You may want to consider looking at a few Amendments to the Constitution, like the 9th, 14th, and 4th. Perhaps that will help.
"Women are, obviously, known human persons. They make up the majority of known human persons. Human persons have rights that an embryo or fetus does not have until its personhood can be established. For various reasons, the personhood of a fetus is generally understood to commence between 22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the neocortex develops, and it is also the earliest known point of viability--the point at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and, given the proper medical care, still have a meaningful chance of long-term survival. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the potential rights of the fetus, but the fetus itself does not have rights prior to the viability threshold.
So the central thrust of Roe v. Wade is this: Women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not have rights. Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of its own, the woman's decision to have an abortion takes precedence over the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the decision to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a privacy right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there are other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that citizens have "the right to be secure in their persons"; the Thirteenth specifies that "{n}either slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist in the United States." Even if the privacy right cited in Roe v. Wade were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional arguments that imply a woman's right to make decisions about her own reproductive process.
If abortion were in fact homicide, then preventing homicide would constitute what the Supreme Court has historically called a "compelling state interest"--an objective so important that it overrides constitutional rights. The government may pass laws prohibiting death threats, for example, despite the First Amendment's free speech protections. But abortion can only be homicide if a fetus is known to be a person, and fetuses are not known to be persons until the point of viability."
civilliberty.about.com
#104 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-12 01:57 PM
Does the amendment interpret incomplete or physiologically different or retarded fetal development as incapable of surviving on it's own, thus deserving of no individual protection past it's 22 or 24 week of development or is that more like a general guideline?
Also, once the fertilized material is attached to the placenta it's going to form a child. Thus, it's a arguably a person at an earliest stage of development. The neocortex appears to be the legal standard for designating the status of personhood. That could be challenged from my first question regarding accelerated, different or retarded development altering the 22-24 week rule.
Imo "viable removal" does not indicate personhood of the organism, merely the advancement of the technology. This is another reason why abortions should be performed with the utmost of technological knowledge, as early as possible if at all. Minimize the risk of destroying cognizant life and reduce damage to the female having the procedure and begin PTSD treatment including family counseling.
In my stupid mind I always associate the clergy with post-life and pre-birth ceremonies. They should be there to celebrate the sacred moment of new life and provide comfort throughout the trauma of abortion, not to ritualize procreation or limit our understanding of sexual responsibilities.
