Total Posts:157|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On the Rights of the Unborn

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 25,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 12:40:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

I suppose the logic is the fetus is human, and all humans (in America) have certain rights, namely the right to life. It could be argued that not all "rights" are given to all humans (retards cannot enter into contracts, marry, or vote), but life is one they all get. Ergo, an unborn fetus is a human that has certain rights.

I agree with this, only past the point of viability. Before this, the fetus' existence is wholly dependant on another, ergo, the "others'" rights are being infringed.
At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

"I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:18:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm more interested in how developed the brain is at any given point. When it approaches human-like complexity, and begins to have a consciousness, obviously killing it would be unethical. On the other hand, at early stages killing it would be again to killing a fungus.
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:40:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:18:33 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I'm more interested in how developed the brain is at any given point. When it approaches human-like complexity, and begins to have a consciousness, obviously killing it would be unethical. On the other hand, at early stages killing it would be again to killing a fungus.

I don't get how you could justify that in your head. How is killing an unintelligent animal, even if it were going to be intelligent, somehow better than killing an already intelligent animal? You are implying that your value of life relies solely on weather or not you could talk to me, or in general contribute to our society at this moment. I don't think you have any logical reason to justify that stance other than your visceral understanding that at this point the pre-mature life has yet to show its competence to live in our society, therefore it must be worthless.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 1:56:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:40:48 PM, Delucha wrote:
I don't get how you could justify that in your head. How is killing an unintelligent animal, even if it were going to be intelligent, somehow better than killing an already intelligent animal? You are implying that your value of life relies solely on weather or not you could talk to me, or in general contribute to our society at this moment. I don't think you have any logical reason to justify that stance other than your visceral understanding that at this point the pre-mature life has yet to show its competence to live in our society, therefore it must be worthless.

Seriously? You wouldn't kill a mushroom if you found it growing on you?
Delucha
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 2:06:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:56:26 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/27/2013 1:40:48 PM, Delucha wrote:
I don't get how you could justify that in your head. How is killing an unintelligent animal, even if it were going to be intelligent, somehow better than killing an already intelligent animal? You are implying that your value of life relies solely on weather or not you could talk to me, or in general contribute to our society at this moment. I don't think you have any logical reason to justify that stance other than your visceral understanding that at this point the pre-mature life has yet to show its competence to live in our society, therefore it must be worthless.

Seriously? You wouldn't kill a mushroom if you found it growing on you?

The potential is what counts - comparing a fetus to a fungi is just absurd. If you want a comparison, how about this - in the year 2100, a guy suffered a brain cancer and had to remove majority of his brain. He is now incompetent. However, due to the technological advance the doctors could replace his brain without any resulting trauma, but he has to live on a life support for the next 10 months. Is it ethical to kill this guy just because he can't communicate, feel, or make any contribution to the society for the next 10 months?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 2:12:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 2:06:27 PM, Delucha wrote:
The potential is what counts - comparing a fetus to a fungi is just absurd. If you want a comparison, how about this - in the year 2100, a guy suffered a brain cancer and had to remove majority of his brain. He is now incompetent. However, due to the technological advance the doctors could replace his brain without any resulting trauma, but he has to live on a life support for the next 10 months. Is it ethical to kill this guy just because he can't communicate, feel, or make any contribution to the society for the next 10 months?

Is he going to be wholly dependent on people for over a decade after that, putting great physical strain and risk on the life of another, having been non-existent before his brain injury? Has no-one ever met him before? Was there no sentience prior to the accident and will continue to not be for some time after?

I don't give a flying proverbial about the body. It is the mind that is being preserved in your example. So no, it isn't only potential that counts.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 25,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 3:20:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 1:18:33 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I'm more interested in how developed the brain is at any given point. When it approaches human-like complexity, and begins to have a consciousness, obviously killing it would be unethical. On the other hand, at early stages killing it would be again to killing a fungus.

I think this is fallacious reasoning of some kind. As a matter of law, why does it matter how complex the brain is? Are not brains of the rapists who are killed in the act, or the convicted felons sitting on death row, or the soldiers that die in war not as equally complex?

On a legal scale, abortion ought to be considered justifiable homicide, up to the point of viability.

If saying the baby's brain isn't as complex yet helps you sleep at night on a personal level, that's well and good. But as a matter of law, it is irrelevant, IMO.
At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

"I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 6:35:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:20:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I think this is fallacious reasoning of some kind. As a matter of law, why does it matter how complex the brain is? Are not brains of the rapists who are killed in the act, or the convicted felons sitting on death row, or the soldiers that die in war not as equally complex?

To each other, yes. I fail to see your point. For killing a rapist in the act, for instance, there's a clear and present reason to kill them. It's not that their life is inherently worth less, it's that they are putting others at risk and must be neutralized to preserve others. Preferably that is done without killing them, but it may not be possible.

At 5/27/2013 1:40:48 PM, Delucha wrote:
I don't get how you could justify that in your head. How is killing an unintelligent animal, even if it were going to be intelligent, somehow better than killing an already intelligent animal? You are implying that your value of life relies solely on weather or not you could talk to me, or in general contribute to our society at this moment. I don't think you have any logical reason to justify that stance other than your visceral understanding that at this point the pre-mature life has yet to show its competence to live in our society, therefore it must be worthless.

Not on whether or not you can talk to me--whether or not you can think. I'm interesting in whether or not something is sapient or sentient. The only way I know of to have consciousness is to have a brain. If something doesn't have a brain, it is almost certainly not conscious (and if it is, then plants might be conscious, in which case I as a vegetarian am in trouble).
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:19:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If someone kills someone and does not repent, well, oh my, I don't want to be anywhere near them when they receive their reward in Judgement...no, no, no...
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 7:41:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There is a point at which the fetus becomes complex enough to warrant the thought that it can survive until the age at which it develops reason. It is at this point that it gains the right to life and the right to be free from abuse. These are the only rights humans have until they develop the capability to reason. However, it can not place an obligation on the mother, demanding her resources. If the fetus can be removed and survive (without almost complete doubt), killing it would be immoral if there are others willing to care for it. If there is not, killing the fetus would be fine as it would die anyway (as it cannot yet make the decicion of how it dies, so all deaths would be equally {un}desirable to it).
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:36:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

When a fetus becomes viable -which is to say, when it can sustain life on its own, independently of the mother- then it can be said that it has rights. Right now, that's about 22 weeks into a pregnancy. Before that time, if to be a person means to be able to sustain life, it cannot be said that a fetus has rights due to a person, because it is not yet a person.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:43:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 7:19:59 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
If someone kills someone and does not repent, well, oh my, I don't want to be anywhere near them when they receive their reward in Judgement...no, no, no...

There won't be any Judgment.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:44:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:36:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

When a fetus becomes viable -which is to say, when it can sustain life on its own, independently of the mother- then it can be said that it has rights. Right now, that's about 22 weeks into a pregnancy. Before that time, if to be a person means to be able to sustain life, it cannot be said that a fetus has rights due to a person, because it is not yet a person.

Even in that scenario it wouldn't have the right to the mother's body. The mother can expel it as she wishes.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:45:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats

[BOLD OSTENTATIOUS CLAIM THAT HAS NO MEANING]!!!!

[OTHER DUMB COMMENT]!!!!

lol
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:46:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:44:11 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/27/2013 8:36:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
...or, more specifically, what is used to justify them.

A lot of people seem to think that the unborn have the same rights as any living human. What I want to know is, what evidence is used to justify this? When I look at pro-life arguments, all I really see is a bunch of emotion reworked to fit the role of an argument. But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

When a fetus becomes viable -which is to say, when it can sustain life on its own, independently of the mother- then it can be said that it has rights. Right now, that's about 22 weeks into a pregnancy. Before that time, if to be a person means to be able to sustain life, it cannot be said that a fetus has rights due to a person, because it is not yet a person.

Even in that scenario it wouldn't have the right to the mother's body. The mother can expel it as she wishes.

Before 22 weeks, the mother can legally terminate the pregnancy. After 22 weeks, labor can be induced at will and the birthed child becomes at that point a ward of the state. But yes... that is correct.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:47:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:45:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats

[BOLD OSTENTATIOUS CLAIM THAT HAS NO MEANING]!!!!


You would know
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:47:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/27/2013 8:45:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats

[BOLD OSTENTATIOUS CLAIM THAT HAS NO MEANING]!!!!


You would know

You are such a troll... lol
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:50:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Even if an Abrahamic god exists, I don't really care about the "Judgment". I don't feel a need to make myself even more miserable so that I can earn an eternity of sitting around and being miserable/watching other people suffer. The Thomistic schadenfreude doesn't really appeal to me.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,659
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:53:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 7:22:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
ABORTION IS HOMOCIDE
How do you increase the font on this thing...where..is .....that ....control..rats

sup
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 9:22:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 11:15:47 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
(CJB) ו "Do not murder.
(GNB) "Do not commit murder.
(HOT) לא תרצח׃
(JPS) Thou shalt not murder.
(KJV) Thou shalt not kill.
(LXX) _9;P16; _6;_9;_3;`7;^9;a3;`3;^9;_3;`2;. --
(The Scriptures 1998+) "You do not murder.

And what makes it murder?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 25,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 10:24:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 6:35:58 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:20:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I think this is fallacious reasoning of some kind. As a matter of law, why does it matter how complex the brain is? Are not brains of the rapists who are killed in the act, or the convicted felons sitting on death row, or the soldiers that die in war not as equally complex?

To each other, yes. I fail to see your point. For killing a rapist in the act, for instance, there's a clear and present reason to kill them. It's not that their life is inherently worth less, it's that they are putting others at risk and must be neutralized to preserve others. Preferably that is done without killing them, but it may not be possible.

My point is, abortion is murder, and using the metric of brain complexity is illogical, as a matter of law. Legally speaking, there is a thing called "legal murder", and abortion is one of those things.

So, whether you personally, will kill someone because they lack sufficient brain activity or they are presently harming you is your choice. Legally, it is irrelevent, as the abortion is legal until the child is viable.
At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

"I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor
16kadams
Posts: 10,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 11:19:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.

http://academic.wsc.edu...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 11:52:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 11:19:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.

http://academic.wsc.edu...

I'm not seeing your point. Your article agrees with me that the mother and fetus are two separate entities. Thus the mother has every right to control her body; and that includes what has access to it. In this case, the fetus.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:15:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2013 11:19:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/27/2013 5:17:42 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 5/27/2013 10:48:48 AM, drhead wrote:
But to what extent would logic and reason alone justify the pro-life stance?

A "pro-lifer" could say that a fetus is a developing human being, no different than a child. It grows, changes physical features, and carries human DNA that guides this process. In that sense, it is human. They could go on to argue that once brain activity begins, it is also alive, making the killing of it a violation of it's right to life. This is a very good argument.

However, it falls flat on it's face when you introduce the issue of bodily sovereignty, which necessarily overrides any creature's "right to life". The right of the mother to control her body overrides the right of the fetus to live; this is because the fetus has no right to use the mother's body against her will, just as I have no right to, for instance, take organs from you against your will, even if I would die without them.

http://academic.wsc.edu...

And where does this say that the fetus/embryo is entitled to free room and board with free meals?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 1:54:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Will restate my recent debate arguments per here:

http://www.debate.org...

Ultimately, right to privacy is no justification for killing another human being, whether in the privacy of one's own home or own body. Right to choice does not justify choosing to harm another person, and right to one's body cannot justify using that body to harm another person. As such, rights, choices, and privacy are no excuse for harming another person if they are indeed a person, erego, this question revolves necessarily around the issue of personhood. While potential exceptions naturally exist such as rape and life of the mother, since in the case she did not make a sexual decision to be held accountable for, and when her life is endangered by the pregnancy, her life is also at stake, and she should have a choice to save her life (obviously), abortion on demand is ultimately not justifiable when a child is apparently human.

Thus, this revolves around the issue of personhood and fetal viability, when a child becomes human, for if it is human, no buzzword argument is sufficient to justify its murder save in such rare circumstances. Furthermore, that such rare circumstances should be raised by those who seek to justify abortion-on-demand evidences that they themselves realize abortion can only be justified in such rare cases, and fallaciously use said cases in an attempt to justify abortion more broadly.

When it comes to fetal viability, completed brain cells appear within the first 2 weeks of pregnancy. The heart beats at 3 weeks. Blood flows in the baby's veins separate from the mother's blood at 4 weeks. Brain wave activity occurs at 6 weeks. Based on nervous system development, perception of pain likely begins at 8 weeks. Thumb sucking occurs at 9 weeks. The entire body is sensitive to touch at 10 weeks. Breathing of amniotic fluid and all facial expressions visible (e.g. smiling) at 11 weeks. Crying at 12 weeks, as well as the ability to practice breathing. All senses present including vocal chords at 13 weeks.[2] The earliest recorded successful pregnancy is at 21 weeks[3] even though abortion is allowed in all 9 months of pregnancy.[4] As such, it is logical that a minimum of 18,150 abortions, 1.5% of the 1.21 million annual abortion according to Planned Parenthood's own statistics arm, the Guttmacher Institute, are murder each year, since they occur after the 21st week of pregnancy.[5]

So what does public polling show the American people believe? According to Gallup[6] while 62% of Americans support abortion during the first trimester (12 week period of pregnancy), only 24% support abortion in the second trimester, and only 10% for the third trimester. 83% of Americans support abortion when the mother's life is endangered, 82% when the woman's physical health is endangered, 75% when the pregnancy was caused by rape/incest, 61% when the woman's mental health is endangered, 51% when there is evidence the baby may be mentally impaired, 50% when the baby may be physically impaired, and only 36% when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child. Ultimately, 20% of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal, 39% that it should be legal only in a few circumstances, 13% that it should be legal in most circumstances, 25% that it should always be legal, and 4% hold no opinion.

As such, the majority of Americans, over 75%, disagree with abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and can recognize that abortion beyond this point is clearly murder. Only 36% believe abortion justifiable when the woman or family can't afford to raise the child. There is nonetheless overwhelming recognition that abortion should be legal in rare cases such as rape or life of the mother. However, it should be pointed out that rape and life of the mother account for less than1% of all abortions[7], at least 13 states had laws allowing abortion before Roe v. Wade in such cases and the number was rapidly growing[8], and virtually all legislation put out in the last two decades by the Pro-Life movement has included exceptions for abortion in said cases.

Given this, I believe the courts have incorrectly decided the issue and that the American people should have their voices heard instead as the original judge, Henry Friendly, said in the first major abortion rights case, Hall v. Lefkowitz.[9] As Friendly concluded, "But the decision what to do about abortion is for the elected representatives of the people, not for three, or even nine, appointed judges." I believe the correct way forward is to put this issue to a vote and let the American people determine by ballot referendum what the correct viability limit on abortion should be, and in what circumstances is allowed. I have no doubt that they will agree with me, as shown by Gallup polling, and restrict abortion to roughly the 12th week of pregnancy, perhaps a bit earlier, perhaps a bit later, and allow abortion in cases such as rape and life of the mother.

Sources:

[1] http://www.bereawiki.com...
[2] http://www.hli.org...
http://www.whyprolife.com...
[3] http://healthland.time.com...
[4] http://www.whyprolife.com...
[5] http://www.guttmacher.org...
[6] http://www.gallup.com...
[7] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
[8] http://www.nrlc.org...
[9] http://www.law.harvard.edu...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.