As the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision nears, anti-abortion activists prepare for the annual March for Life and their counterparts plan religious services to pray for the safety of abortion providers.
But, 37 years after the contentious Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, is there any hope for common ground?
Experts say it will be difficult — especially in light of recent health care battles — but not impossible.
Laurie Zoloth, professor of bioethics and religion at Northwestern University, said there are some projects — such as giving incentives to teen girls to avoid a second pregnancy — that can bring feuding factions together.
Is there common ground between rapist and victim?
37 years since Roe? Gee, and I thought, as with fake “marriage,” controversies such as these are over in a generation, with the lone remaining dissenters considered bigots and haters. Apparently, progress doesn’t always march in a straight line toward The New York Times building.
“Is there any common ground on abortion?”
No.
Worth remembering that even the saintly Michael Ramsey (whose 1990 biography by Owen Chadwick I am currently reading), while refusing to vote for the 1967 Abortion Act because of its potential breadth, declared at that year’s Canterbury Convocation that he would accept a bill permitting abortions if there were a risk of the birth of a deformed or defective child, after a rape, and in “circumstances when the bearing and rearing of the child would prove beyond the [b]total[/b] (emphasis added) capacity of the mother.”
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
My father always lamented than Ramsey had not taken a more forceful pro-life position than he did.
Roe V Wade needs to be revisited because nowhere, in the written opinion, is the father mentioned. Can it really be that the father,. who is one half the child, has no legal rights in the matter of the child’s life or death? Can it reall;y be that the father’s rights and responsibilities are non-existent until the child is born? The court’s opinion does not touch the real world at any point if the father has no legal existence. Larry
If Roe v. Wade were taken for what it says, then there would be no right to maintain paternity suits against the fathers of children, since it’s entirely the woman’s decision whether or not to let the child live. But of course the law is hypocritical about this, like it is about so many things in this area.
One of the most frustrating arguments against the overturn of RvW is that it would be an outburst of “judicial activism”, ignoring the fact that it would be a return to a previous status quo. RvW was of course a prime example of judicial activism.