Skip to main content

View Diary: So, you guys have pretty much lost it, eh? (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, this is not correct. (8+ / 0-)
    It's not a life until it is born, technically.
    In this country, it is a life, at least to the extent that it has "interests" of its own, different from the woman who carries it, prior to birth.  And the State can protect that life, against the wishes of the woman who carries it, prior to birth.  Roe v. Wade said that it is a "life" before birth, at viability.   From Roe v. Wade:
    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.
    It pretty much is the case in this country that it is a separate life prior to birth.  The major question remaining is what benchmark we use to define when that happens.  Roe v. Wade set that benchmark at viability, a compromise that was perhaps unsatisfying to both sides.  
    •  One of the significant problems with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      viability is that it is a moving boundary. We are getting better and better at supporting premature births. Children who would have died three decades ago now not only survive but thrive. I don't think we (either we as in DK or we as in the larger community) have thought through the implications of medical technology that can support viability at five or four months.

      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:17:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a very sensitive and intelligent way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        to express a thought that is dangerous here, the thought that there might be some limits to abortion.

        Many on the pro-choice side don't understand that Roe v. Wade itself restricted abortion during 2/3rds of a pregnancy.

        I agree with Bill Clinton's formulation:  abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.

        Source:  Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare. BILL CLINTON, speech at DNC, Aug. 29, 1996.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (69)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (37)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Climate Change (30)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Media (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • International (15)
  • White House (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site