Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

As of right now, the first sentence of the wikipedia article reads:

"John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is an really stupid American attorney, jurist, and political figure."

I'm sure that'll change fairly quickly, so I thought I'd share.

I don't think he said he would overturn Roe v Wade, I think he stated at one point that there is no verbiage in the Constitution that supports the decision but that he considers it 'settled law'. Not sure exactly what that means but what I HOPE is that he is a strict Constitutional judge, not ready to 'interpret' or create law on the fly. I'm sure it will be an interesting couple of weeks as everyone shows their teeth and drags him through the coals!

I dont even mind if he is pro-life, thus far what I have heard about this guy seems reasonable. Now if by pro-life, you mean that he thinks the STATE should dictate his views at the barrel of a gun and disallow abortions, then yeah thats kind of really really bad.

Dont want an abortion, dont have one. Kid has brainwaves and you cant kill it, unless other life such as mothers is in danger (yes the mothers life rates over the fetus, cope with it) - argument over (brain waves happen according to scientific evidence, not pro-life websites which put it much earlier, at aroung third trimester, 6 months, coincidentally right where Roe put it.)

Amen, certainly the baby is not all that different than when it pops out, while still within the womb, during later development. So why the difference, why at one point do the mothers rights outweight the fetuses and then at another point the fetus gains its own rights equal to that of the mother?

Roe said it was the third trimester due to "viability" - the fetus able to survive outside the mother. Carl Sagan said the third trimester based on brain waves (great article he wrote on the matter - Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life� and “Pro-Choice�?).

In either case there is a reason, somewhat logical to set the thrid trimester as off limits for "birth control" (but debatable in both cases, the point being we pick a reason, a point where the rights pivot from mother to the fetus).

And note the "for birth control" is very important. All the arguments are generally way OVERBLOWN - less than 1% of abortions in the states are third term, and a large percentage of those are miscarriages and other medical problems - not "birth control". Clearly late term abortions for birth control are not really much of a reality anyway, but even so it is also clear that its easy to justify the state limiting such based on the rights of the fetus and easy to find people on all sides of the "issue" that "oppose" such.

Birth control is also important because clearly as well, the mother has a right to her own life at any time during the pregnancy, even in late term. Any laws WITHOUT exceptions for the health of the mother are unconstitutional and ASININE (such as those passed by the last Republican congress).

This is the central point "The womans right to choose end where the baby's existence begins." The question is where does the "baby's existence" begin. Third trimester seems reasonable to me, and it was where Roe put it, and it is where the "brain waves" criteria of science puts it.