I still don’t get this, Worthy. If you acknowledge the absolute horror and equivalency to murder that later term abortions represent, and you would fully protect a later term baby under the law…what is the difference in this “intrinsic dependency” from a 1 second old fetus, and a 39 week old one? They are both intrinsically part of the woman, and yet you would allow the law to prohibit mother from killing the older one…but then demand they stay out of it when they are younger, leaving it fully up to the woman to make that decision. We agree moms need moral and educational guidance to make the right decision (to not kill the baby)…but how can you justify supporting legal intervention on that decision for later term babies, and demanding it be omitted in earlier term…when both babies are intrinsically part of mom?
That’s why I don’t think you really believe that human life worthy of full protection begins at conception…if you did, I think you’d see the point we’re trying to make here.
This poster does see the point you all are making. The real point is how you guys cannot accept that reasonable people can disagree on this.
But to address your point, there is no distinction on the dependance that the early fetus has on the women and the depedance that the later fetus has except when you reach the point of viability outside the womb.
The line is going to be drawn somewhere----when society says " women you have no more power to decide the fate of the fetus, we will decide." The line is obviously going to be drawn as the fetus matures. The point at which the line is drawn is arbitrary—unless you go with viability (like the Court did)---- but that is a moving line depending on technology.
But so what? The line is drawn because------
Govt does not get to make all the decisions in this society. That govt power is to be limited, that the women, entrusted with the fetus, gets at some point to make the call herself. Where you draw the line really does not matter----well at least not in terms of the idea to allocate the duty.
That line is drawn to balance the competiting policies of respecting individual rights (in this context control over one’s body) yet govt obligation (the majority) to help to protect the unborn life. (another individual right but the majority’s will being used to protect it)
*Both policies * matter, both are being promoted simultaneously by the line being drawn at whatever point—it is the allocation of the duty to protect the unborn life between the women and society.
Why the need to balance the policies? Because when the govt gets too invasive and powerful, it is exactly the force that is the biggest threat to individual rights in general.
The law is not *soley and exclusively *about protecting morality—we do not live in a Theocracy.
You can disagree and say govt power should be used here and the women has no say, but reasonable people can disagree with you on this—and it does not make them " evil" abortionist.
The last post quotes the Roe case on this point.
