Difference between revisions of "Talk:Roe v. Wade"
(There is no meaningful distinction between trimesters in Roe v Wade) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Trimesters == | == Trimesters == | ||
There is no meaningful distinction between trimesters in Roe v Wade. Reginod, your edit is not correct. Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT) | There is no meaningful distinction between trimesters in Roe v Wade. Reginod, your edit is not correct. Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters, but that doesn't mean there's no meaningful distinction between them in the decision. Blackmun's decision said that, in the first trimester, there's no compelling state interest in abortion, and the doctor and his patient are free to terminate the pregnancy without interference from the state. After the first trimester, according to the decision, the state is free to regulate abortion so far as it relates to the health of the mother...the state can demand that the abortionist be licensed, that abortions must be performed in a hospital, or other things like that. After the fetus is viable, according to the decision, the state is free to even ban abortions, unless an abortion would be neccesary to "preserve the life or health of the mother." So while Roe v Wade allows abortions in all three trimesters, it also, as the pregnancy goes on, places more restrictions as to when and how an abortion can be performed.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 05:02, May 4, 2007
I've deleted the comment about Roe being a lesbian. It seems the kind of thing a reference is needed for. One for her real name would be nice too. lil_cain 03.43, 10 March 2007 (GMT)
LOL! Great edit, Lil Cain. If she really was a lesbian, it's funny that she got pregnant. I would think a cite would be needed for that...--AmesG 22:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I've also edited out the section about no one caring about the judgement for a time. Even if it was not widely known(something I don't have the first notion about), I'm sure a substaintal minority of those affected did care at the time(I am of course open to being rebutted on this, but with references preferably) also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion lil_cain 03.46, 10 March 2007 (GMT)
also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion
Added the meat of Blackmun's opinion along with re-added the section on controversy. Controversy is, obviously, informative as to the social ramifications of the opinion.-AmesGyo! 16:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Trimesters
There is no meaningful distinction between trimesters in Roe v Wade. Reginod, your edit is not correct. Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters. RSchlafly 00:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
- Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters, but that doesn't mean there's no meaningful distinction between them in the decision. Blackmun's decision said that, in the first trimester, there's no compelling state interest in abortion, and the doctor and his patient are free to terminate the pregnancy without interference from the state. After the first trimester, according to the decision, the state is free to regulate abortion so far as it relates to the health of the mother...the state can demand that the abortionist be licensed, that abortions must be performed in a hospital, or other things like that. After the fetus is viable, according to the decision, the state is free to even ban abortions, unless an abortion would be neccesary to "preserve the life or health of the mother." So while Roe v Wade allows abortions in all three trimesters, it also, as the pregnancy goes on, places more restrictions as to when and how an abortion can be performed.--Steve 01:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)