Originally Posted by raytri

Only if viability is the only measure of all rights. As far as I'm concerned, the viability standard only applies in the womb. Once you're born, you're a completely independent entity that enjoys all the rights of a full human. And note that a 38-week fetus, for example, enjoys almost full rights. Such a fetus can only be aborted in extreme circumstances.



It's still the most reasonable standard. Imposing the ideological standard of "life begins at conception" removes all choice from everybody, in service of a definition that reasonable people can disagree on. It's a great personal standard; it's a lousy basis for law.



This is true. But such is the result of the collision between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. The line must be drawn somewhere.



Which is fine. The problem is that in order to support your position, one must accept that a fertilized egg is a human, with full rights. I find that simply absurd except as a religious or ideological position.

2-week-old embryo? No rights. Can be aborted at will.

26-week-old fetus? Much more developed, thus entitled to more rights. Can only be aborted in specified circumstances.

38-week-old fetus? Entitled to almost full rights. Can only be aborted for extreme medical reasons, and only after efforts to produce a live birth have failed or been ruled out for extreme medical reasons.

As noted, I have no objection to people who pursue a "no abortions ever" standard in their own life. I have no problem with people who attempt to *persuade* others to adopt the same standard.

But using the law to *force* others to adopt the same standard is a different kettle of fish, IMO. The law should only impose reasonable rules that recognize the competing interests of embryo and mother -- balancing and weighing the legitimate interests of both.