Ok first lemme say that i am more horrified abput the assault on the US Supreme Court’s deliberative privacy than i am either way about the abortion issue. Im writing tbis here (mos’ly) in order to have a cooler, less emotional discussion about Roe v. Wade.
Talking with a Catholic friend, a brilliant woman, a lawyer, and rabidly anti- Roe, i was gobsmacked when she asked me what the holding in that case actually was. She had no idea.
As i recall, the decision says during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, states can neither regulate nor prohibit the procedure; during the second trimester states may regulate but not absoluteky prohibit, and during the last trimester, states may prohibit abortion. This wasn’t on the basis that there exists a federal constitutuonal right to abortion, but rather, that the constitution’s legendary unspoken “right to be left alone” extends to a few weeks after conception.
My own views on the issue were firmed up at age 9 when I read an article in Ladies’ Home Journal about a wiman who had taken Thalidomide for morning sickness every blessed day of her pregnancy . This was before ultrasounds and stuff, nobody could see into the womb, but it was much, much more likely than not that this woman was going to bear a grossly deformed baby. Y’know,like, no limbs at all. And that is what was eventually removed from her womb—in Sweden, where she had to travel to get it aborted. I dk, i wasnt even menstruating yet, but it struck me as grossly unfair that our government would force her to continue with this pregnancy, knowing what she and everybody else in the country knew by then. And here, still, i stsnd: i cannit do othetwise.
Roe makes it clear to the STATES what they can and cant do. I’d argue tnat the power to “regulate” in the second trimester, like taxation, includes the power to destroy—and the Lefties certainly agree with me; tbey’ve spent the intervening years arguing that certain state statutory regulatory measures are essentially prohibitive.
Thats fine with me. ‘Long about 4 months, and undoubtedly by five, what youve got in there is a baby. A woman could feel that, i mean literally, even without benefit of imaging.
And what posdible excuse can there be for waiting untill you’re six or more months along to decide, nah, you wont go through with it after all?
So isnt the real “thorn in the Roe” the part about the first 12 weeks?
Maybe 12 weeks for private decision making is too long now, given the fact that you can find out youre pregnant on the very day you miss your period by peeing on an inexpensive and widely available strip of paper. I mean come on ladies, show a little initiative here! Ill tell ya, i really think that a woman so clueless should NOT be reproducing.
But shouldnt there be SOME time period after copulation of being able to change your mind, or avert ppssible pregnancy? What about post coital douching, which, my reading leads me to believe, prostitutes have been doing for centuries thougn its not very reliable? If you dont object to that, would you object to the “morning after” pill? Does whether or not you object depend on whether or not the woman knows for sure that she has conceived?
Judges like to say they know they’ve made a good decision if both adversaries are unhappy with it. Roe certainly meets that test.
My question dear polymaths is : what, exactly, in ypur educated scientific opinions, is wrong with Roe?