Posted on 05/25/2005 9:29:10 PM PDT by Crackingham
I do not think it is the "right to privacy" that is the "rationale underlying a women's right to kill her baby,"as much as it is tied to following quotes from Roe v. Wade:
", most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach."
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."
Thus, up to the point of viability, the court considers a fetus just tissue, similar to an eye or a kidney, and thus protected by the "right of privacy."
Personally, I agree with you that an abortion is killing a baby.
To me life begins at conception and should be protected from that point, period. No exceptions for rape or incest. It is not the babies fault who the biological parents turn out to be and not conceived in love but in lust or force.
In this day and age of medical technology it is almost an impossible situation where the "mother's" life would ever be in jeapordy to justify an abortion.
Bottomline, any abortion for any reason is taking a life and should be considered murder.
Which is a twisted interpretation in two ways:
1. We don't need no stinkin' BoR to privde us our God-given rights. Riddle me this, jackboot fancier: Without a IInd, would we have RKBA? For extra credit: Is the government authorized to regulate guns and where does it say so?
2. The Roe only makes any sense at all if you have accepted that an unborn infant is no more worthy of protection than a goiter or tumor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.