Although I am a believer in the pro-life movement, the matter, in my opinion is balancing rights of the unborn versus rights of the woman to choose.
Legal protections on the fetus is not based on whether it is alive, or that it is a human, but when does it acquire civil rights? If a baby could be born in the third trimester and survive, does the unborn baby acquire civil rights at that point? If it does acquire civil rights, what are the limitations on those rights?
Children have limited civil rights; so would the unborn, if they are determined to have rights, have further restrictions? To me the restriction of the unborn’s rights would have to allow for the woman’s right to choose, her ability to know she is pregnant so she can make a decision, and her life has a priority, so a life choice decision can be made by medical professionals should those conditions exist.
It would also have to include whether a baby is viable after two trimesters to allow for those rights to be established.
Finally, if abortion is further limited, the punishment for an unlawful abortion should be limited and forgivable. It would be equally horrible to ruin a woman’s remaining life span for an abortion, since it is a decision made under significant stress and is probably not taken lightly even when a woman chooses abortion.
These proposals are abhorrent to both sides for different reasons, but these considerations must be made to allow pro-life limitations to Roe V Wade.
Robert Irving, West Hanover Township