[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by psyang

While I know this is a sensitive topic, I would like to ask a genuine question as it's something I am wrestling with myself. I suspect it may not be a ground breaking question for many, but coming from a very religious background, I'm trying to reason about abortion keeping the idea that the fetus (at some point in the pregnancy) is a living person at the forefront.

I don't think anyone will be able to answer the question of when life really begins for a fetus. So instead I'm trying to frame the question differently, though maybe it's really the same thing?:

Does the fetus have rights at all at any time before birth? And if so, are those rights always secondary to the mother's?

My thinking right now is that the answer should be yes to both questions.

Regarding the first part of the question- I think there is general agreement that very late-stage abortions that are not due to medical/health issues (for either fetus or mother) are not supported. Usually the scenario is met with the idea that "it would never happen", and I tend to agree. But it infers that the late-stage fetus is in some way an actual individual with some semblance of rights. Otherwise, would you support a late-stage abortion for any reason, regardless of how superficial?

Regarding the second part of the question, my thinking is that there is general agreement that, should the pregnancy (at whatever stage) be life-threatening to the mother, and the only way to preserve the mother's life is abortion, then abortion is deemed acceptable. However, if we've established from the first the question that, at some point, the fetus is a person with rights, then the only logical conclusion is that the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights. Consider the opposite scenario - where the fetus (during the stage when it has rights) has its life in danger, and the only way to preserve the fetus is to kill the mother (maybe perform surgery that, because of the mother's condition, would kill her). Would the fetus's life ever be preserved in such a scenario without the mother's consent?

Does this reasoning make sense? I'm interest to hear other perspectives.

That was more or less how abortion worked under Roe v. Wade. At the point that medical professionals determined that it was a viable potential life, they did not perform abortions unless the mother’s life was in danger.