It's just impossible for me now to revert back to that kind of attitude, that of "woman's body, her right". I don't disagree that sometimes, abortion may be necessary. If the life of the mother is directly compromised by her pregnancy, or in a case such as this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...other.html, sometimes it is not so black and white. Life is not that simple, and neither is pregnancy.
However, you don't need to be pro-life, pro-abortion, pro-anything to see that there is an inherit problem with the way we so easily sign away death rights to growing human life before a particular cut-off point when it is not a clear cut decision to make. We're terminating millions of unborn babies' lives every year since Roe v Wade. And yet, Roe v Wade doesn't even address the issue of personhood, and openly admits that if personhood is found to be established in regards to the life of a fetus, then the decision can be overturned in line with the 14th amendment:
This is America, of course, but consider the following for a moment, too:
For 23 years since the original act was passed, abortions were occurring past the point at which developing science of embryology put stress on the then current laws and to shorten the window of legality. Is this not then a clear indication that abortion isn't just about the rights of the mother, but that there is a clear and definitive ethical issue that arises when we are willingly terminating human life based on a premise not even grounded in science? What exactly constitutes a person? When do we really become a person; only when we are at a certain level of consciousness? What about the mentally disabled? The comatose?
If we decide just exactly how human we are based upon our utility, then we must also admit that perhaps the actions of the Nazis in war stricken Germany were justified. After all, they were proponents of eugenics. We already do the same when we willingly abort human fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome.
History has a funny way of revealing itself only in hindsight. Perhaps in 20, 40, 100 years time, the youth of a future generation will look back on our decisions regarding the act of abortion as the next great civil rights issue since the African American civil rights movement.
I guess the furthest I would go in green lighting abortion would be up to 6 weeks gestation. But beyond that, you're really struggling to form a compelling case that doesn't somehow contradict the way we protect other humans under law in the same regard.
However, you don't need to be pro-life, pro-abortion, pro-anything to see that there is an inherit problem with the way we so easily sign away death rights to growing human life before a particular cut-off point when it is not a clear cut decision to make. We're terminating millions of unborn babies' lives every year since Roe v Wade. And yet, Roe v Wade doesn't even address the issue of personhood, and openly admits that if personhood is found to be established in regards to the life of a fetus, then the decision can be overturned in line with the 14th amendment:
Quote:"[Texas] argues that the fetus is a ‘person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case (or Roe's case) collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."
This is America, of course, but consider the following for a moment, too:
Quote:The Act made abortion legal in the UK up to 28 weeks gestation. In 1990, the law was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act so that abortion was no longer legal after 24 weeks except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the woman, there was evidence of extreme fetal abnormality, or there was a grave risk of physical or mental injury to the woman.
In May 2008, there was a parliamentary debate over whether the limit should be reduced from 24 to either 22 or 20 weeks but no changes were made.[4]
The Act does not extend to Northern Ireland, where abortion is illegal unless the doctor acts "only to save the life of the mother" or if continuing the pregnancy would result in the pregnant woman becoming a "physical or mental wreck."
For 23 years since the original act was passed, abortions were occurring past the point at which developing science of embryology put stress on the then current laws and to shorten the window of legality. Is this not then a clear indication that abortion isn't just about the rights of the mother, but that there is a clear and definitive ethical issue that arises when we are willingly terminating human life based on a premise not even grounded in science? What exactly constitutes a person? When do we really become a person; only when we are at a certain level of consciousness? What about the mentally disabled? The comatose?
If we decide just exactly how human we are based upon our utility, then we must also admit that perhaps the actions of the Nazis in war stricken Germany were justified. After all, they were proponents of eugenics. We already do the same when we willingly abort human fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome.
History has a funny way of revealing itself only in hindsight. Perhaps in 20, 40, 100 years time, the youth of a future generation will look back on our decisions regarding the act of abortion as the next great civil rights issue since the African American civil rights movement.
I guess the furthest I would go in green lighting abortion would be up to 6 weeks gestation. But beyond that, you're really struggling to form a compelling case that doesn't somehow contradict the way we protect other humans under law in the same regard.
