- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 27,381
- Reaction score
- 20,154
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Dude...
(1) Every person has the right to life.
(2) The life of a person begins at conception.
(3) A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent authorized by this Constitution or other written law.
Alright, #1 and #3 would be enough to allow for abortion if it were going to save the mother's life. Otherwise, why don't they put a #5 in there for siamese twins? Sometimes, you have to separate them or both will die. So the doctor picks the strongest one. It's sad, but it happens. I don't see how that's any different from our hypothetical abortion case here.
Now look at this...
(4) Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is a need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.
So not only is it allowed when the life of the mother is in danger, but now also any case where a trained health professional (not even a doctor, could be just any nurse) sees the need for "emergency treatment" which is a vague term that can be bent any way a good lawyer wants to bend it.
If that weren't enough, you also have the last bolded part, which allows for any law to be written in the future that explicitly allows other types of abortion, and sets no boundaries on it.
So that's what I mean by jamming their foot in the door.
1-3 does not grant the right for a woman to have an abortion if medically necessary, it just doesn't, and you can't pretend that it does. The 4th bullet does, plain and simple. And the last little section of that is kind of redundant, because new laws can be passed all the time.