Thread: Legal opposition to Roe V Wade?

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.

Originally Posted by singlewedge

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.

Also from Merriam Webster:

Embryo:
1 aarchaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b: an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems ; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception.




Is the newborn child also considered a parasite, as it is wholly dependant on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return?

Is the "parasite" argument part of the Roe V Wade legal defense? Or is it just part of the theoretical argument people have in regards to abortion rights?