Daily Kos

View Story | 578 comments

  •  Yes, but (none / 0)

    the corollary to this is that most people would agree with Roe that after a certain gestational age, ie, viability, a fetus should derive some right to life.  

    NARAL and other pro-choice tend to take the choice rights to extreme, and while some may agree with this, most would not if pressed for an answer.  The devil is always in the details and when should the fetus' right to life take precedenceover the woman's right to choice, if ever?  

    As a middle-aged male, do I have any dog in this fight?  Or should the decision be left solely to the teen-age mother, etc.  I do not have an answer.

    "Hope and fear chase each other's tails." --Buddha

    by Grodge on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:03:03 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  See my later post (none / 1)

      you're right. At a certain point (viability, 20th or 24th week, 3rd trimester, whatever) the rights of the mother and those of the fetus are more in conflict.

      The laws allow for that.

      I still don't get why people think "NARAL and other pro-choice (groups) tend to take the choice rights to extreme". Please define what is meant by "extreme."

      Civil marriage is a civil right.

      by stitchmd on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:26:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I admit (none / 0)

        that I made a broad generalization.  But my point is that NARAL would be loathe to back any political candidate that was the least bit squeamish about aborting a near-term infant (the Democrat who ran against pro-choice Republican Lincoln Chafee comes to mind), thus invoking a woman's right to choose.

        "Hope and fear chase each other's tails." --Buddha

        by Grodge on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:50:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 578 comments