Human beings develop at an astonishingly rapid pace. Giving a quick recitation of the child's development will weaken the "not a person yet" mentality.
The cardiovascular system is the first major system to function. At about 22 days after conception the child's heart begins to circulate his own blood, unique to that of his mother's, and his heartbeat can be detected on ultrasound.
At just six weeks, the child's eyes and eye lids, nose, mouth, and tongue have formed.
Electrical brain activity can be detected at six or seven weeks, and by the end of the eighth week, the child, now known scientifically as a "fetus," has developed all of his organs and bodily structures.
By ten weeks after conception the child can make bodily movements.
I don't know what kind of monster would kill a 28 week old fetus. Killing an embryo or younger fetus is one thing, it's tragic and cruel but killing a 28 week old fetus is just sick. Abortion should only be allowed if the mothers health is at risk or if the mother was raped and is too young.
We see that in the case of illness, risk or etopic pregnancies a fetus may have to be aborted. Also, there is little reason to bring a child into the world where it will be unloved. Aslo, a woman whom is mentally or physically incapable of caring for her child only adds to child abuse cases. Forcing a woman to have her baby may also ruin her life as it is hard to manage a baby and a job or education at the same time.
There are several reasons for the pro-choice movement that I support :
- before 23 weeks, fetuses cannot feel pain, and do not have a general means of consciousness
- the mother does deserve a say
- legally, if a human depends upon another human for survival, they need to have consistent consent from the other human
I will expand upon these :
Consciousness is defined as (this is a bit wordy, sorry!) the totality in psychology of sensations, perceptions, ideas, attitudes, and feelings of which an individual or a group is aware at any given time or within a given time span.
Fetuses, while they do make movements, while they do show signs of having physical feelings after 20 weeks, are not conscious. They do not have ideas or attitudes, they do not have motivations or reasons for what they are doing, and are not aware of their own state. This isn't even present in babies! The only reason babies are given more rights is because they survive on their own. When a person lacks consciousness (i.E., is in a vegetative state, is brain dead, etc.) their family members are the ones who make medical decisions for them as they are not able. If the family (in this case the woman carrying the fetus) wishes to take away life support (or in this case the support of her body), she is legally allowed to.
Pregnancy can be dangerous. Any number of things can kill a mother or permanently damage her in childbirth or just because of changes to her body. There are times when a mother is pregnant and has cancer; she cannot have cancer treatment while pregnant. Due to her own health, she must abort unless she wants to forgo her own life. Because it's so dangerous for her own body, she should be able to decide whether she wants to put herself through this.
Lastly, legally, a life that depends upon another life for survival REQUIRES the consent of the life being depended on. If the life being depended on (for the sake of I don't like typing paragraphs to represent a single word, I shall now say mother) never gave consent or withdraws consent, the other being will be removed from the state of relying upon the mother. If that means death, than it means death. It's perfectly legal. Sometimes it's immoral, but it deserves continued legality.
I do believe that after pain starts to come into the fetus's knowledge (around 23 weeks to my knowledge) a mother should not be able to abort, though I believe she should be able to get a TIMELY appointment with a judge who can decide if it's necessary for the abortion to take place, or whether it's completely obsolete in this situation. AKA if it's life threatening, if she has extenuating circumstances, the judge would allow for the abortion. If she doesn't want a baby, she can have it and then give it up for adoption.
No human being should be compelled to allow their body to be used against their will. I cannot be forced to donate blood to my neighbor, even if he will die without it, I cannot be forced to donate my bone marrow to my sick child, even if they will die without that.
To declare that fetuses are "people" and that because of that they have the right to use the body of another against the will of that other gives them more rights than any other born human.
We also have the right to deny others the lifesaving use of our corpse after we pass away. Even if it means people will die without the use of our organs, we still have the right to deny others the use of our body.
So making abortion illegal would give a woman less rights to their own bodies than a corpse.
There is no reason to think women should be stripped of their legal right to make the medical choices they feel are appropriate for their lives for the sake of a developing embryo or fetus.
Also, despite the fact that electrical brain activity can be detected in some form, the brain waves of the fetus would qualify a person as being "brain dead" if present in a born human until somewhere in the third trimester(between 24-25 weeks).
So while a fetus has a body, it is not a person. A person is more than their body. Thus a fetus isn't a person with an independent life of it's own until birth.
And even if it were a person, to give it rights to use the body of it's mother against her will gives it more rights than any born human and her less rights to her own body than a dead person. Then toss in that criminalizing abortion does not stop abortions from happening, the abortions that happen are just not safe, and thus abortion should remain legal and safe.