Though I believe the constitutionality of any law should strictly limit the argument for consideration I share an article that has an interesting history lesson perspective (partially presented below). Which would you be a 91 or 9 %er? FYI-I'm not listing all three here.
From a review of the book... "As detailed in Abuse of Discretion, the Justices reasoning in Roe and Doe was based on a non-existent record regarding the adverse health effects to women from abortion. Their reasoning has been eroded since in light of a growing body of science which exposes abortion's many dangers to women. It is precisely the scientific evidence regarding both fetal development and the harms to women from abortion which has created the opportunity for commonsense pro-life legislative successes." We know how many women die from pregnancy and childbirth, and we know how many die from abortion, and those numbers tell us that abortion is up to 14 times safer than childbirth.
I was trying to break this down but there was so much outstanding commentary on this book's subject matter that I thought why not let people decide what merit this review might hold (for the 91%ers?). Perhaps this book will bring to light the error of ignoring constitutional restraints and the blowback from ill-informed and arbitrarily made decisions/judgments. An unjust decision, enjoyed by its supporters and endured by the masses, has a limited reign of power and authority. Perishable as the lives that it has so far reaped.
For statisticians numbers are the answers but I suspect that there is much more involved than simple counting. The natural process of pregnancy/child birth vs the unnatural act of abortion, interrupting that process, is better for mother than child birth? From whose perspective...especially when considering (per book review article-Subsequent legal and historical scholarship has refuted Means claims.) when the majority justices (at least the one writing the opinion) wrongly assumed that the unborn were never intended protection nor believed that common law, contrary to abortion, existed pre-USA Constitution. Perhaps there will come a day when Mankind will become so enlightened that this race of people will stop intentionally killing (legal genocide) unborn children. I hope so. Roe vs. Wade-O what a tangled web is weaved as the practice of deception is shrewdly used.
Far to much of the above is based on pseudo-science that the majority of main stream scientist fully disagree with, but that doesn't really surprise me given that the author is a pro-lifer. Clarke Forsythe
That is a link to the article page, have you links to support the following "especially when considering (per book review article-Subsequent legal and historical scholarship has refuted Means claims.) when the majority justices (at least the one writing the opinion) wrongly assumed that the unborn were never intended protection nor believed that common law, contrary to abortion, existed pre-USA Constitution. ", because all the research I have done disputes this, I just want to see where the author has gathered the evidence to come to the conclusion they have. I will be very prepared to supply a full dispute to the article when I get home later, so I can reference my research.
Your position doesn't really surprise me. Find exception with the messenger rather than message. Very familiar. Goes on in American politics daily. You would find the same book and its content acceptable if written by a pro-abortion attorney who researched (going by the review-haven't read it yet) the cited material etc. and concluded in the same light? I am led to believe (review) that the focus is on the inherent errors brought into and entertained throughout the process in 1973. If the book bears out that an injustice has been committed by fallible men it will no doubt be relegated to a quiet literary exit until or unless people prefer the truth to a goal.
I posted the review I read. I suspect that the info you are searching for is within the contents of the book. Read the review carefully as I believe the reference was something along the lines of not peer-reviewed or no/absent clear evidence used by a or some of the majority opinion justices.
If this had been written by a pro-choice person (I don't know any pro-abortion people) then I would, as I will do anyway, look at the items contained and actually do the research instead of taking it at face value, which it would seem you do as a matter of course. Just by reading the article cited there are glaring discrepancies that go directly against the current scientific understanding, for example - Both of these areas have quite extensive research and ALL the subject matter specialist concur that there is no more risk of increases in either breast cancer or psychological problems. Breast Cancer - National Cancer Institute American Cancer Society Psychological - More on Koop's Study of Abortion National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. or id oyu don't trust the BBC report here is the link to the actual report NOTE it is a download Induced abortion and mental health If you want to we can go into the historically evidence that shows that a fetus was never considered a 'person'.
and this is relevant to current times how exactly, even if the abortion item were to be brought again before SCOTUS the wealth of scientific evidence and historically evidence would, IMO, lead them to render the same or very similar conclusions.
Current as the book is written as an account and (possibly-haven't read the book yet) an analysis on how the judgment was made.
Settled law is a grand thing. For some the taking of a human life is like having lunch as PTSD is simply in the minds of the weak, yes? I don't doubt that there are women who can abort like it is simply a drive thru visit at McDonalds however I suspect that eventually many women look back with regret. But I digress... Again, since this all revolves around the content or alleged contents of this book, I'll have to read the book. At that point I'll be able to understand the author's analyzed positions of those represented in the judgment. Are you, by chance, someone who has read the central and peripheral documents (transcripts/communications etc.) and arguments that were presented in the SCOTUS Roe vs. Wade case? If so you are, of course, well ahead of me. Perhaps this book will add to my understanding of the process, arguments, evidence and considerations used to discover that abortion is a pre-existing right and human life at any point, is as it is in the concrete jungle, measured by a sliding/hierarchy scale. Nonetheless I hope that this will indeed be an interesting and accurate account.
Doubts in your own mind are your prerogative, the problem is the evidence doesn't support those doubts and I wonder how many people sit down sometimes and look back at decisions made with some regret, the premise of PTSD is that it has a profound effect on the psychological make up of the person and while there very well may be women out there where it does have this effect the vast majority do not .. in fact the same principle can be used for pregnancies that go to term, there are women who suffer profound psychological problems after pregnancy such as postpartum psychosis, yet we don't try to tar all pregnancies with that very broad brush do we? Then the question needs to be asked will you approach this book with an open mind regarding it's contents, will you set out to research the points raised where ever that leads . .even to the extent of it disproving some of the theories held do dear by pro-lifers. or will you read it with preconceived ideas that this book will simple attempt to qualify? As I have said before I started out as a pro-lifer, it was only when I started to engage in debates concerning abortion that I actually did the research .. from both sides, my conclusion was that the pro-life side rests far to much on emotional appeal and religious influence, latching on to any bit of "science" that seemed to support their viewpoint regardless of how it was seen by the wider scientific community . .rarely have a met a pro-lifer who takes the time to look at the opposing arguments purely on merit. I have often asked for a debate on abortion without the emotional content, so far it hasn't happened. I have also built an argument that doesn't rely on Roe to keep abortion legal, an argument that doesn't require the alleged flimsy interpretation of the constitution as put forward by pro-lifers .. In fact in my opinion the argument I have built to keep abortion legal would still hold firm in the unlikely event that Roe is overturned.
Are we doing a book club thing? Read the book then come back and discuss it? lol (That actually sounds kinda fun tbh)...
What else is needed? New study: (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday. "Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123 If pregnancy/childbirth were so natural, why are there more than 500,000 maternal deaths around the the world each year? What is so natural about a C-section (accounting for 1/3 of all U.S. births)? Furthermore, over half of all pregnancies are naturally aborted. By the opposition to Roe vs. Wade.
Agree . Do not have the book yet however will be starting UNBROKEN first (do have that one- maybe one hardbound in the hand is worth two in the Nook?). I'm a slow reader so if someone beats me too, good for them. - - - Updated - - - Still a matter of debate.
Cady, wouldn't it bother you to learn that a legal decision was based or made on spurious, incomplete or missing information? What if the choice by the majority instead found that the constitutional right to an abortion could not be found/supported because of unsubstantiated evidence presented and then accepted and carrying the day as fact? The truth is always a casualty, perhaps second to integrity/credibility, in self-serving politics. I guess the question is, does the end justify the means? If we lie, cheat, steal, maim or murder for what we see as good or something we believe to be a better thing, then it's alright? To look back from here and say, well the evidence wasn't there then but I have some now, 40 years and 50,000,000+ American unborn deaths later shouldn't be celebrated as "Gosh aren't we a fortunate people that someone made a lucky guess." Justice shouldn't be a crapshoot. You wouldn't want your case handled that way especially if your life, property or vital concern is to be measured on the scales.
To be honest I personally feel the abortion debate has gone far beyond Roe, due to many court decisions since then there is a very strong case for abortions on self-defence grounds, and although if Roe were to be overturned it would be a hefty blow to the body autonomy of women I don't think it would mean the end of legal abortions .. but until Roe is overturned (not in the near future, if at all IMHO) self-defence in unconsented pregnancy cases will never come before the court.
Have we learned that? You said you haven't even read this book. How do you know the claims are true? No, do you think pro-lifers have not lied, cheated, maimed and murdered? What evidence wasn't there? The evidence that pro-life activists starting fabricating in the 80's?
No, it was a question, a legal and moral one, would you prefer a judgment that met your desires or would you rather have truth resolve the question? I believe we all for short, some without real-time realization, others by deliberate choice. Perhaps you have a specific case in mind? Such as the individual who took the life of the church ushering abortionist within the church during or proximal to the service? Was this justice? In America, one is first convicted of the crime before a (death) sentence is carried out. The murderer failed to recognize his act as criminal or perhaps he simply put his desire above all else, to end what he saw as a life devoid of value or worthy of consideration. Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973, not in the 1980's. It is my understanding (via an opinion article, book reviews-book promotion announcements) that the book looks into the justices mindset and reasoning along with personal recorded thoughts and what was weighed in the process they followed to the culmination of their (per a present SCOTUS Justice) "to much, too fast" opinion. I remember a few years ago a scandal that broke where 'evidence" presented to the SCOTUS was willfully fabricated. It was used in cases regarding the second amendment by the justices until the deception came to light. Can you see that the choice must always be the truth because the truth has no agenda, it stands on and is encompassed by its essence, it stands without being dependent on or being propped up by supporters, be they self-serving or charitably disposed. It needs no friend but is kept company by those who desire good counsel.
If the unborn (though it works against their and their mother's best interest) could mount a murderous attack and be guilty of (attempted) matricide then, wouldn't it hold, that they would also be able to mount a defence for themselves from the lethal aggression of the abortionist? Mankind in and of itself will never be able to stop a free willed person from exercising that free will, be it for good or evil, all it may do is either appreciate the contribution or condemn and hold accountable after the fact.
