The original Roe v Wade decision fell across competing interests of the state. The first was unspoken because the need to protect the vulnerable is a truism. But, argue the victors, WHO exactly is vulnerable here?
Cue violins, because that question seldom has a clear answer unless you define terms, such as ‘There is no ‘who’ other than the woman until an infant draws breath and continues to do so as a viable organism. How’s that for a careful statement which considers values on their own merits?
Too many cases exist where a third-trimester abortion winds up with a “non-viable” infant due to “measures taken.” After all, the idea was to abort, so not many will quibble with the attending physician’s decision to crush the infant’s skull while it’s still in the birth canal. After that it becomes difficult, and moot, to argue that the infant was going to be viable.
On the other side of the question we reach “allow.” This is a free country. Denying an action requires a strong definition of the harm involved, and here wed run up against the legal definition which a) requires that a living, breathing, already-viable human receives harm, and b) makes a command decision that, until a being is fully determined to be both detached from the umbilicus and breathing well, It Just Ain’t A Person.
Viable fetus? Third paragraph above is a truck-sized loophole. Allowed? The legal system declares that no actual person has received an injury. Another truck-sized loophole.
And all because the fourth amendment trumped the humanity of the unborn, for the simple, practical reason that IT COULD. You can’t tell if a woman is pregnant without some kind of search. Cue trumpets.