I have not read all of this thread so this may duplicate some. I have always been a bit confused about roe vs wade. I just read it all again and it makes little sense to me. The decision was one of privacy of the pregnant and, in addition, the ruling was under the 14th amendment is: Known as the "Reconstruction Amendment," it forbids any state to deny any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, Roe vs wade, basically, rules on privacy based on the 14th amendment. This has become known as the decision that legalizes abortion. I just don't get it. Seems tenuous at best.
I am, incidentally all for abortion. I would be willing to temper that if those against (right to lifers) would, under law, be forced, at their expense, to care for and educate, through college, the otherwise unwanted children forced to term by the right to lifers.
I would also add that there are apparently, right now, fewer teenage abortions than normal. This is based, not on abortions but the easily accessed birth control pills which, it seems, a good portion of the right to lifers also want to restrict access to.
One last. There are reasons to believe that the ability to have abortions, and access to birth control, has not only reduced illegitimate births but crime as well. Seems unwanted children tend towards crime. Basically, abortion and birth control tend to control social expenses which we all pay end the end.
