*************************************************************
*************************************************************
" ... point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to
live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks ..."
that is the actual quote from the law altering decision, but it needs to be revisited ... not because any one thinks its right or wrong, but because medicine has changed a lot since 1973.
In fact it has changed so much that babies can live outside the womb as young as 17 weeks following this logic .... 17 weeks is within the second trimester ... in the 80's one of the families I babysat for had a baby at 20 weeks, now a full grown adult you would never realize there was nothing wrong with Chris, he graduated high school with honors and unfortunately I lost news of the family after that.
I personally don't know when 'life starts' but I am willing to err on the side of life than risk killing an innocent. Better to allow it to become life, than to take a life out of ignorance. Its not that its 'above my pay grade' (what an asinine statement, could not believe he said that) ... its not that I am sure 'life begins at conception' ... I'm just not so Omnipotent as to think I could answer such a question -- it ranks up there with "What is the meaning of Life?"
I do know that with the new medical technology out there the standards of Roe v Wade drop down the viable age of babies and so many state laws which would allow abortions into the 4th or 5th months are now illegal by definition.
Roe v Wade must be revisited to redefine the 'viability' range if nothing else.
***************************************
Actually I don't know why there hasn't been several other lawsuits yet. I could see a lawsuit where:
grandparents are suing for visitation rights preventing an abortion
children suing their parents for not aborting them because their life is so bad
father's suing to have the baby moved from one womb to another
father's suing for custody of the baby
girls suing their parents for forcing them to have abortions
father's suing mother's for not having an abortion and forcing them to pay child support.
***********************************************
Yes - that is another thing .... if the father wants an abortion and the mother decides to keep it, the courts say the father has no choice he has to pay child support ...
But if it goes the other way where the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't there is nothing that he can do about it.
50% of that DNA is his, so doesn't he then have a say into how it is treated?
Hmmm, never thought of that did they???
Click to join MonthlyDishcloths
No comments:
Post a Comment