I don't think all abortion is on the same degree of sin.
Getting an abortion, for example, due to a medical condition which serious, mortal potential isn't really wicked. There's no shame in the woman wanting to live.
Getting an abortion to be having been raped is sinful, but not necessarily so bad as one having to feel marked for perdition.
But getting an abortion because one simply just doesn't want a child? That's where the true mortal sin lies.
I think this is the more reasonable approach to this issue, rather then laboring under whether the fetus is alive, has a soul, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killing an "unborn child" when no human is aware this infant is alive
does not affect ANYONE but the female, the "unborn child", and doctor directly as well as the maker of all "artificial abortion" related products. Indirectly this affects one male, the doctor and the maker of "artificial abortion" related products.
Human laws are used to create secular rule-sets regulating various human actions that will affect another human(s).
Roe v Wade considered only Norma McCovey and her desire to abort gestation of her third child. There was no abortion of the "clump of cells" creating the "standing" for Norma McCovey. She gave these up for adoption after born.
Norma McCovey had three children but was NEVER a mother.
The
Roe v Wade litigation was about law(s) already passed making abortion(s) illegal. These law(s) would have been challenged without Norma McCovey because two young women lawyers challenging these law(s) were looking for anyone with obvious legal "standing".
The issue of gestation regulation gives all fertile women "standing". The two young women lawyers did not want to risk losing their case due to not having a legitimate issue to be brought before the court. The fact that Norma McCovey was no longer pregnant when
Roe v Wade resolved made "standing" no longer an issue given much weight in most abortion cases.
Roe v Wade did not mention viability except in attempting to weigh the earliest the clump of cells could possibly have their own right(s). The interests of the State(s) were pinned to the desire to enforce the rights a "
speculative person".
Human laws are used to create secular rule-sets regulating various human actions that will affect another human(s).
Why has no litigation
ever considered the other rational for regulating gestation? The male source of sperm; The innocence of children; Doctors or the public opposed to ANY abortion.
Not being aware of pregnancy does not absolve females of the responsibility to determine if voluntary sexual activity has resulted in pregnancy. Rapes do not either but make the State(s) responsible for this as well.
When the "group of cells" has developed a heartbeat after 12-weeks, innocent children, doctors, or the public might hear. The potentially listening public has a real claim of interest in gestation of the "group of cells" creating this heartbeat to proceed naturally. This public interest is as strong as the public desire to prosecute murders.
As the death penalty becomes disfavored by judges and the public, the right to artificially abort gestation does the same.
Humans, "cell groups", fetuses, or the unborn are not usually able to live outside of a womb till 24-weeks. Still; Only 7 nations on earth allow abortions after 20-weeks.
Most people do not agree with aborting gestation after 20-weeks.
Source(s). A bill passed in the House of
Representatives in 2013 prohibiting aborting gestation after 20-weeks but was never addressed by the less representative Senate oligarchy.
The 20-week bill will be irrelevant after Arkansas' 12-week ban is found to comply with
Roe v Wade EXACTLY because
Roe did not consider anyone before the court but only "
speculatively" pregnant females and the duty of the State to protect the "cell groups", fetuses, or the unborn humans within "
speculatively" pregnant females.
The Supreme Court has already punctured the "
viability" argument by allowing the partial-birth method from being banned regardless of fetal age.
The Eighth Circuit just attempted to create a human right to abort before "
viability" by intentionally misreading the
Casey reaffirmation of
Roe like ALL law schools and judges continue to do while misreading
Roe the way
Casey did twenty-plus years ago and ignoring the
Gonzales v. Carhart contradiction.
The regulation of gestation at 12-weeks is the future that ends the legally and politically profitable intentional abortion issue but has extreme culture impacting consequences. Oh sure; the
surgical abortion money has funded pre-viability misinterpretation of
Roe by
Casey.
The corporate interests of drug manufacturers will soon start funding the 12-week ban in order to begin the fight that results in an almost OTC
abortion pill.
The fundamental human right to control the self without affecting ANYONE else directly or for 12-weeks of gestation is the argument and cornerstone for allowing abortion pills to extinguish abortion's legal furnace and ignite the legal furnace regarding control of abortion pills.
