MWoO
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,212
- Reaction score
- 1,604
Abortion has to be framed as a women's medical rights issue because that is how Supreme Court decision frames it. Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, it is about the states ability to legislate against a person's liberty v. the states interest in protecting human life. It was later interpreted to consider viability.
Essentially as long as a fetus requires it's mother's body to live, the mother's right to self supersedes that of the fetus. It ties directly to the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment, the same amendment that defined a citizen under the law as having to be born here. Born being a key word as unborn children are not citizens and thus have no rights under the law. Truth is, Roe v. Wade protects everyone against state action that looks to decrease personal liberty and choice. 14th amendment is a heck of a thing.
Interestingly, republicans, who do not want personal freedoms taken away by big government, should theoretically agree with the decision, even if they do not agree with abortion morally. Democrats, who are currently more concerned with the government protecting the helpless, should disagree with the decision because they tend to want more governmental power, including laws against free speech, since they feel no one can help themselves anymore.
As for a morally legal argument for abortion, that's a whole other ball of wax. First you need to define life, which for arguments sake lets say life begin at conception. Then you have the argument that life is sacred and must be protected. Well, "life" in and of itself is not really the issue, otherwise we would also want laws against eating meet, hunting, and to a greater extent even laws against eating plant life. So, the actual question is of human life.
Well, now we need to define what makes someone a human. Some argue that simply having human DNA means you are a human. From a species point of view this is true. But if that is the case, then why are we allowed to disconnect brain dead humans from life support? Is that not murder? If you say it is, then logic follows abortion is also murder and the discussion is over. If you think we have the right to disconnect brain dead humans from life support, then we can keep going.
Legally, it is not murder to take a person off of life support. We allow family members or state appointed social workers to make that call. Sentient human life now becomes our new cut off for murder. It is wrong to kill a fully functioning human, but it's ok to take a brain dead human off of life support. I submit that a fetus, up until at minimum week 12, is incapable of sentience. Therefore, abortion should be legal, until that point. I do not make room for potentiality as it is vague and ambiguous. This is also why I do not agree with the viability condition as it changes over time and geographic location.
Personally, I think abortion should be a last resort. Even those people who are "pro-choice" (which is also a disingenuous term, since I think everyone is "pro-choice") have a hard time coming to terms with having an abortion. It's an emotionally damaging thing to go through. I still think the government should not legislate against it, up to a point.
Edit: Sorry for the short essay, but I never see anyone frame the topic for what it really is about.
Essentially as long as a fetus requires it's mother's body to live, the mother's right to self supersedes that of the fetus. It ties directly to the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment, the same amendment that defined a citizen under the law as having to be born here. Born being a key word as unborn children are not citizens and thus have no rights under the law. Truth is, Roe v. Wade protects everyone against state action that looks to decrease personal liberty and choice. 14th amendment is a heck of a thing.
Interestingly, republicans, who do not want personal freedoms taken away by big government, should theoretically agree with the decision, even if they do not agree with abortion morally. Democrats, who are currently more concerned with the government protecting the helpless, should disagree with the decision because they tend to want more governmental power, including laws against free speech, since they feel no one can help themselves anymore.
As for a morally legal argument for abortion, that's a whole other ball of wax. First you need to define life, which for arguments sake lets say life begin at conception. Then you have the argument that life is sacred and must be protected. Well, "life" in and of itself is not really the issue, otherwise we would also want laws against eating meet, hunting, and to a greater extent even laws against eating plant life. So, the actual question is of human life.
Well, now we need to define what makes someone a human. Some argue that simply having human DNA means you are a human. From a species point of view this is true. But if that is the case, then why are we allowed to disconnect brain dead humans from life support? Is that not murder? If you say it is, then logic follows abortion is also murder and the discussion is over. If you think we have the right to disconnect brain dead humans from life support, then we can keep going.
Legally, it is not murder to take a person off of life support. We allow family members or state appointed social workers to make that call. Sentient human life now becomes our new cut off for murder. It is wrong to kill a fully functioning human, but it's ok to take a brain dead human off of life support. I submit that a fetus, up until at minimum week 12, is incapable of sentience. Therefore, abortion should be legal, until that point. I do not make room for potentiality as it is vague and ambiguous. This is also why I do not agree with the viability condition as it changes over time and geographic location.
Personally, I think abortion should be a last resort. Even those people who are "pro-choice" (which is also a disingenuous term, since I think everyone is "pro-choice") have a hard time coming to terms with having an abortion. It's an emotionally damaging thing to go through. I still think the government should not legislate against it, up to a point.
Edit: Sorry for the short essay, but I never see anyone frame the topic for what it really is about.