(plz read carefully, I advocate abortion) To improve abortion laws, Roe v Wade should be repealed.

--As you said, it was illegal in 27 states and greatly regulated or banned in some areas. Roe V. Wade turned that around, for a pro-choice thinker, how is that bad? --you said "Trimesters were as you said based off of parts of the medical community." Agreed, it wasn't based off supreme court decisions, therefore the supreme court did not make this up --This is true, that the medical community can change its stance on something, this is not something that is really debatable. It is agreed that life starts for sure after 6 months. Why? well very simply because premature births that happen in the third trimester can be saved. Not to mention that bones, hair, hands, eyes, genitals, etc, are all developed officially making the fetus human. Then again you did bring up masturbation and circumcision so maybe im wrong?? --"there are viable explanations for putting human life starting at birth, or years after birth" Years after birth? to be completely honest that is just sick. You think that parents should be able to say "hey this is actually a lot of work, lets kill this "not-human" 3 year old. Really quite disturbing. I honestly have no idea how people don't understand that a 3-T fetus is a human . Is it a surprise for some people? Hey, two people have sex, the woman gets pregnant...." OH !!! I WONDER WHAT ITS GOING TO BE!!!!!" __There is no shock, it will be human. Because nothing on this planet can become a human other than a fetus within a human, that makes it. . . .human. If it will some day be a human, it is established that if you are to end the fetus' term, you are preventing it from becoming a full human baby. What is it called when you prevent a life from continuing? Mur.. I don't remember. Sorry, tangent that will probably cost me votes. to return to the point at hand. You said: "Trimesters takes a hard stance on the definition of a fetus and (below) defines when human life starts. I find it silly a group of 9 old lawyers decides forever when human life starts, and not a medical panel that can review decisions." Once again it was not the 9 lawyers who decided. The medical community knows every single detail about what goes on in the womb. They watch it, they film it, they write books about it. There is absolutely no confusion among the medical world, and there can't be any new developments because people having babies has remained the same forever. ( to avoid an evolution argument, we will say modern humans). "restrictions on liberty." Once again, everyone has their own right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless if it disables someone else's pursuit. I thought that we had covered this point. In fact we have already covered all of your points thus far, supreme court and the trimester system, liberty. Perhaps it is time for new points. "six months is not a hell of a long time to decide" Six months is not a long period of time if you compare it to 5 years, or 10 years. We are not talking about time without limits, we are talking about 6 months out of 9. If you wait 6 months you have waited 67% or more of the total time of pregnancy. You are right, things can happen that can influence whether or not a woman or a couple wants to "keep" their baby, such as finance etc. Because they can get a job!! isn't that amazing? There is something called personal and parental responsibility. Thats right, when you are expecting to have to feed someone else, generally you go get a job. So I completely and totally agree with you on this point, the conditions of their life can indeed change. "Then there is always teh hypothetical of someone who is kidnapped for 6 months, raped, impregnanted and let go." Well that would be just awful, but to be honest after 6 months induced labor can speed up the process. There is a chance the baby will survive. I completely agree with the whole abortion for rape-pregnancies, but there is a limit, after 6 months it should be a no-go. Not because of some 9 old lawyers, but because of the medical developments established. (see above: fingers, eyes, organs, hair, etc). Once again though Roe V. Wade allows states to decide, it is not a restriction, it is an open door. --You said: "At minimum repeal Roe V Wade and change the law so people that could not have had an abortion before 6 months can have one (unless a 6 month old fetus is considered a human baby)." "Unless a 6 month old fetus is considered a human baby", I think that it is clear that it is a human baby. Is it a kangaroo baby? no... what is going to happen in three months due to this confusing hard to identify "force" in the womb? A human baby will be born. Not to sound so sarcastic, my apologies. It is indeed the majority opinion in the medical world, as it has been for many years that life starts after 6 months officially. --You said: "Even if the medical community agrees with the Supreme court that it is 6 months, the supreme court is the one making this decision and in the case of new information, the supreme court must repeal its decision. Why not have a medical panel that meets once a year define when human life starts?" First off, i agree that its the supreme court making decisions. Because their judicial review (lets not debate the constitutionality of this, it is established that they have judicial review and use it) give them the ability to establish precedents. a medical panel once a year??? That is insane, you want to switch the interpretation and laws on something once a year? The judicial system might be rigid, but that is a good thing. We need our laws to be consistent and for something to be overturned it must be legitimate. --You defined repeal as : "to revoke or withdraw formally or officially". revoke means to (according to the same source) 1.take back or withdraw; annul, cancel, or REVERSE; rescind or repeal: to revoke a decree. We are arguing technicalities here, and perhaps you used the wrong word choice. It is understood that you want to get rid of Roe V. Wade, I will hint back to my original point that the court case established abortion rights, and you want to cancel them. Why? To let the 9 old lawyers talk to doctors and establish the exact same decision every year? you said: "Roe V Wade... made abortions available for many that couldn't get one before. Instead of allowing unrestricted abortions for everyone, it defined life and took a hard line approach offering abortion to many but not all." To many but not to all, because at some point everyone agreed that the baby is a human, and an American human if it is to be born on U.S. Soil, therefore you can't strip the Americans rights away. You said that if we repeal Roe V. Wade that "It would allow unrestricted abortions after 3 months. " How do you presume this? miraculous unrestricted abortions after 3 months would not just become the law after revoking/repealing/reversing the established laws. You would still have to go about setting laws in motion, meaning it would have to go back to the supreme court im sure after a while. If you don't like the judicial system that is a different debate entirely, but there is a specific checks and balances creation of legislature that actually protects people. -- You said: "I see unfair and unjust restrictions placed on women due to this court case that can easily be fixed w/o any harms (assuming a fetus at 6 months isn't a human life)." Once again, it is defined as a human life after 6 months, by the supreme court, sure, but most importantly by doctors and the medical community. --You said: " This is not an all or nothing argument. It is a some or more argument and I think my plan offers more while Roe V. Wade offers only some." Your plan consists of revoking the "some". How does that offer more? This debate is on revoking Roe V. Wade, not on whether or not your plan is better. That is a different topic entirely.