Phoenix wrote:I probably was a little vague in wording of the thread, because there are so many issues involved. What I was referring to, was the concept that the government should not be involved in a situation where the only people that should be involved are the woman and her doctor.[/color][/b]
Of course the government should not be involved in a situation where the only people that should be involved are the woman and her doctor.
The government should also not be involved in a situation where the only people that should be involved are a man and his platypus.
I hope you can see the major flaw in your statement.
Once you have established the premise that the only people who should be involved in a situation are a woman and her doctor, it follows that no one else, including the government, should be involved.
The real question is should the woman and her doctor be the only ones involved in the situation.
The husband/father has no legitimate interest in the decision?
Clearly, the government has an interest in and responsibility for preserving human life. This is demonstrated in a myriad of different ways. So now the question reduces to what is the definition of a human life?
An absolute answer is impossible. Scientists are never going to provide us with an answer that will satisfy all of the interest groups involved in this matter.
So how then do we decide what a human life is and thus to what extent the government can act on it's behalf?
Since scientists can't provide us with the definitive answer, I don't know why we should expect that judges can.
It seems to me that the only proper solution to this dilemma is to put the question to a vote. It's not a perfect solution, but the most valid.
A national referendum is unprecedented, and unlikely. however I would be all for using the device on this issue.
Our form of government is a representative democracy which we rely on every day to define the will of the people and their official definition of any number of terms --why can't we rely upon it in this instance?
The problem is that both sides of the issue are so certain that they are right and that the consequences of their "losing" in any vote so dire that they are unwilling to abide by a political decision that isn't in keeping with their desires. Since both sides of the issue can muster considerable political clout, it's highly unlikely that this issue will be "resolved" in the foreseeable future.
Personally, I don't believe abortion should be allowed in any circumstance other than preserving the life of the mother, but I would support a compromise resolution which held that abortions in the first trimester are absolutely legal. Abortions beyond that time require a doctors sworn affidavit that the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, or prevent the birth of a child so deformed as to seriously call into question its viability, and that in all such instances a review board of peers must affirm the doctor's decision. If the review board does not affirm the doctor's decision, either a suspension or revocation of license will result.
Note that I have excluded "the well being" of the mother from the decision making process. It is far too easy to broaden this term to include consideration of whether or not the women might feel depressed or suffer a loss of self-esteem by giving birth.
Obviously this sort of solution will not satisfy the intense Pro-choicers or Pro-lifers, but it's clear that all that will satisfy them is 100% of their demands, however numerous polls have shown that this is pretty much in keeping with the majority opinion of our populace.
A dispassionate view of the matter reveals that there are two main arguments at odds in this debate:
The sanctity of life.
The ability of a woman to exercise control over her own body.
When human life begins is a side issue introduced by the Pro-Choice to divert focus on the scope of its prime argument.
In fact, there is a generally, accepted legal definition of life as that which can be sustained outside of the womb, and yet still Pro-Choicers fight on for partial-birth abortions. It is disingenuous to claim that the movement's concern about the partial-birth abortion centers on its concern for a tiny fraction of women who might need the procedure to remain alive. It's clear that the motivation is to fight any and all attempts to introduce government control of a woman's decision to have an abortion - at any stage in the pregnancy.
A woman's right to exercise control over her body is a valid enough issue to advance without obfuscation about when life begins.
However, any reasonable person should, when balancing the scales between the two main arguments, place a greater weight on the sanctity of human life than the unfettered rights of women.
Thus the proposed compromise probably tips the scales a bit towards the Pro-Life position, but I assure you that the die hard Pro-Lifers will not approve of the compromise any more than the die hard Pro-Choicers.