The legal system of the U.S., as well as most major countries in the world, rule that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. From what I understand historically, it has been mostly thus dating back to biblical times (and well before). Therefore, globally as well as historically, conservatives --
Christian conservatives (who initiated bans back in the 16th century) -- are intruding in the lives of women on the issue of outlawing abortion.
You owe me one dollar
Futhermore, ultra conservatives like Rick Santorum want to allow states to outlaw contraception :shock:
Now you owe me two dollars :mrgreen:
WTF is ultra consevatives? Santorum is ultra?...lol
Again on conservative thought...a logical and rational definition of where life begins. I did not attempt to impose legal standards
One of the differences between conservative and liberal thought are their relationship to absolutes and relatives.
The divide when it comes to abortion is defining when a human life begins. Conservative thought takes it back to the moment of conception. An absolute. Because picking any other point is relativistic, meaning it can be changed at a whim (at any moment)
At one time, the relativistic point of definition was birth. In the womb, the fetus isn't human and has no rights. At the moment of birth, it became human with all said rights. But that definition has a problem. Two babies are conceived at the exact same time. One is born a month premature and so becomes a human and lives to grow up. The other is aborted two weeks after the birth of the first and so was never born, never became human and was never allowed to live. Yet both were at the same level of development and the aborted baby could have lived. Had it just been born a month early.
So the relativistic line was moved backwards to a point defined as viability outside the womb. At the level of medical science at the time, that was roughly the third trimester. But now science has moved even further. Exanple A was borne at 21 weeks and 5 days. Example B....born at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age. This means both children were born just under 20 weeks from fertilization or only a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy. Despite their premature births, both developed into healthy kids.
That is the standard today and there is every likelihood that at some point, a fetus can be sustained in an artificial womb of some sort until it can be "born" and go on to develop normally. So this relativistic standard is dependent on the current state of medical technology. A state which varies dependent on century, culture, locale and money. Is that a rational way to define humanity?
Relativism also has a very slippery slope the other direction. What is viability? A baby can be born and breath on its own, but it can't live on its own. Without the care of an adult, an adult with milk producing breasts or a milk substitute, the baby will die within a few days. Most children would die without care for the first several years. Maybe even the first decade. Does that mean they aren't human because they can't survive on their own?
Under a relativistic viewpoint, why should the age of abortion be something before birth? Why shouldn't it be up to the age the child proves it can survive totally on its own? How many adults can survive totally on their own? For how long.
And since we're being relative, lets take it a step further. The Nazis did this one, aborting, or exterminating if you will, adults who were physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. The mentally or physically infirm. They were a drain on the state, just as an unborn fetus is a drain on the host mother.