anonymous:
ok. I have been following you for awhile. And in a scientific view, abortion is killing a human, no one can deny that. But as you have stated before, it is not killing a person. (I hope I am not just misunderstanding) But what if the mother was at a risk in her life if she were to carry the fetus to full term? Would it be okay to abort then? And by okay, I just mean, a reason to justify abortion.
cultureshift:
First of all, I never stated that abortion was not the act of killing a person. The entire point of my position is that abortion is the act of killing a person.
I have stated many times in both posts and answers to questions that losing a child in the process of saving their mother’s life when she is in grave physical danger of impending death is not elective abortion — it’s a form of miscarriage.
Unfortunately, Doe v. Bolton [1973] broadly defined the health of a mother as follows:
The medical judgment [for a late-term abortion] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.
This definition is so broad, in fact, that a mother can have her child killed just prior to his or her birth for almost any reason at all simply by claiming ‘emotional distress’. And some women do, no matter how often people deny it.
Broad Definitions
