“The 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade was a significant event in the story of fetal personhood—the story of whether embryos and fetuses are legal persons. Roe legalized abortion care in the United States. However, the story of fetal personhood began long before the 1970s. People have been talking about embryos, fetuses, and their status in science, the law, and society for centuries.”
“Pope Pius IX challenged the canonical tradition about the beginning of ensouled life set by Pope Gregory XIV in 1591. He believed that while it may not be known when ensoulment occurs, there was the possibility that it happens at conception.”
“Before the Counsel ended 8 July 1870, Pope Pius IX established the dogma of “papal infallibility,” for Church doctrine, the Pope speaks the truth with certainty” thus is always right when he says he is.
The Catholic Church defined when life begins and younger religions followed her instructions.
When is conception, when the sperm penetrates the egg’s cell membrane, or injects the male DNA, or when the DNAs combine or when the fertilized egg divides? Maybe there is no moment of conception, but a gradual development from a fertilized egg, through an embryo with a blood pump, through a fetus having a heart into a fully developed baby.
It might be hard to believe, but maybe the Roe v. Wade Court decision set a reasonable standard. During the first trimester abortion is a private decision and by the third trimester society has an obligation to become involved.
An abortion represents some kind of failure. It might be of a device, medication, self-control, ability to protect a woman from rape or simply timing.
Most women seeking an abortion already have a child and are probably married, but don’t have the money or time to raise another child. She probably didn’t have access to effective birth control through Planned Parenthood. Oh yea, they were closed down, so oops. She is probably poor and thrown out by her family for getting pregnant without husband. So the single woman or family is already having a difficult time making ends meet. Now she will need to quit her job and try to find an affordable a pediatrician. The woman is forced to have the responsibility, while the men in politics demand the authority.
But there are things worse than failure like the separation of authority and responsibility. If these two are tightly linked there are far fewer problems. If a group wants authority, then it also assumes responsibility. If the government drafts someone into service, it assumes responsibility for that person’s health as a result of that service. This just common sense, but even here our government can be irresponsible.
Recent state abortion laws are the cases in point. If a state or citizen prevents a woman from having an abortion, then they, by common sense, must assume responsibility for their actions. In this case by becoming guardian of the baby until adulthood, supplying all needed items: medical care, food, housing and nurturing. If they don’t accept responsibility, then they are irresponsible. Rather than turning in a neighbor trying to have an abortion and getting paid, they should volunteer to raise the baby when born.
If I understand the view of Texas, a woman seeking an abortion is killing a baby. I believe this is called murder so she is an attempted murderer with the baby being the victim.
In what other crime is the victim required to live in the same household as the perpetrator?