Government & Abortion: A simple logic train

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Abortion is a very divisive issue; many people are against it, saying (among other things) that the baby in the womb is alive. Many people are alright with abortion, saying the clump of cells in the mother's body isn't alive.

Any rational, ethical government can, should, and will illegalize the murder of an innocent, living human. Hence, many pro-lifers are against abortion, while many pro-choicers see this as irrelevant. If it's alive, we can't kill it; if it's not alive, then there's no killing involved.

So people as a whole can be seen as being unsure as to whether or not an unborn baby is alive.

If we're unsure as to whether or not it's alive, why do otherwise decent governments choose to permit the baby's death, protecting someone that may be alive? Wouldn't the government's role as protector of innocent humans cause it to err on the side of caution, saying that we shouldn't be allowed to kill unborn babies until we're sure that they're not actually alive?

I added a lot of supplement for clarity to the above paragraphs, but in interest of a simple logic train, here's a simple diagram of what I'm saying:

Government should protect innocent humans-->Fetus may be a living human-->Give fetus benefit of the doubt; do not allow it's death

Fact #10: If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life. – AbortionFacts.com

And because this is a very related point that will certainly be brought up, abortion arguments are essentially based on the question of when life begins (or just selfishness of the parents, but that's a side argument). After all, if abortion isn't permitted after the 3rd term, and any rational & ethical government bans the murder of an innocent living human, then life must begin at the 3rd term! But, in some states & countries, abortion isn't permitted after the 2nd term. So, since any rational & ethical government protects the life of an innocent living human being, life must begin at the 2nd term.

Seems as if we're not clear on when life begins...

And we're back to the moral obligation of society to give the benefit of the doubt to the child who may be alive.

It's also fair to point out that there's a key flaw in this discussion; it's entirely based on when people think a baby's alive, not on any biological evidence. So, when does life begin?

Saying life begins at any particular point in pregnancy would likely be reasonable if there was a drastic, sudden shift in development; for example, if the baby suddenly grew a heart & heartbeat at, say, 25 days, then the baby could be said to be alive at 25 days.

But there's only 1 time when there's a sudden, drastic step in development: conception.

Everything else grows gradually; the only step with a drastic change is when the sperm cell & egg cell first meet.

Even at childbirth, which could be said to be the start of life, there's no drastic change to the baby itself; it simply leaves the mother's body. My Developmental Psychology professor described the mother as basically giving birth to a fetus; for the first few days of a baby's life, it can't even lift it's head. From there, as with all of human development, the baby develops gradually; lifting it's head, moving arms, and crawling, walking, etc.

More on the scientific evidence:
Fact #1: Every abortion kills an innocent human being. – AbortionFacts.com

 

[Tanj]

Abortion is a very divisive issue; many people are against it, saying (among other things) that the baby in the womb is alive. Many people are alright with abortion, saying the clump of cells in the mother's body isn't alive.

Your dichotomy is false. I am alright with abortion and think the baby in the womb is alive.

Any rational, ethical government can, should, and will illegalize the murder of an innocent

You are aware of the number of innocent people your government murdered with the death penalty, right?

So people as a whole can be seen as being unsure as to whether or not an unborn baby is alive.

A comforting fantasy, but that's all it is. As I said earlier. I have no doubt whatsoever that an unborn baby is alive.

Since the rest of your post is rehashing the same falsehoods over and over again, I'm stopping here.

 

[Percivale]

I think the question of when a baby is alive, in the sense of human life not merely biological life, is one of the issues at the root of the question of abortion. Exactly when a person becomes a person, is given a soul or whatever it is that makes them human, is basically a religious question. For that reason government should be careful about how much it gets involved since the first amendment does not allow the government to take a stand on religious questions. To me though it only seems to be a question in the early stages of pregnancy. I take it as a self evident truth that a newborn baby deserves the protection of the law, and about halfway through the pregnancy a baby is not much different from a newborn except being a little smaller. Thus it makes perfect sense for abortion to be illegal at that stage.

The other main issue about whether abortion should be illegal is whether any attempt to enforce such a law would infringe on a persons right to privacy or not. I think that is a reason not to prosecute a woman for getting an abortion, but it is not a reason that providing abortion shouldn’t be illegal.

 

[comana]

I think the question of when a baby is alive, in the sense of human life not merely biological life, is one of the issues at the root of the question of abortion. Exactly when a person becomes a person, is given a soul or whatever it is that makes them human, is basically a religious question. For that reason government should be careful about how much it gets involved since the first amendment does not allow the government to take a stand on religious questions. To me though it only seems to be a question in the early stages of pregnancy. I take it as a self evident truth that a newborn baby deserves the protection of the law, and about halfway through the pregnancy a baby is not much different from a newborn except being a little smaller. Thus it makes perfect sense for abortion to be illegal at that stage.

The other main issue about whether abortion should be illegal is whether any attempt to enforce such a law would infringe on a persons right to privacy or not. I think that is a reason not to prosecute a woman for getting an abortion, but it is not a reason that providing abortion shouldn’t be illegal.

I agree that the government cannot take religious belief as to when a person becomes a person into account when creating laws about abortion, and as such the only parameter the government can use is biological. Any religious beliefs are irrelevant in a legal sense.

As to a woman's right to privacy, if she shouldn't be prosecuted because of her right to privacy than that right also extends to her physician. How can the doctor be prosecuted without violating the woman's right to privacy? As HIPAA laws currently stand, a doctor can not discuss a patient's medical history with others without consent of the patient.

 

[Percivale]

I agree that the government cannot take religious belief as to when a person becomes a person into account when creating laws about abortion, and as such the only parameter the government can use is biological. Any religious beliefs are irrelevant in a legal sense.

As to a woman's right to privacy, if she shouldn't be prosecuted because of her right to privacy than that right also extends to her physician. How can the doctor be prosecuted without violating the woman's right to privacy? As HIPAA laws currently stand, a doctor can not discuss a patient's medical history with others without consent of the patient.

In that case isn’t most of what the FDA does unconstitutional? Would it be a violation of the doctor’s and patient’s privacy to prohibit a doctor from recommending a drug or procedure that the FDA has not approved?