rowe vs wade and dna evidence

DEEP_acheleg: am i wrong, or could the introduction of dna analysis in a challenge of rowe vs wade totally change the game? any arguments for or against this assertion are welcome.

LiptonCambell: You're gunna hafta elaborate on that....

Are you suggesting the DNA evidence will prove a fetus is it's own being? Because I'm pretty sure the judges knew that when making their verdict...

If that's not what you're suggesting....well, then, you gotta elaborate...

DEEP_acheleg: the dna evidence in cases of crime are used to positively identify the assailant. if the dna of the fetus does not match 100% with the dna of the mother, than a sounld scientific argument could be made that the fetus is NOT a part of the mothers body, but, moreso, part of both the mother and father- thus giving fathers equal rights in the termination of a fetus. if said dna evidence is rejected, than every rapist, murderer and so on, whom was convicted on dna evidence, would have a valid appeal for exoneration.

now, which situation would be of the most benefit to women? upholding the right to kill a baby- necessitating the release of hundreds of thousands of rapists and other violent offenders, or the continued imprisonment of rapists and such, attached to the rights of the father regarding the fate of the mutual unborn child?

moonchai: Are you serious?

lori100: There have been cases where a child's DNA didn't match the mother....court officials observed a woman give birth, sample was taken from the baby, it had different DNA...

wayne elliott: Wasn't Roe vs Wade about the rights of the foetus - whether it had human rights while in the womb, or whether those rights only existed when the baby became a seperate entity?

LiptonCambell: When a woman is raped, her vagina acts differently than if it was consensual. That's what hospitals look for.

"Rape may result in the following:

Extragenital injury
Genital injury
Psychologic symptoms
Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs—eg, hepatitis, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydial infection, trichomoniasis, HIV infection [rarely])
Pregnancy (uncommonly)

Most physical injuries are relatively minor, but some lacerations of the upper vagina are severe. Additional injuries may result from being struck, pushed, stabbed, or shot.

Psychologic symptoms of rape are potentially the most prominent. In the short term, most patients experience fear, nightmares, sleep problems, anger, embarrassment, shame, guilt, or a combination. Immediately after an assault, patient behavior can range from talkativeness, tenseness, crying, and trembling to shock and disbelief with dispassion, quiescence, and smiling. The latter responses rarely indicate lack of concern; rather, they reflect avoidance reactions, physical exhaustion, or coping mechanisms that require control of emotion. Anger may be displaced onto hospital staff members."

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gynecology_and_obstetrics/medical_examination_of_the_rape_victim/medical_examination_of_the_rape_victim.html

Equally, most hospitals are required to have rape kits, which is used to collect DNA evidence as old as 72 hours

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_kit#Description_and_use

I cannot find any information suggesting that upholding roe v wade is leading to rapists getting released, because the child isn't theirs....it's unrelated to subject- the woman may have had consensual sex with another man, then got raped the next night- the fact that the child isn't the rapist doesn't mean the rapist gets off scott-free, because there are a lot of methods for testing rape, and the DNA evidence, beyond whose child it is.

Not to mention Roe v Wade, to my understanding, never claimed that the fetus was 100% of the womans DNA. It was an issue between prenatal rights, and the right to privacy for a woman with her doctor and the right for a woman to her body, since her body would be used as an incubator. And the woman rights won out.

You seem to be construing a lot about this subject without really understanding it. Rape is determined by forensic evidence, not if a woman gets pregnant. For rape, a woman getting pregnant can vary between 5-10%- meaning if what you suggest is true, then 90% of rapists would get away simply because they didn't knock the woman up...

This is just.....a very strange stance....

Dennae:

Leaving the morals of the situation out:

Legally speaking, a fetus isn't 'legally' alive until the law (of which ever state and country you happen to be in) says it is. You cannot (in legal terms) murder anything that does NOT have a legal standing as being alive.
Therefore terminating a pregnancy isn't 'murder' (another legal term).

Moreover, the fetus IS a part of the mothers body until it is alive independent of the mother regardless of DNA (The mortality rate is really high for newborns made independent of their mother before 20 weeks).

I'm sure when a fetus can be transferred to a male to be carried to term, DNA and paternity may become a factor.

So, they way I see it is for your argument to have any legal basis, you would need to:
1) overturn Rowe and Wade,
2) invent a male incubator system to enable a male to carry a baby to term and
3) get the legal system to define when a fetus is considered to be alive.

Then, and only then, would a precedent be set (if a woman had a termination) that could be carried over to other crimes.

Good luck with that.

DEEP_acheleg: if dna cannot prove individuality, than any rapist convicted on dna evidence will have grounds for appeal, and no future accused rapist could have dna evidence be used against them, in court

DEEP_acheleg: its not a question of when life begins, as the first trimester ruling errs on the safe side that life begins when heart and brain functions are initially detected. the question is as such- is the fetus, with its own distinctive dna, a part of the mothers body, with her own distinctive dna.

everyone knows that a fetus is not just another organ, or a tumor. it was an argument, invented in court, to give women every single birth control option, irregardless of reality or ethics. i have no problem with most birth control options- and i am willing to compromise on the first trimester ruling- it is late term abortions and partial birth abortions which contradict my ethical stance on the protection of human life

DEEP_acheleg: a fathers rights regarding abortion is merely a hypothetical ruling outcome, and, in now way, the crux of my case. my case attacks the reasoning of the rowe vs wade ruling directly- that a fetus is merely a part of the womans body, a legal argument which EVERYONE knows is just an excuse to allow womens rights to trump the rights of the pre-born, which- as still human, deserve human rights, in my opinion.

i am for equal rights, including womens rights, minority rights, the rights of the disabled, and the rights of unborn humans with viable heart and brain functions. if the cessation of heart and brain function is grounds to determine death, than the beginning of such functions should be considered the beginning of life, and the rowe vs wade 1st trimester ruling seems to support this. lets just stick to the first trimester ruling, and i will have no reason to begin a righteous crusade against late term abortions

LiptonCambell: >>>if dna cannot prove individuality

Individuality was never in question, so reinforcing it would not overturn any decision.

Where are you getting this?

>>>and no future accused rapist could have dna evidence be used against them, in court

But no court is saying "DNA Evidence is nonsense.", and for what you are saying to be true, they would have to discuss the issue first in open court, and outright reject DNA evidence.

Have they?

>>>everyone knows that a fetus is not just another organ, or a tumor.

Exactly. So where are you getting these ideas from? The courts are not making the kind of claims you think they are.

>>>irregardless of reality or ethics.

Ethics? Your entire argument hinges on semantics, and never touches ethics- you insist the court is claiming the fetus is a growth, an argument I've never heard appearing in court before and something you, presumably, have just made up right here .

I'm going to ask for the third time- please, show where the courts believe a fetus is akin to a cancerous growth. Because I honestly believe you are connecting dots where there are none.

>>>deserve human rights, in my opinion.

The Supreme Court considered your opinion- it's not as if people didn't think about such things in 1973- and they set the precedence that a fetus has protections, but not rights.

So you have two opinions- move to a country where your opinion is law, or present a new precedence to overturn their judgement. But simply saying "I disagree" ain't gunna cut it.

DEEP_acheleg: yes,. the argument accepted at the rowe vs wade ruling was, previous to dna evidence to prove individuality, that the fetus was not an individual, but a part of the womans body, like another organ. an organ would have identical dna to the mother, and a fetus does not. i am suggesting that if the court rules that dna evidence proves individuality, then the rowe vs wade argument was invalid, and if they say it does not prove individuality, that sets a precidence for violent offenders to use that defense to invalidate dna evidence against their person. to understand my premise, you must understand the actual argument to, and ruling regarding rowe vs wade.

DEEP_acheleg: the correlation between a fetus and a tumor was not explicitly stated in rowe vs wade, its just the comparison made at the present day, to allow abortion supporters to make the removal of the undesirable part of the womans body seem ethical

DEEP_acheleg: i presented my evidence nd argument in the court of public opinion. i am not planning on taking it to court. i am saving that for the day where late term and partial birth abortions become common practice. the first term clause is acceptable to me, anything beyond that would necessitate a reconsideration of the rowe vs wade ruling

DEEP_acheleg: i have made both legal and ethical objections regarding this opinion. you are simply failing to distinguish between the 2

DEEP_acheleg: furthermore- into ethical considerations: i hate to use the term of "the sancticy of human life:- for it implies morality, not ethics; however, i believe that protecting the life of a human(which the rowe vs wade ruling implies as applicable to a fetus beyond the 1st trimester) as being a greater ethical consideration than the inconvenience to the mother. in summation, the protection of human life has higher ethical grounds than an inconvenience to an expectant mother- as evidenced by the fact that there is no other legal situation where inconveniency can be used as a defense for the termination of the life of a fellow individual.

as far as situations where carrying the fetus would endanger the mothers life, or regarding the fetuses whom are the product of rape- those decisions should between the mother, their doctor and, if applicable, their higher power- in objective considerations. on legal grounds, medical necessity holds valid legal grounds, and no court or law should ever violate medical necessity.

as far as my personal ethical view (beyond legal grounds) the fetuses of rape victims would be better handled by adoption, as opposed to termination. i see it as unethical to punish a fetus, due to the crimes of their father.

LiptonCambell: I'm sorry Deep, but I still believe you are dead wrong on the subject. The ruling of roe v wade was made while acknowledging that the fetus was an individual. If you can prove otherwise, I suggest you do so- but if you cannot, then legally, you have no leg to stand on. The foundations of new laws is very clear on that subject.

As for your ethical concerns, it is nothing the Supreme Court didn't consider 40 years ago. There is no reason why they should reconsider the law again and overturn a ruling just because you personally disagree.

So, in short, DNA evidence doesn't change the nature of the initial ruling, nor does repeating the same arguments made almost half a century ago.

And "The court of public opinion" won't change the law. You must be willing to find problems using proper legal channels, because the court won't waste time with this nonsense. It's not a matter of appealing to the public.

DEEP_acheleg: then allow me to reread the arguments presented in the case; however, i do believe that the crux of the argument was that the fetus was considered a part of the womans body, until it became a viable individual. in the absence of dna, the viable individual term was used to denote that a full individual was one whom could survive independent of the mother- irregardless to the fact that an infant cannot survive without comprehensive parental care.

i concede that you might be correct about the questionable applicability of dna evidence; however, no one in their right mind could declare that an infant is self-sufficient

DEEP_acheleg: furthermore, if you read the first post, i did not make an assertion, i posed a question