"The Kafkaesque wording of the decision is not overly helpful in determining what the law is.  Attacks on the law continually chip away at it so that abortion is increasingly a middle and upper class entitlement with poorer and younger women sometimes excluded. "

Funding (or lack thereof) for abortions has nothing to do with Roe's poor wording.

I wrote not one word about funding of the right though admittedly that is a matter of concern.

The sloppy decision written by Justice Douglas is a point of attack by enemies who would outlaw all abortions.

To the extent that anyone would deem Roe v. Wade in any danger from those who believe in the doctrine of "strict construction," that may be because the right to abortion found by the Roe Court isn't, of course, set forth specifically anywhere in the Constitution. Instead, the Court found a shifting right to abortion (depending on the trimester) was located in the "penumbra formed by emanations" from other rights that were actually set forth in the text. And those who oppose Roe have argued that such logic is nothing more than an unelected Court deciding, in effect, that "based on what else there is in the Constitution, we think this right belongs in there, too." Conservatives argue that such an approach makes everyone far too dependent on the subjective preferences of individual judges.

http://carolliebau.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_carolliebau_archive.html

The right of privacy is fundamental to all our laws.  Without it, there is little point to even having a constitution.

The strict constructionist are very flexible in what they find to be strict about.  Justice Scalia seems very angry these days when questioned about deciding to elect a president against the apparent will of the people.  He is quite willing to decide for women whether they should have babies they don't want.  Can't find the Constitution giving Justice Scalia that right anymore than the right to elect the president.

  To the extent any such right to privacy can be ascertained, I think it must come solely from the Lockean notion that when people enter the social compact they only vest government with those powers expressly stated in the oranic law. From there, I think an argument can be made that individuals have a fundamental right to "privacy" ossessed in the "state of nature" and which was not made subject to government authority under our our constitution and that thus the much ignored 9th Amendment prevents government from denying or disparaging it.

  However, that does not settle the issue. At some point we have to decide what is and is not within the ambit of "privacy." If we want to define it as thoughts or conduct which do not affect other persons, we still run square into the fact that many people believe a fetus is another person and some don't.

  I do not believe that the venue for defining what is or isn't a person is a court of law. It's at its essence a question of moral philosophy and not capable of fair  adjudication. Where different people have different opinions, those differences should be resolved by representative political processes. in this country we have legislatures for resolving through compromise such issues.

  Roe was simply the substituting of the judgment of the consensus with the judgemtn of a majority of one Court possessed of no greater insight into the ultimate issue.

  That lack of insight (which raises further criticism from me) is revealed in the inabililtty to either explain why "viability" has any particular significance or to address how the concept of "viability" could have unwelcome consequences in other contexts. Other than the Court saying so how do we know "viability" is when a fetus becomes a life worthy of protection? People on both sides disagree with that position.

  Moreover, "viability" is neither knowable nor a constant among all pregnancies, so the Court simply fabricated arbitrary time thresholds and declared them as surrogates for viability.. That sounds a lot like legislating to me.

   Some fetuses are not viable at the moment of birth but others are viable early in the second trimester.

  I accept that arbitrary lines must be drawn in establishing rules because in some cases any lines are necessarily somewhat arbitrary, but again line drawing on contentious issues incapable of being definitively answered should be the province of the people speaking through their elected representatives, and not the province of judges answerable to only their consciences.  

I agree with Decon on this issue. I agree with others here that you are quick to attack and you don't take to criticism well.

I have no heroes. I just like open and honest debate. Rarely, does anyone, including myself meet that standard. Some people try, though. I admire compelling arguments even if they come from someone with an opposing viewpoint. I consider you smart and I agree with you more than I disagree with you. However, you often sound like a pundit when engaging an interlocutor or challenging the opposition in a thread. You would rather shout your interlocutor down and insult their integrity than have an open discussion.

  To advocate for abortion effevtively, it is necessary to put forward reasons why abortions should be permitted in the most common circumstances. Pointing to the tiny minority extreme cases to justify the huge majority of routine cases is neither intellectually honest or effective.

  What individual or societal "goods" are served by elective abortion in such a compelling fashion that the life, or potential life if you prefer, of the unborn is so heavily outweighed by your "right" to "choose?"

 Without that you feel you cease to be an autonomous human being capable of making decisions on anything?  

  Anyone who disagrees is your "enemy?"

Wow!

  I really don't know how to respond to that.

  BTD:

I never said I wanted to take anything aways from you. I said Roe vs. Wade was weak law and we needed to come up with something better if we wanted to continue to offer women the right to choose an abortion in this country.

Circumstances have changed since we had that discussion, mostly the last election. But, if you continue to make the abortion argument personel, you will lose the ability for your daughters to make the same choice you did. I want to prevent that from happening.

Cripes!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What I am saying is that we will never come to an agreement on where life begins

Doesn't matter.  It is a silly argument.

Obviously life begins before conception.  One wag proposed that life begins with a dinner date.

When you frame the question in such a way, you have already made your argument and anybody who disagrees with you is an extremist per se.

As far as I know, no one here is arguing for infanticide.  What is arguable is the right of a zygote or a fetus to live and violation of the right of a woman to control her own life.

That is far different from arguing whether a zygote is alive or not.  It is absurd to argue it is not.

It also seems that people get caught up in the "morality" issue without a thought to how immoral it is to deny an individual the right to do with their OWN BODY what they wish to do.

Oh, well, there I go being an extremist again, having my own opinion and all. An opinion I formed in good faith after much personal wrangling with a difficult issue, an opinion with which a hugh part of the country agrees, an opinion that comports with the law of the land, and, oh, yeah, I am the extremist.

That's why I no longer respond to certain people who fail to recognize that you can argue facts, not opinions.

Am I just being too obtuse, aw, or do other people with agendas fail to recognize an opinion and understand that a person's opinion is inarguably their own, just as a woman's body is hers alone?

Have I stated my opinion so inartfully that what I wrote is clearly MY opinion, it is not subject to review, revision, modification, changing, mangling, interpretation not in conformance with the plain language I used, and that NO ONE is going to change my opinion?

It is my further opinion, after much consideration, that you don't even have to stretch to find legal justification for women's needing/desiring an abortion when, as a part of being an American, you are entitled to "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

A woman is entitled to her life, the liberty to decide what do do with it, and although I doubt most women are "happy" about the need/desire for an abortion, if the woman deems it necessary and she can legally do something to improve her circumstances, she is pursuing  the happiness of a life burdened by an unwanted child.

Most Women also support some restricitons on abortion.

IT is not a women vs. Men issues. That how extremists wnat to define it.

I came to my final decision on the matter after years of hearing debates, my own reading on both sides of the issue, wrestling with the morality of treating women as chattel, and the principles of freedom and the right to happiness guaranteed every citizen.

My decision may not comport with your own, but it is and remains my own good faith decision on the matter and no one has the right to label me an extremist for making the decision I have on this or any other matter.