Roe vs Wade is the law as interpreted by a liberal view
it is the law of the land as interpreted by the supreme court. thus it is the law of the land, no ifs, ands or butts. period. end of discussion. you, i and religious entities do not have the authority to interpret the law.
I still have never understood how liberals can justify allowing the mother to kill a VIABLE unborn fetus, a human being in development and you want to abolish the death penalty for those that murder, rape and commit serious crimes ...
oh, this is very simple to understand. a viable fetus can only be aborted for the sake of the mother's health. for example, if your wife is carrying a baby and it is found that she has cancer that requires immediate chemotherapy. should the government force her to carry the fetus to term or permit her to undergo the treatment she needs to save her own life. these are difficult cases, to be sure, but the "liberal" view - as well as the libertarian view, i might add - is that it is not the place of government to make this decision. it is between a woman and her doctor.
now if you think the argument against abortion is so obvious, then why are you not willing to make that argument to women in general, and give them the means to make the proper decision for themselves? why do you require the government to make that decision for them? if the argument is so obvious, why can't you make it directly to those who are making the decision? why do you require government to impose itself on health issues?
why, if you allow a woman to kill her unborn fetus, dont you allow her to kill them at anytime in LIFE???
because one or two or 16 or 32 cell embryos are naturally flushed and die all the time, and they have no characteristics that we think of as "human" - human features and brain activity and so forth. somewhere between being a clump of cells and a viable fetus things change, and someone has to draw a line. Roe did that, perhaps imperfectly. but the argument that the government has to protect everything down to that clump of cells is just a reductio ad absurdum.
if the argument is religious, well, why should the government impose a religious judgement on everyone in the land?
the difference is????????????????????????
the difference is that in early stages there is no brain or no brain activity, and dependence on the mother. we routinely allow those with no brain activity to die, like terry schiavo. after that, there is still the dependence of the fetus on the mother to survive, and if there is a choice between her life and the fetus's life, the government permits a decision to be made.
if you had a child and it was discovered that her heart was defective and she couldn't survive without an immediate transplant, would you give her yours? maybe you would (although you wouldn't find a doctor to do it). but would you support a law that mandated that you give her your heart? how is this any different than what so-called "partial birth" abortion laws that omit exceptions for the health of the mother intend to do?
