Thread: Legal opposition to Roe V Wade?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

What I'm getting at is a way to overturn that legal *ahem* "fact". That is what legal arguments are all about, and why cases are brought before the Supreme Court.

DNA testing is legally acceptable as a means to detrmine paternity in a child support legal situation. Could that not show some legal precident for making a claim such as this?



From what I understand about cancer cells is that they are the person's own cells that for some reason continue to multiply beyond what they are designed to, and thus cause tumors, etc. As far as I know, they are made up of the person's own DNA?

I think I inderstnad your point, and I'm saying that even if the fetus IS separate DNA formed through whatever process begins at whatever stage that will allow it to eventually become human, it is still recognized as THE WOMAN'S BODY. Now, COULD a different SCOTUS say that our right to privacy no longer extends to tissue made up of different DNA inside our bodies? Sure, and it would be a reasonable argument. Do I see it working in the current judicial-political landscape? Not likely. At least not for the next 4 years. The woman's body is still affected by the decision, even if the growing fetus is not her body. The argument being about the woman changes the terms, a bit, granted, but that is where the right is founded, if I understand it correctly (big IF).

DNA testing is already accepted as a scientific avenue, so no precedent is neccesary. What is neccesary for your argument to change anything legally, is to be able to show something that the court hasn't considered before, such that it would change its position on what has been held to be a fundamental right (privacy in one's body, and by extension, of course, what IS one's body). On top of that, the fetus would have to be more than simply "not her body" but an actual human with rights. Otherwise, the fact that she wants to do something to the tissues surrounding that "not her body" element would STILL hold privacy rights.

As for cancer, you VERY well may be right, I simply lack the knowledge to say.

EDIT: As fascinating and enjoyable as these conversations are, I need to put a big old disclaimer on my posts today. I'm going on and off very busy, and have been hitting "submit" before I read over things to make sure they make sense. For today, please excuse any dumber than usual posts.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I think I inderstnad your point, and I'm saying that even if the fetus IS separate DNA formed through whatever process begins at whatever stage that will allow it to eventually become human, it is still recognized as THE WOMAN'S BODY. Now, COULD a different SCOTUS say that our right to privacy no longer extends to tissue made up of different DNA inside our bodies? Sure, and it would be a reasonable argument. Do I see it working in the current judicial-political landscape? Not likely. At least not for the next 4 years. The woman's body is still affected by the decision, even if the growing fetus is not her body. The argument being about the woman changes the terms, a bit, granted, but that is where the right is founded, if I understand it correctly (big IF).

DNA testing is already accepted as a scientific avenue, so no precedent is neccesary. What is neccesary for your argument to change anything legally, is to be able to show something that the court hasn't considered before, such that it would change its position on what has been held to be a fundamental right (privacy in one's body, and by extension, of course, what IS one's body). On top of that, the fetus would have to be more than simply "not her body" but an actual human with rights. Otherwise, the fact that she wants to do something to the tissues surrounding that "not her body" element would STILL hold privacy rights.

As for cancer, you VERY well may be right, I simply lack the knowledge to say.

EDIT: As fascinating and enjoyable as these conversations are, I need to put a big old disclaimer on my posts today. I'm going on and off very busy, and have been hitting "submit" before I read over things to make sure they make sense. For today, please excuse any dumber than usual posts.

Is that just your opinion, or has that been legally argued and ruled on?

Has a father of an unborn child brought a case to court arguing that the life within the mother is just as much HIS as it is HERS? And that could be shown via scientific evidence.

Instead of allowing whatever happens within the womb to be argued as some sort of mystery, legally speaking (i.e.- we don't really know when a fetus becomes a human, etc. etc) and talking about it circumspectly, my opinion versus yours, how about arguing the case directly based on genetic data that will most certainly show that the cells with the womb are most certainly distinct from the mother's own, and therefore they should not fall under the ability of the mother to do as she pleases with them?

"Well, why should the government impose such requirements on a woman to have to take responsibility for that entity within her? That impinges on HER rights!"

Well, aren't there laws on the books dealing with the fact that indeed mothers (and fathers) do already have to care for their children, or be charged with neglect, child abuse, etc? Is that an unfair position for the government to take? Why can't they just stay out of the whole thing?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Is that just your opinion, or has that been legally argued and ruled on?

I am prety sure the case has been tried and decided, though not by SCOTUS. Not positve, though.

Instead of allowing whatever happens within the womb to be argued as some sort of mystery, legally speaking (i.e.- we don't really know when a fetus becomes a human, etc. etc) and talking about it circumspectly, my opinion versus yours, how about arguing the case directly based on genetic data that will most certainly show that the cells with the womb are most certainly distinct from the mother's own, and therefore they should not fall under the ability of the mother to do as she pleases with them?

Well, I am not "allowing" it...I think it is neccesary. just because it is genetically separate doesn't make it a human with rights that are on par with the woman.

Well, aren't there laws on the books dealing with the fact that indeed mothers (and fathers) do already have to care for their children, or be charged with neglect, child abuse, etc? Is that an unfair position for the government to take? Why can't they just stay out of the whole thing?

There is no longer doubt, once they are children, that they are humans with those rights.

Sorry, no time at the moment to break it out into separate quotes. My day looks like it is going to end on a busy note, like it started, so it looks like I'll have to sign off the debate for today. As always, thanks to all who make me question my own position.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

DNA testing is already accepted as a scientific avenue, so no precedent is neccesary. What is neccesary for your argument to change anything legally, is to be able to show something that the court hasn't considered before, such that it would change its position on what has been held to be a fundamental right (privacy in one's body, and by extension, of course, what IS one's body). On top of that, the fetus would have to be more than simply "not her body" but an actual human with rights. Otherwise, the fact that she wants to do something to the tissues surrounding that "not her body" element would STILL hold privacy rights.

This is simple. The case goes to trial. The prosecution calls for a witness in their behalf. The judge calls for a postponement of not more than 9 months. After that period of time the witness for the prosection would be available for questioning, admittance as evidence, etc....

Instead of concentrating on the whole, you need to look that the parts.

Roe v. Wade has been chipped at since its "conception" (I know I know). The only way to "overturn" a landmark like this is to overturn a small part that the whole rests on.

If you can remove or establish parental rights to the parasite then you may have an argument.

Parasite from Merriam-Webster:

something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.

not until people can see the fetus as more than a tapeworm with the potential to become a person


EDIT
better answer

what exactly do you mean by separate from her body?
it is (should be) obvious that the fetus isn't her body

what do we do about the fetus imposing itself on her L,L,APOH ?
I don't know.

Jurisprudence has seen fit to give women a whole lot of rights in the family law area this past century. Women get child support, alimony, right to abortions....etc etc. Father's seem to be on the short end of the stick when it comes to recent laws. Of course, in the old days, the father would get sole custody of the children and the divorced wife would be thrown to the curb or worse.

I'm going to go with smoke on the legal remedies. Sounds about right and he actually took Con law.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So then I thought, can we not then bring science to bear on the subject, and via DNA testing of the embryo/fetus clearly show that indeed the life now in the womb is genetically seperate from that of the mother, thereby making it not "her own body", and thus nullifying her "right" to do with it as she pleases?

Her body is feeding the unborn. She would still be allowed to cut the umbilical cord. And if not, she'd still be able to ingest what she wants, including herbs and meds to terminate the fetus.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Her body is feeding the unborn. She would still be allowed to cut the umbilical cord. And if not, she'd still be able to ingest what she wants, including herbs and meds to terminate the fetus.

Based on this logic, a woman should be able to put her baby down in the first months after birth. If you look at it based on need parents would be able to put their children down within the first 4 to 6 years.

Originally Posted by JMS

Based on this logic, a woman should be able to put her baby down in the first months after birth. If you look at it based on need parents would be able to put their children down within the first 4 to 6 years.

You're right, Mark. Currently child negligence and child abuse are only used as lawful accusations after birth