Originally Posted by
Wakizashi
We have discovered that after we have killed certain "guilty" people, all evidence actually points out that they were innocent. This doesn't happen a lot, but it happens and is worthy to note. So it would seem hypocritical to kill a prisoner, who could later be found to be innocent, and not abort a fetus (during the first trimester of course) who is also innocent. I refuse to play that moral game.
The question it seems, is not whether abortion should be banned or not, but what is "human"?. Its not very defined, and the argument for or against aborting a fetus is superfluous. You ban it, and it will still happen, only another innocent person (along with fetus) is putting their life in danger, physically and/or judiciously. If you don't put restrictions on it (such as late term abortions without direct physical danger to the mother) and it could very well be abused, not just by uneducated teen girls, but also partners who "don't think its the right time yet."
Unfortunately, it is a quagmire topic, and nobody can agree wholeheartedly, and I wouldn't expect it to. However, having studied law for several years now, and having read the Inalienable Rights of Man, a fetus which cannot sustain life outside the mothers womb is not a citizen of this country, is not human as Children have rights of their own Inalienable Rights, under sed Human Rights Articles, which have been provisioned under the United States Constitution.
"Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival."
These rights can only be applicable to the "holder" of the Fetus, as naturally the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness trumps.
Liberty is divided into four types : natural, personal, civil and political. The first two are inalienable, the latter two are government granted. What this means, is essentially, that in Nature's law, and in her own personal world, if a mother wants an abortion, she will have it. Civil Law, however can regulate her own personal views, but it cannot ban them entirely. If you look at how many people are jailed every year for Marijuana Possession, it becomes clear how devastating jailing abortionists would become on our current funding for Prisons, and is a problem (much like Marijuana is now) that will continually persist. This is why, Society's views on Marijuana have softened so much, its more acceptable because it is widespread, and theres very little we can do to actually stop it. Not to mention, it isn't that heinous.
Now it falls under the "mother's" Pursuit of Happiness; because we cannot completely get rid of abortions entirely, it can still be regulated up to a point. Under Civil Law, which is what this argument would fall under, if we ban abortion, then Mother's who seek out such a practice, would not get proper medical treatment, and the mother puts herself in great risk, of death, or contracting an infection, or illness. You get hedge-abortionists, who may not have qualification to do the job, which leads to the possibility of causing undue stress or harm unto the child, before it's death. I'd rather have it done as professionally, as clean, and as harmless as possible to both mother, and safely dead fetus.
