The anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision is coming up. Because this is an election year, the abortion issue will be on people's minds again, at least for a while. The debate will flare up again, with both sides putting forth the same old arguments. Very few minds will be changed.
I gave considerable thought to this issue before I made up my mind. I also did something that few people have done - I have read the Roe v. Wade decision for myself, to see what it actually said..
As a result of this effort, I have developed a view of abortion that I have not heard anyone else espouse. I don't think that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. I believe that Roe needs to be ANSWERED.
I say this because the Roe decision applied directly to only one law in one state, Texas. Because most abortions laws had the same basis, the states with similar laws considered them invalid and unenforceable.
What was the basis of the Texas law? The health of the mother.
The Texas law was written in the 1830's, before it joined the Union. Most of the states that had anti-abortion laws wrote them around the same time, and for the same reason.
Abortion was a dangerous procedure back then. Many women died, if not from the procedure itself, then from complications.
By the middle of the 20th Century, medical practices improved enough that abortion could be performed without threatening the life or health of the mother. So, the basis of the law was no longer valid. We do not need laws without a sound foundation.
Now, you might be thinking that I have just made the case for abortion rights. However, the Roe decision did say something that makes me say it needs to be answered.
The Roe decision did say that the state (that is, the government) had an interest in protecting life. It stopped short of recognizing an unborn child as a person covered by the Constitution. That leaves us the issue of personhood.
How can we establish personhood for an unborn child? The answer is simple. Establish identity and you establish personhood. The only way to establish identity for the unborn is through DNA.
Whenever an egg is fertilized, the DNA of both the male and the female combine to form a new DNA pattern. Because the new DNA contains parts of both parents' DNA, it can be matched to both. But it cannot not be matched to only one. Therefore, the argument that the fetus is part of the mother's body is invalid. If it were, it would have her DNA and only her DNA.
It is this property of DNA that allows law enforcement to identify murder victims and murderers, rapists and other criminals. DNA is often used to settle paternity disputes as well.
In light of this, the best way to end abortion would be for some state legislator in a pro-life state to write a law recognizing the unborn as persons with the right to life under the Constitution. Once such a law is passed, signed, and tested in the Supreme Court, then other states will begin to enact their own laws. When enough states have passed such laws, then a movement could be made to pass a Right To Life Amendment.
I could say more, but that explains the core of my perspective on this issue.