I'm going to throw in my 2 cents without having read the entire thread (just parts) and then I'm out of it.
I believe in the underlying concept of Roe v. Wade, but I also believe it is time for some of the arbitrary standards outlined there-in to be adjusted a bit. The division by trimesters was a rough attempt to determine when the fetus moved from a potential life, to a viable one, and in the years since this ruling science has been answering that question far more accurately than the justices did. And, of course, its a moving target.
If a fetus can be removed from the womb and live on its own, ethically it is hard for anyone to argue that this is not a life that should be respected. Well, when we've moved to a point in time where there can even be discussions on abortion that ask, "does a woman have a right to a dead baby?" its pretty clear that there is a disconnect. The time lines need a little adjusting, therefore.
Not to say there is or should be a definitive cut off between when an abortion should be allowed, and when it shouldn't, but to say that the weights in the balancing act of the decision need to shift. A baby that could be born tomorrow and survive is a baby and should not be aborted unless there are clear reasons to believe that there is no way to safely deliver it.
Intelligent people can argue back and forth on if an embryo is a human life, but there is no argument when you get to a 36 week healthy fetus. If you attack a woman who is 36 weeks pregnant and destroy the fetus, you will be charged with murder in this country.
The legal framework needs to respect the science on when A becomes B and it currently does not.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
22 Sep 2009, 12:35 pm
