I will start off by saying that , I do not like nor love the fact that anyone has an abortion , I think everyone, including pro -choice advocates,
to see world where unwanted pregnancies are prevented and abortions never happened . However I stand by our current law and would just like to point
out a few things.
I have a problem with the consideration of " person hood from conception" , because this leads to some severely dangerous concepts. First off,
every women who uses birth control could be considered a murderer following this train of thought , because the way many birth controls work is by
preventing a fertilized egg from implanting properly. Furthermore, many women could be considered ignorant murderers just by having a period ,
because many times a fertilized egg fails to implant naturally and is passed in the menstrual system with the women unaware. Person hood cannot be
defined by conception (at least in a legal sense), because this would lead to draconian and barbaric outlawing of contraceptives, including the
morning after pill which does not stop an already implanted fertilized egg.
If there is one thing that is lacking , it's consistency . If the fetus has an equal right to life , and the mother has an equal right to life ,
then how can one put exceptions into that ? Why should the fetus's right to life be taken away , just to save the mother? If the fetus's right to
life overrides the mothers right to autonomy , then women should be forced into any medical procedure regardless of the dangers to her health (not
mortality) and well being if it could go to save the fetus. If it's okay to kill the fetus to save the mother , than why would it NOT be okay to
kill the mother to save the fetus ; after-all both have an equal right to life , and many are setting the premise that it is okay to choose who gets
to live or die in a scenario where you can only save one. Also, under the contention that a fetus's right to life outweighs the mothers autonomy ,
then all women who follow any lifestyle choice , such as drinking too much caffeine , taking important meds for a preexisting health condition that
may increase risk of miscarriage should be fined and imprisoned accordingly correct?All miscarriages should be investigated and imprisoned
accordingly even to the extent of putting the death penalty or life in prison on the table .After all, if the fetus has an equal right to life , the
pregnant women who murders the fetus shouldn't be granted any special exceptions to the law right?
Let's face it , a fetus does NOT have an absolute equal right to life , nor does their right to life outweigh the right to a woman's autonomy
,otherwise the pandoras box of ridiculously unfair and cruel treatment of pregnant women could be justified 100% by the premise.
Here is a short passage from an infamous article that addresses why abortion may not be always be moral , but is justifiable . Please read full
Judith Jarvis Thomas wrote:
"So my own view is that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a
right to do so--we should say that if you refuse, you are, like the boy who owns all the chocolates and will give none away, self-centered and
callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust. And similarly, that even supposing a case in which a woman pregnant due to rape ought to allow the unborn
person to use her body for the hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so; we should say that she is self-centered, callous,
indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses. The complaints are no less grave; they are just different. However, there is no need to insist on this
point. If anyone does wish to deduce "he has a right" from "you ought," then all the same he must surely grant that there are cases in which it is
not morally required of you that you allow that violinist to use your kidneys, and in which he does not have a right to use them, and in which you do
not do him an injustice if you refuse. And so also for mother and unborn child. Except in such cases as the unborn person has a right to demand
it--and we were leaving open the possibility that there may be such cases--nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all
other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive."