This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
I think it is more restrictive because it does not adopt the by wpkirish
simple trimester approcach of Roe. If the medicine detemrines babies are viable before the end of the first trimester then the "dates" move up.
As for the strict scrutiny you are right that was not in those cases.
My main point is this is not aboriton on demand until the point of birth. Is it possible there is a medical provider somewhere who could be convinced a pregnant woman was so stressed out about the prospect of being a mother they would abort in the 8th month? I suppose anything is possible.
As I have said elsewhere I think this idea shows a great disrespect for women in gneral and health care providers.