The entire discussion of overturning Roe v. Wade is becoming less and less important, and will continue in that direction. I am not a fan of the decision, and I think we'd already have a decent rule in place if the rule had been legislated rather than decided by an untouchable judge.
That being said, I think it's always been a waste of time fighting to overturn the decision to stop abortions. Roe essentially allows the right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. This has been defined as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."
Obviously, the date of viability will continue to move earlier and earlier, rendering the decision useless, and further exposing the pro-abortion crowd as the barbarians and/or cowards that they are. They will be forced to defend the position of wanting the right to kill a person that could survive and have a long life outside of the womb.
This position is already completely irrational, as is easy to determine. Just ask a pro-abortion advocate when the limit should be. Should it be 9 months from fertilization? Or should it be when the entire body is outside the womb? If you think it's extreme to look at it this way, listen to the rhetoric on the partial-birth abortion ban. This is not just a few people.
So what about late births? Should a baby be protected just because a calendar says it should have already been born, and by all scientific measures it is the same as a birthed baby? The mother is still providing all the oxygen and food necessary for the baby to live, so shouldn't she be able to cut its head off as long as it's inside her?
What about premature babies? Shouldn't a woman still have the right to kill a preemie after it's born? After all, she didn't have the same time to make her decision, or to raise money, or to figure out that she was pregnant, that other women might have had. So how do you tell her she can't kill her preemie? Who are you to control her body? Why can't she have its brains drained out with a turkey baster just because it popped out early?
This approach could already have been so much more effectively used by now if Christian groups had concentrated on furthering the science of fetal care instead of working on the judicial battle. At this point, I want to see these people defend the logical conclusion of their position. They want to kill inconvenient, or unsuitable, or defective babies. Or they are men that are so intellectually milquetoast that they just can't bring themselves to possibly take a position, or to be thought to have taken an unpopular position, which of course is a position itself.
There is no reason to wait decades for the potential of Supreme Court changes, when there is a clear and much more illustrative path available. I fear it won't really pique the interest of most anti-abortion folks, who are usually all or nothing. I don't see why we couldn't get just as excited about truly reducing real numbers of abortions as we do about the slim possibility of outlawing the practice someday.
The bottom line is, earlier viability provides the ability to restrict the right to abort a fetus earlier, and it is both a practical and particularly entertaining direction of approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment