Conversations about abortion take place on many different levels, including medical, legal, political, and moral.
Most lawyers would agree that the constitutional basis for legalized abortion is flawed, and that Roe v. Wade is the perfect example of the ends justifying the mind-numbing means. Justice Harry Blackmun wanted to protect his friends in the medical profession from criminal prosecution. He figured that he could gain points with women in the process. So he essentially created a right to a medical procedure out of penumbras. Not exactly a stellar moment in constitutional history. And if you don’t believe me, just ask Ruth Bader Ginsberg, no shirk in the ACLU-NOW-NARAL department. Justice “G” criticized the method (if not the madness) of Roe.
As far as doctors, the ones at CHOP’s Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment can tell you that medical advances, including the ability to save lives still in the womb, have essentially decimated that whole first, second and third trimester framework established in Roe. If you can operate on a child at the 23rd week of pre-birth life, doesn’t that mean you should think twice before allowing Mom to eliminate it in the 24th?
And then we have the political, which of course has become a sticking point in the upcoming election. The women who are manning the barricades of the spurious war against them think the sky is falling in states where anti-abortion legislation proliferates. And they see the Catholic church’s justifiable anger at the violation of religious freedoms in the birth control area as another, creeping attack on the ‘right to choose.’