# Would it really be so bad if Roe v. Wade were reversed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958 "2004-10-13T04:11:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/21 "2004-10-14T14:16:53Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement with this at the SDMB, or practically anywhere else. Our basic rights have been guaranteed at a federal level since the late 1700s (of course, expanded to include all people, and have the right guarantees applied to state governments as well, in the 1860s). Ah, but then we get into it about what is a ‘basic’ right and what isn’t. Some of us will argue that medical treatment is a basic human right, and that women’s reproductive health- contraceptive, pre-natal, and even abortive- are included in this. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/22 "2004-10-14T14:28:59Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > People would just deal with the fact that if you live outside the market, the cost of killing your kid is the procedure plus the plane ticket or whatever. Waitaminute—killing _children_ is legal? There’s a loud three-year-old down the block I’d like to take care of. Or does it have to be _my_ “kid?” ---
**Author:** ![hlanelee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@hlanelee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hlanelee)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/23 "2004-10-14T16:24:47Z")
I really love **Eve** , I would like to meet her someday. I’m a swingin single again. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/24 "2004-10-14T16:36:11Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Nobody wants to force the fundamentalist’s daughter to have an abortion. If it’s not the right choice for her and her morality, don’t do it. So why to they want to force my daughter to bring a child into this world she isn’t equipped to raise? [And despite their “morality”, sometimes the Fundies choose anyway](http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/anti-tales.html). _Love_ that article. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/25 "2004-10-14T18:37:48Z")
> [@hlanelee](#): > > I really love **Eve** , I would like to meet her someday. I’m a swingin single again. 😉 Back of the line bub. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/26 "2004-10-15T00:57:48Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > With respect, this has more to do with the choices the US makes about how to deliver healthcare than it does with Roe -v- Wade. Roe does not require the Federal Government or the states to deliver affordable or convenient abortions (or indeed to deliver abortions at all), and the overturning of Roe -v- Wade would not prevent the federal government or the states - or the healthcare market or healthcare charities - from providing affordable and convenient abortions if the political will to do so was there. I didn’t mean to imply that it was. My post was in response to Aeschines’ statement that allowing states decide for themselves whether or not to permit abortion would not stop abortions because women needing them would simply just get on a plane and go to a state in which the practice was legal. All I was trying to say is that for some impoverished women, driving to the next city is nearly impossible, let alone flying to another state. There are many reasons why clinics are few and far between in some areas. Economic and social pressures are foremost among them. The Constitution cannot control for capitalism-- meaning that just because something’s legal doesn’t mean it will be profitable. Secondly, anti-choice groups exert enormous pressures to try to close clinics or disrupt their operations. Some doctors have decided it’s not worth it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/27 "2004-10-15T02:26:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m pro-choice all the way on principle. But, as a lawyer, I have never approved of the _Roe v. Wade_ decision, because it is poorly reasoned. Finding a “right of personal privacy” implicit in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as Justice Blackmun did, is intellectually indefensible. Would it need a different thread to discuss this in more detail? I’m reading through the decision now, skimming the boring history parts, and I haven’t come across anything apparently disingenuous. I’d like to hear your take on it, but if it would be too much of a hijack then I’d understand. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/28 "2004-10-15T02:56:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Finding a “right of personal privacy” implicit in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as Justice Blackmun did, is intellectually indefensible. The only thing I find intellectually idefensible is the notion that a right not spelled out in the Constitution can in no way be construed to exist. Especially since the Constitution was Amended to say exactly the opposite: > [@Amendment IX](#): > > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/29 "2004-10-15T03:15:47Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > . . . My post was in response to Aeschines’ statement that allowing states decide for themselves whether or not to permit abortion would not stop abortions because women needing them would simply just get on a plane and go to a state in which the practice was legal. All I was trying to say is that for some impoverished women, driving to the next city is nearly impossible, let alone flying to another state. I accept that overturning Roe v Wade, followed in all likelihood by limitations or near-bans on abortion in some states, would impede access to abortion for some women further than it is already impeded, at least in the short to medium term. But I suggest that most of the impediments would still arise from social and political factors unconnected with Roe v Wade. And those concerned to improve women’s access to abortion would do better to devote their energies to changing those social and political factors than to defending Roe v Wade. And, my point is, the spirited defence of Roe v Wade is actually an impediment to the development of the social and political attitudes which will do most to ensure access to abortion, because of the way in which it polarises thinking, discussion and attitudes. It’s a characteristic of fundamentalism (for _any_ cause) that it tends to prefer the Grand Statement of Principle to the Practically Effective Action. I think Roe v Wade certainly _was_ practically effective to secure access to abortion for (urban or middle class) American women, but I think that from their point of view it’s now more of a Grand Statement of Principle. If it’s overturned, they’ll still have ready access to abortion. Your own post suggests that Roe was never effective to secure access to abortion for poor rural women. And moving the focus of debate and activism away from Roe v Wade might, in the long run, do more to secure the broad practical availability of access to abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/30 "2004-10-15T03:17:08Z")
> [@](#): > > **CurtC** : Saying that there is a right, which it clearly does not spell out, is not something that we advocate. I thought that Libertarians believed in rights unless the government specifically denied them. Do Libertarians believe they get their rights from the government? > [@](#): > > **CurtC** : Our basic rights have been guaranteed at a federal level since the late 1700s (of course, expanded to include all people, and have the right guarantees applied to state governments as well, in the 1860s). Except for a slight majority of the population – the women. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/31 "2004-10-15T04:00:28Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I thought that Libertarians believed in rights unless the government specifically denied them. Do Libertarians believe they get their rights from the government? Right. Libertarians would argue that the only rights that could be limited are those the Constitution says can be. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/32 "2004-10-15T04:26:29Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’m pretty strongly libertarian. I’ve voted the Libertarian candidate for president in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000, and I plan to in 2004. > > I think that most of us libertarians want the Constitution to spell out exactly what our rights are, and have the government be strictly constrained to that document. Saying that there is a right, which it clearly does not spell out, is not something that we advocate. The _Roe v Wade_ decision was a travesty. Well, i certainly make no claim to speak for all libertarians. Hell, i’m not even a libertarian myself. But, as others have pointed out, your understanding of libertarian thought in America seems to be seriously flawed if you think that asking the government to spell out all your rights in detail is the position of “most…libertarians.” Most libertarians that i have met, and most libertarian documents that i’ve read, are much more along the lines suggested by **Zoe** and **rfgdxm**. Libertarians with whom i have spoken and debated generally hold the view that your rights are inherent, and based in property (yourself and your belongings), and that those rights cannot (or, at least, in the real world) should not be abrogated or contrained by government. On the OP’s topic: I’m not a lawyer, but my reading of the Constitution suggests that it was indeed something of a stretch to find a “right to personal privacy” implicit in those amendments. I’m not sure what to suggest as a remedy. I really don’t like the idea of rolling back the _Roe v. Wade_, because whether or not a right to privacy _is_ in the Constitution, i firmly believe that it _should_ be. If they reversed the decision, and then added a Constitutional amendment confirming the right to privacy, i’d be happy enough, but that ain’t gonna happen. But, as **Lissa** ’s post shows, the legal issue isn’t the only one. Anyone who thinks that _Roe v. Wade_ automatically makes it easy to get an abortion in America has quite a bit to learn. [Here](http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue16/emanuel.html) are some more details: > [@](#): > > In the US, practical restrictions take many forms, and can be seen as an indication of the trend against women’s right to abortion, as part of the broader backlash against the gains of the women’s liberation movement. > > Clinic violence is real, with shootings, threats, arson attacks, acid injections, stalking, advertising of clinic workers’ home addresses and the issuing of “wanted” posters for abortion providers having a real impact. Numerous providers have stopped working because of the threat to themselves and their families. > > Real estate agents refusing to lease premises for abortion services, banks refusing loans for the establishment of clinics, contractors refusing to work on buildings for abortion services are all a part of the obstruction that has been reported under the impact of a well-organised anti-choice campaign. > > Local council regulations have at times gone to great extremes, for example, by imposing requirements for door sizes and floor space that make it impossible to find and adapt premises for use as clinics. Some local authorities have even gone to the extent of requiring the presence of blood for transfusion on the premises (an unnecessary and expensive logistical nightmare) and, more bizarre yet, neonatal resuscitation equipment. > > Eighty-three per cent of US counties have no abortion providers, and this includes half of all metropolitan centres. Women who rely on state or federal funding for medical care can’t get their abortions paid for in thirty-eight states. In thirty of these, this is the case even if the pregnancy results from incest or rape. > > So although there are numerous countries where, encouragingly, abortion is legal, the legal status of abortion is only one factor to look at; practical access is another. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/33 "2004-10-15T04:57:44Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, i certainly make no claim to speak for all libertarians. Hell, i’m not even a libertarian myself. But, as others have pointed out, your understanding of libertarian thought in America seems to be seriously flawed if you think that asking the government to spell out all your rights in detail is the position of “most…libertarians.” Most libertarians that i have met, and most libertarian documents that i’ve read, are much more along the lines suggested by **Zoe** and **rfgdxm**. Libertarians with whom i have spoken and debated generally hold the view that your rights are inherent, and based in property (yourself and your belongings), and that those rights cannot (or, at least, in the real world) should not be abrogated or contrained by government. [http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/womerigh.html](http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/womerigh.html) > [@](#): > > I. Individual Rights and Civil Order > Women’s Rights and Abortion > The Issue: Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. > > The Principle: We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births. > > Solutions: We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination. > > Transitional Action: We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. Looks to me like the Libertarian position is pro-choice, and that they only object to government paying for abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/34 "2004-10-15T04:58:35Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > But I suggest that most of the impediments would still arise from social and political factors unconnected with Roe v Wade. And those concerned to improve women’s access to abortion would do better to devote their energies to changing those social and political factors than to defending Roe v Wade. Frankly, I don’t know how that would be possible. A certain sement of the population will always see abortion as “murder” and will strive to make it illegal. No amount of argument or debate will make these people see it differently. On the political front, there will always be politicians who want to court those people’s votes by introducing legislation or taking public anti-abortion stances. I don’t see how these two things can change in a significant way. Their efforts lately have been to convey “personhood” on fetuses through legislation like “Laci’s Law” and the like. It automatically presents a legal quandry: when is a fetus protected? How can you “murder” something that isn’t legally a person? Is it only protected if the mother intends to continue the pregnancy? Does “Laci’s Law” give grounds for prosecution if the woman was killed on the way to an abortion clinic? I’ll admit I’m not well versed in all of the legal nuances, but it seems to me that eventually the Supreme Court will either have to strike down “Laci’s Law”-type legislation, or reverse Roe v. Wade by granting fetuses “pershonhood” and thus legal rights of protection. (Or, God help us, they’ll try to amend the Constitution making it a moot issue.) What is Constitutionally “right” is not always popular. I’m sure an opinion poll taken during the early Civil Rights movement would have shown a distinct dissaproval for the notion of equality between blacks and whites. Today, there are similar high rates of dissaproval in regards to abortion and gay marriage. (And since that pesky Constitution doesn’t allow discrimination, some feel the need to change it.) Woe betide us if our Constitutional rights were decided by opinion polls! I don’t think this is an issue on which everyone will agree-- ever. It’s too black-and-white for some. They allow for no middle ground. If Roe were struck down, I feel that women’s reproductive rights would suffer a tremendous setback. Social change is all well and good, but efforts must be made to preserve what progress has been made legally as well. This is one issue in which I think federal courts have to have the final say: a fetus can’t be a person in one state but not in another. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/35 "2004-10-15T05:08:07Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Looks to me like the Libertarian position is pro-choice, and that they only object to government paying for abortions. I suspected that would be the case. My previous post was just a general response to **CurtC** ’s apparent misunderstanding of the libertarian position regarding the role of government. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/36 "2004-10-15T05:32:51Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I suspected that would be the case. > > My previous post was just a general response to **CurtC** ’s apparent misunderstanding of the libertarian position regarding the role of government. From the below, it seems that if the Constitution doesn’t protect the right to abortion, if the Libertarians seized total control of the US House and Senate, and also all the state legislatures, they’d immediately amend the Constitution to add this protection. > [@](#): > > The Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles > > We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual. > > We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. > > Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent. ---
**Author:** ![JMS\_CCT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbe5ce/32.png) [@JMS\_CCT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JMS_CCT)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/37 "2004-10-15T16:11:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m pro-choice all the way on principle. But, as a lawyer, I have never approved of the _Roe v. Wade_ decision, because it is poorly reasoned. Finding a “right of personal privacy” implicit in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as Justice Blackmun did, is intellectually indefensible. Suppose the next time the issue came up, the Supreme Court agreed and overturned the decision. Would that be so bad? Such a decision would not constitute a new ban on abortion. It would simply strip abortion of its constitutional protection and reduce it to the status of an ordinary political issue, to be dealt with by Congress and the state legislatures, and pro-choicers would have to fight for abortion rights in a different set of forums – where they’re pretty well represented already. Here, here! I’m pro-life–was a leader in the 90s anti-abortion movement, “operation rescure”–and couldn’t agree with you more. Roe was the quintessential case of legislating from the bench. It needs to be oveturned for the reason you give: that what the Court did in Roe was usurp the constitutional authority of the Congress, but also because what it actually did–if it stands as law–was destroy the fourth amendementl right to life. period. The criterion used in Roe to take away the right to life of unborn children sets a precedent that would allow future courts to do the same with other “disposable” groups of humans. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/38 "2004-10-15T16:46:15Z")
> [@JMS@CCT](#): > > Here, here! I’m pro-life–was a leader in the 90s anti-abortion movement, “operation rescure”–and couldn’t agree with you more. Roe was the quintessential case of legislating from the bench. It needs to be oveturned for the reason you give: that what the Court did in Roe was usurp the constitutional authority of the Congress, but also because what it actually did–if it stands as law–was destroy the fourth amendementl right to life. period. I read the decision and it is that obvious to me. Can you help me understand why it is so obvious to you? > [@](#): > > The criterion used in Roe to take away the right to life of unborn children sets a precedent that would allow future courts to do the same with other “disposable” groups of humans. Now that I know isn’t the case. In fact, the court even recognized that there was certainly a point in any pregnancy where the state’s interest could reasonably extend to protect the unborn. I cannot find any statement or set of statements that could supporting killing undesirables. Please quote the case. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/39 "2004-10-15T16:47:25Z")
Gahh, **isn’t** that obvious to me. Isn’t! ---
**Author:** ![JMS\_CCT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbe5ce/32.png) [@JMS\_CCT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JMS_CCT)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958/40 "2004-10-15T20:00:32Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I read the decision and it is that obvious to me. Can you help me understand why it is so obvious to you? > Now that I know isn’t the case. In fact, the court even recognized that there was certainly a point in any pregnancy where the state’s interest could reasonably extend to protect the unborn. I cannot find any statement or set of statements that could supporting killing undesirables. Please quote the case. There are no statements to that effect. The precedent is in the reasoning. It was perfectly legal, under Dread Scott, for a slave owner to do what he pleased with his black slaves–even kill them–because the court declared blacks to be something less than human, i.e., “non-persons,” which is basically what Roe did with unborn “fetuses.” In Dread Scott, the court could have been excused for their crime due to the lack of any scientific evidence to the contrary. The Roe court doesn’t have that out, because the overwhellming scientifice evidence at the time established the fact that life begins at conception, and that the life in a woman’s womb is a human life. You want to talk viabiltiy, or survivability outside the womb? What about a one one month old child outside the womb? Is that child viable? If you dumped it on the street, how long would it live without other humans assisting it? How bout an 85 year old crippled grandmother who can no longer care for herself? Under the Roe courts reasoning, neither would meet the viablility standard. As far as I can discern, Roe v. Wade was 100% politically motivated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-really-be-so-bad-if-roe-v-wade-were-reversed/268958.md?page=3)