Abortion is the most highly debated topic in the US. Some argue it from a religious standpoint, others from a legal one.
For me, I know life begins at conception. To end the life of a fetus is murder. Plain and simple. That's how I feel. Some may feel that it is not life, therefore abortion is not murder. I wonder if those who feel that way have ever been pregnant. I question the person who has carried a child and is still convinced it is a "blob of tissue". And do those who support the right to abort, do they support it all stages? Is it ok at 9 weeks but not at 29 weeks? What changes for you at that point. Are we arguing when it becomes life or are we arguing a woman's right to her body? As I will address later, neither of which was a factor in Roe v. Wade.
I will assume most readers agree, its a life. One that is dependent upon its mother for everything. It cannot survive on its own. It's life will cease if the mother does not provide its every need. Its kind of like a parasite, as some have called them. Again, I wonder if these same people have never taken care of a newborn. I currently have one. If I do not tend to his every need, he would die. He cannot feed himself. If he was left to his own accord, he would die. So he continues to be a parasite. And a pretty darn cute one at that.
But lets look at this from a legal standpoint. The libertarian in me will show, but bear with me. First, lets address the murder part. If you murder your neighbor, you will be tried by the state. Murder is not a federal crime. Each state handles how those criminals are tried and punished. This should be the same no matter if the victim is born or unborn. I do not support a Federal Abortion law for that reason. This is a 10th amendment issue.
Second. Lets talk about rights. Who's rights do we protect, the woman's or the child's. Outside the womb we have superseded the child rights over the parents. Inside the womb, the parents rights supersede. Interesting isnt it. About 40 years ago this was argued in front of the Supreme Court. As a privacy rights issue. It was not that they said the woman has a right to her body. It was that the State of Texas, which allowed for LEGAL abortions for cases such as rape and incest, it was argued they were not allowed to ask why the abortion was requested. That was a violation of privacy. Interestingly enough the government only honors this "right to privacy" when it comes to abortion. It is also rarely noted that this decision was based on false testimony. "Jane Roe" claimed she was raped and that was the reason for her request for an abortion. Texas needed proof. She didn't have it, so she went to the Supreme Court. She later admitted that she was never raped.
This landmark decision is full of legal flaws. It is truly an unconstitutional decision. I do not support Roe V Wade from a moral standpoint. It is also a very weak legal argument. When it comes to the rights of the individual, we must also consider the rights of that unborn child.... But to what extent?
Lets consider prenatal care. If you are pregnant and want to keep the child, do you have the final say in how that care is given? Or does the government regulate what you can and cannot do? They warn us against drugs and cigarettes, foods and activity. In most cases its just annoying advice. But in some, it has been cause for government intervention. If a woman has the right to murder the fetus inside of her, does she have the right to get that fetus drunk or high? How about birth options. Does a mother have the right to choose how, and where she gives birth? If a mother chooses a late term abortion, she "partially" gives birth then ends the child's life. If she chooses to give birth in a hospital to a wanted child and the interventions result in a dead baby its an unfortunate accident. If she chooses to birth at home and unintended complications end in the loss of the child, the mother is charged with murder. How can this make sense to anyone if we are arguing that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the unborn?
So back to those who choose abortion. If it is made a crime, how would they be prosecuted? Can we realistically do so? Do the rights of the child supersede yours? How do you prove abortion from a miscarriage? An accident from intention? How do you enforce these proposed abortion laws without infringing on the rights of the innocent mothers who have tragically lost a wanted child? I think this is one aspect many pro-lifers have yet to consider.
I would support physician enforcement only. This is how it was done before Roe V Wade. Mothers were often considered the second victim. Many of them were not even educated on the risks , nor were they aware of the realities of the fetus's life. ( kind of how women today are not fully informed on the risks of birth interventions) The abortionists were the ones the law targeted. There were many reasons for this. Its a very interesting history here for anyone who is interested I suggest researching it.
So while I feel abortion is murder, I do not support laws that criminalize mothers. I do not feel those crimes can be fairly investigated and prosecuted. I will however support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Abortion laws are a states rights issue. That's where all abortion laws should be decided.