Let’s be clear about something. Ending or overly restricting legal abortion will not end abortion and may not even significantly reduce the number of abortions. Rather, it will force the practice back under ground to be performed by the back ally butchers who will endanger women’s health and even their lives, and escape any restrictions on late term abortions which may well increase in numbers
I think a good starting point is for everyone to acknowledge:
1. Abortion end a human life.
2. It is wrong to end a human life.
As to your point that changing the law won't end it, you are probably right, but I do believe it would reduce it. It would probably force people behave more responsibly. Raising standards and holding people accountable usually does change behaviors.
As I think that I pointed out, it is not useful to dumb it down to sound bites like "abortion is murder" It's a little more complicated that that.
You state that you believe that ending legal abortion will reduce the number of abortions but you don't know that, and there is, in fact, evidence to the contrary. What we both do know is that ending legal abortion will increase the number of back ally abortions performed by unqualified butchers who will abort late term children and place the mothers life at risk in various ways. Are you not concerned about the woman? Only the fetus which is arguably not yet a human life?
People will be careless and irresponsible about pregnancy regardless of the availability of abortions. Do you actually think that people-women especially-even women who are pro choice-are cavalier about abortion and just think, oh well, I can just have it "taken care of" if I get pregnant? That is an insult to their character and intelligence.
The answer for deceasing abortions lies in the policies that I outlined above in my response to the OP. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies and programs that provide supports to parents who chose to carry a child to term rather than abort. Can you respond to that? Are you really pro-life?
Correct.
The issue concerns the right to privacy, the right of citizens to be free from unwarranted interference from government, where seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law violates the right to privacy, only increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Indeed, the Framers’ intent in protecting the right to privacy was to allow the people to make decisions concerning personal, private matters, such as whether to have a child or not, in accordance with their own good conscience and good faith, not because they are forced to do so by legislative edict.
Therefore, controversial issues such as abortion can be debated by the people in the context of a free and democratic society without the involvement of government or the courts.
Unfortunately, there are those who have disdain for individual liberty and the privacy rights of others and have sought through the political process to compel women to conform to their subjective, personal beliefs concerning abortion by legislative mandate, in violation of the Constitution, leaving women no other option than to seek relief in the courts, to have those un-Constitutional measures invalidated, and a woman’s right to privacy acknowledged.
Now that the right to privacy is clearly settled, accepted and beyond dispute, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year in
Whole Woman’s Health, the debate can now return to its proper venue: our free, democratic, and private society, where the people are at liberty to explore solutions to the problem of abortion that comport with the Constitution and its case law, respecting the right to privacy.
