Thread: Legal opposition to Roe V Wade?

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?