Pete Hendrickson (@LostHorizons)

A "Right To Abortion" Is NOT A "Right To Kill An Unborn Child" (Or Fetus, Or Whatever Label You Prefer...) Strange to hear, I know, but a legal fact, nonetheless. THROUGHOUT THE DECADES SINCE THE ROE V. WADE DECISION, the two sides which squared off over the issue of abortion became so rigid with emotional and political investment in their positions that a very key aspect of the matter-- the real legal meaning of abortion, and its implications-- has fallen into the cracks. It never should have done so, but especially now, with Roe undone, and battles arising in various states over whether their Constitutions secure a "right to abortion", this very important matter belongs center stage in our conversation. The fact is, "abortion" (as it relates to a pregnancy) just means, "end the pregnancy". By no means does it also, or inherently, or even at all mean, "end the life of the unborn child". A "right to abortion", even if "found" in a state Constitution or enacted by a legislature, is a right to cease carrying a child in the womb-- thus, ending the pregnancy, period. But just as your right to expel a trespasser from your front lawn doesn't equate to a right to summarily execute that trespasser (even if doing so would be the most convenient solution for you), so, too, a right to expel an unwanted child from the womb is not a right to do so violently, much less fatally. A woman may have a right to terminate a pregnancy. But she has no right to terminate a baby (whether born or unborn). CHECK ANY STATE LAW AT ISSUE and check any judicial ruling at issue by which Constitutional "rights to abortions" are found. See how they're worded. If an explicit "right" to kill the unwanted child is not articulated, but only a "right to abort", then that law or ruling does not even purport to legalize killing a baby (or fetus, or whatever). If, on the other hand, a "right" to kill an unwanted child is explicitly articulated (as unlikely as I think that is), the monster responsible should be immediately impeached and ejected from civilized society, of course. But more to the point, that law or ruling should promptly be challenged on the basis of such language, because if not necessitated by life-threatening physical threat to the mother (in which case no law or judicial support is relevant or needed), such a killing is plainly indefensible and cannot be a "right". Additionally, the principles of law require that a solution to any valid claim of one party (a right to be free of an unwanted pregnancy) which has an adverse impact on any other person (here, the baby, as well as, in many cases, the father) must be made as minimal in its impact as possible. Continued: https://losthorizons.com/N/206.htm#1