Abortion became Constitutional through the process of legally dehumanizing babies. Without dehumanization worked into the classification and labeling of the infant, there would be no legal right to abort the baby. ( In most cases. Not all cases.)
This would result in the argument being filtered down, in the Supreme Court, as one against the Constitutionality of dehumanization.
At some point the baby would be legally referred to as a human, with respect to development phase. Probably at around 5 months.
My initial argument was that the baby should be considered a person with rights if it could survive out of the womb.
Many babies are born prematurely. I was one. And I survived. I was just as much a human being before I was born as I was after. And the only way the court could say I wasn't and other babies are not human, is to dehumanize the infant.
My opinion is that of a doctor, not a lawyer. Or to say an ex doctor who studied the topic over my lifetime and have a medical opinion. My opinion is based on science.
Religiously, I don't believe in abortion on demand. As a scientist and doctor my opinion was that abortion is sometimes a better alternative for the person who is the mother of the infant for reasons that the mother has to make. And in cases should have the right to make. Including in medical cases.
But giving permission to use baby parts in experiments and taking life without cause, just as a matter of a technicality in the right to choose, no, I don't believe in that.
I look at activities from the past and think that in the case of the use of dehumanization by government laws, the act of dehumanization has always resulted in the foundation of genocide, dictatorship, oppression. Tyranny.
Governments should not have the right to dehumanize anybody, including unborn babies. That's what I was saying.
Comments