It's viability stupid
After reading Justice Harry A. Blackmun's Row v Wade decision and listening to opinions from both sides I have come to some conclusions. Abortion must be legal until the point at which a fetus can viably live outside the womb. Abortions should only be carried out after the point of viability if the pregnancy threatens the mother's physical health. Anti-abortion proponents debate abortion with a variety of arguments that have a common theme, it's not supported by the constitution and it's murder to kill a "child" from conception.
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily bases his abortion argument on the use of posterity in the following: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Farah argues that posterity in this context means descendents, and therefore unborn. It's an interesting but entirely ridiculous argument to say that the mere potential for future life demands the allocation of constitutional rights. A woman that admitted to thinking about having a child in the future but didn't, could theoretically be charged with the new crime of thought abortion.
Another common argument is that human life begins at conception. By ignoring the religious and mythical "ensoulment" contention an understanding begins to form of the insanity of allocating anthropocentric based rights to a zygote or early stage embryo. A woman who admitted to a miscarriage could be questioned to understand whether she was criminally negligent.
As a society we have an obligation to assign rights equitably. Not giving a woman a chance to terminate a pregnancy is discriminatory. She should have the freedom to make a decision about her body when the pregnancy is unwanted. Unfortunately many state laws disagree with the Supreme Court on the issue of viability and privacy at the core of Row v Wade. Bush's debt to the evangelicals will not be paid unless there are constitional ammendments banning abortion and gay marriage by the end of his second term.
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily bases his abortion argument on the use of posterity in the following: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Farah argues that posterity in this context means descendents, and therefore unborn. It's an interesting but entirely ridiculous argument to say that the mere potential for future life demands the allocation of constitutional rights. A woman that admitted to thinking about having a child in the future but didn't, could theoretically be charged with the new crime of thought abortion.
Another common argument is that human life begins at conception. By ignoring the religious and mythical "ensoulment" contention an understanding begins to form of the insanity of allocating anthropocentric based rights to a zygote or early stage embryo. A woman who admitted to a miscarriage could be questioned to understand whether she was criminally negligent.
As a society we have an obligation to assign rights equitably. Not giving a woman a chance to terminate a pregnancy is discriminatory. She should have the freedom to make a decision about her body when the pregnancy is unwanted. Unfortunately many state laws disagree with the Supreme Court on the issue of viability and privacy at the core of Row v Wade. Bush's debt to the evangelicals will not be paid unless there are constitional ammendments banning abortion and gay marriage by the end of his second term.
posted by mochi at 10:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home