reason Clinton ruined this country. WAY to liberal. I bet if those "majority" of people told what they REALLY thought, they are AGAINST Roe vs. Wade. After all, it IS called the "silent majority." It really is ashame that some people can not speak their minds without being insulted and harassed. That is WHY we are the "silent majority."

By the way. The next member of the court to step down will probably be Renquist. My bet to replace him as Chief Justice? Clarence Thomas.

I would be against using Roe v. Wade as a litmus test. I do want Supreme Court Justices that are strict interpretationists, but I feel like usuing Roe v. Wade as a sole criteria is the wrong road to go down.

I personally support a woman's right to choose (to a point).

I think we should overturn Roe v Wade because it is simply wrong. Consensus doesn't necessarily mean truth. There was a time in this country that the majority thought Blacks should have fewer rights than Whites. It was wrong then, even though the majority thought otherwise, and it is wrong now.

There's only one question that needs to be answered in the abortion debate. What is it? If it is a human life, there is no reason for debate. It has all the rights given all humans. If it is a question, there is no reason to kill it. You wouldn't shoot at a rustling bush until you knew what was in it. That's the point. What is it? Not sure, don't kill it.

Here is what I think about abortion and a personal history to go along with it.

Abortion is an excuse to be selfish. A lot of women who become pregnant who abort their pregnancies do so because they are too concerned with their careers. They want the money and say they have no time to raise a child. Bunk. You had sex, you did not use birth control, you got pregnant. That child is a life from the time of conception. It has the right to live. If you do not want to raise the kid, then there are thousands of loving people who want a child but can not have one naturally. Give them the most precious gift anyone can... The gift of a child.

Rape and incest. Granted, in the case of rape, it is not the mother's fault. Nor is it the fault of the child. Again. Adoption. Incest. In many cases, it is not the fault of the mother... Well, that would really be rape by blood relation, making that part redundant. It is not the fault of the child. Again. Adoption. Why punish the child? Granted, I am not saying punish the mother either, however, abortion is murder. There is no clinical proof that a fetus is not a human.

I once had a fiance' that became pregnant a few years after we parted company. It was neither parties fault we split. She called me and told me she was not only pregnant, but had cancer as well. I asked her what she was going to do, thinking she might end the pregnancy since her doctors said she could not undergo chemo or radiation. She said she was going to give birth. I remember her saying she had lived and she was given the gift of another life, and if fate said she was not going to survive, then she wanted that child to live. Two days after he was born, she died. That child that would have been thrown away is now a law student at Harvard.

My history tells me I am an abortion survivor. My grandmother was born in the late 19th century to an unwed mother. Had abortion been legal at the time, I know she would have been aborted. There are well over 100 people that would not be alive today if that would have happened. She raised eight children to adulthood, another died in infancy. Of the survivors, there were at least 16 grandchildren, from those came numerous great grandchildren. I have lost count. In fact, a cousin was a double survivor. His mother was unwed. His son was adopted by Dave and his wife. David (the son) is now in the US Air Force Academy.

No. Abortion is just plain wrong. Just imagine the number of people that long for a child today that can not have one naturally that would love and charish a child that would have that right if abortion was still illegal.

Yes. We would still have back door abortions. However, the number of abortions would be reduced by scores.

And also. Ladies. I know I am not a woman, however, if I was the father of one of these children in danger of abortion, I would want to raise that child if the mother did not want it. I should have that right. So, the point with this paragraph is simple. Please do not give me that "you do not understand" bit. It does not matter. I still feel the father and prospective adoptive parents have rights also.

Comparing racism to abortion is a non-sequitor -- in other words, you're comparing two completely unlike things to prove a point that is related to neither. That's logically similar to saying "Fish eat fish foot, vultures feast on carrion, therefore, humans eat roadkill".

After reading the text of the Roe v. Wade decision which can be found here:

http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

I find this to be a pretty compelling statement:

"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."

The above clause is essentially the logical starting point for their decision in Roe's favor here using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Here's another interesting portion where it discusses what a "person" is:

"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

Here, we are relying on some technical language in the constitution. It is technical and perhaps not intended by those that wrote it. However, it is there. If we're making a constitutional argument (which this case is) that's all we have to go on.

It's an interesting case. I can definitely see a moral case either way. Read through Roe v. Wade sometime. While you may find it to be morally repulsive, I can think of no other way to settle the issue than to have a constitutional amendment that further defines what a "person" is.

Now, if we want to bring up partial birth abortion, I have some really compelling stuff against it -- at least after the point where the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. But that's fodder for another thread.

I have always believed that abortion was murder, and that it was totally wrong no matter what. Organizations, such as Planned Parenthood have been big advocates of abortion ever since they were formed. In my opinion, Planned Parenthood should be renamed Planned Abortions, because that is what they push. Many of these females that have abortions feel that the abortion is a cure all for the problem.

What they don’t realize is the long term mental effects it will have on them. I have actually read articles, written by women and teens who have had abortions, and many of these ladies have suffered through major depression. They look back and realize that they made a mistake, and their heart starts yearning for the precious little baby that could have been. Then, there is the guilt they go through, knowing that they made the decision to kill their baby.

As mranderson said, the best thing to do with an unwanted pregnancy is to go through delivery and have the baby put up for adoption. There are so many couples out there that want children so much, yet the wife is unable to have a pregnancy due to physical reasons.

My wife and I tried for 7 years to have children, and when she finally got pregnant, a month later she miscarried. The emotional toll was overwhelming for both of us. The hardest part after the miscarriage was watching the news and hearing about how someone had put a newborn baby in a dumpster because the mother did not want it. We got to the point where we would not even watch the news anymore.

They say that the woman should have the choice whether she wants the baby or not. I believe she already made her choice when she had sex. She made the choice to have sex, so now she needs to deal with the outcome. What about the guy she has sex with? Whether they are married or not, it is his responsibility to provide for that child and the mother. If he doesn’t, then he is a coward and doesn’t deserve to be a part of the human race.

I could not have said it better myself, Keith. I'm also sorry about the miscarriage that your wife had. The death of a loved one is the hardest thing to deal with.

" In my opinion, Planned Parenthood should be renamed Planned Abortions"

I never thought about that. That makes "Planned Parenthood" an oxymoron with emphsys (sp) on the "moron."

Keith, Adam,

I think the question that is really at issue when we discuss abortion is not really whether or not we condone murder. Who does?

It's when we define someone to be a person - either legally or philosophically.

It seems that where an individual falls on that question is generally a pretty good indicator as to when they are pro-life/pro-choice. I'm sorry for your personal tragedy, but that's really not an argument for or against abortion. Even with abortion, there are still MANY children around the world and in the US that need adoption.

I don't think it's really productive to get into an argument over whether or not abortion is right or wrong unless you can first establish common ground on when someone is considered a person. Until that happens, I see the argument as being largely futile.

My personal belief is that a person becomes a person when they can survive outside the womb with or without medical technology. Some small amount of research on my part shows that is around 23 weeks. However, at 23 weeks, chances are better than 50% of mental retardation, blindness, cerebral palsy or deafness. Also, the survival rate is fairly low (about 30% in the study I'm looking at).

Partial birth abortions (another issue) are generally performed in the 5th month of pregnancy. Generally speaking, the child does have a chance of survival at that point. It is therefore intellectually consistent that I can be both for abortion prior to 23 weeks and against partial birth abortion (aka the dilation and extraction procedure).

(sorry for the tangent)

Unfortunately, the woman doesn't always make the choice. Take rape for instance.

Patrick. Are you saying you support abortion in the case of a rape? If so, is it the child's fault mom was raped?

Anyways, I'll take a stab at this.

Because of my Christian beliefs, I am obviously pro-life. I believe that life starts at conception. By aborting a baby, you're taking away the chance for the embryo to develop into a living being. An embryo is a 46 chromosome structure with the full potential to develop into a baby.

I guess you could look at this form another side though too....what about in vitro fertilization? In in vitro, a doc creates a few embryos and impants them into the mother's uterus. Usually only one or two survive and go on to term. So would one consider the other implanted embryos destroyed and murdered? Well, this also brings up a topic of great debate, as you can see.

Regardless, I still support the notion that life starts at conception.

This may sound contradictory, but I do support stem cell research using embryonic stem cells. Why? Well, because if we don't use those embryonic stem cells for research, they'll just be discarded anyways, as many of them are formed either in fertility clinics or retrieved from abortions.

I do have a problem with completely banning abortion though. What about the mother who has her life endangered by the pregnancy?

I'd favor abortion on a restricted basis, i.e., the one option I listed above, but otherwise, I'd like to see abortion banned. Using abortion as a form of birth control is just flat out wrong.

I was not sure. Me? Total ban. No and's, if's or but's about it... Total ban.

As I wrote previously, just imagine the gift the mother can give. Granted. I did not want to lose my former girlfriend. However, she gave her husband the ultimate gift.

mranderson, what about a woman who has a 100% chance of losing her life if she keeps the baby. I agree with Coburn on this.....I think abortion should be banned, wit the exception of when the mother's life is at risk. Look at it this way...if the monther loses her life, so will the baby. That's why I would support a total ban, but with some exceptions. Even Tom Coburn had to perform a few abortions in his career....for the rare exception to save a mother's life.

You know how much I respect your choice of career and would never play games (you know my meaning). In fact, one day I would be honored to have you as my physician. However, what about that one fleeding chance the baby WILL survive? It should have the opportunity.

Granted. I see both sides. However, I think children come first.

If the baby has a sound mind, as far as I'm concerned it's a living being and its life should be preserved.

lol! I find your post quite hilarious SoundMind.

Ancient philosophers -- I think it was Socrates originally -- described the progression from fetus to human in 3 stages:

Vegetable (early gestation)

Animal (late gestation - birth)

Rational (shortly after birth)

So, the 'sound mind' theory might not be the best

And often, it's not the woman's choice to be pregnant. Failure of contraception is not a real uncommon thing. I just don't think for the most part that it's ever a good idea to bring unwanted children into the world.

However, it is not the CHILD's choice to be born, so, why should it suffer the loss of life because mom is too selfish to invest nine months.

For every person who does not want the child, there is at least one who does. Adoption is the only anwer to "unwanted" pregnancy. It is a gift that lasts a lifetime. The gift of love. The gift of a child.

An unwanted child to the biological mothers eyes, is the wanted child of another mother who can't conceive.

Again, the question comes down to, is the fetus a person? I say no. Therefore, the rest of your reasoning, to me is invalid. That is the point at which we differ. I have explained exactly why I feel that way earlier in the thread.

As far as adoption, no, your numbers don't match up. There are MANY kids that get bounced around in foster homes, unadopted until they are 18. I did a nationwide search here:

http://www.adoptuskids.org/servlet/p...chema=PORTAL30

Which is by no means comprehensive and came up with 3746 hits with 6 kids each. Kind of dispels your 1:1 ratio, doesn't it?

Imagine though, how much higher it would be if women didn't have the choice of not bringing someone into the world that they couldn't provide for?

I did not give "numbers." I just stated a fact. Granted, there are children who are not adopted. However, most of those are problem children or ones placed in the system beyond infancy. Most people who adopt want newborn children, not older children.

I see no proof that a fetus is not a human. It eats, and most other body functions. It also moves in the mothers womb. I think Patrick should be the one who fields the difference in a clinical standpoint. He is a medical student. He should know. He is also rational enough to give evidence based on medical fact, not emotions, religious feelings, or biased websites.

No. I will NEVER (yes, I know my feelings about that word) accept this liberal, selfish opinion that abortion is right and that a fetus is not a human. Try telling that to the unborn child as it is (to quote Dr. Laura Slessinger) "sucked down a sink."