Should a Pregnant Woman Be Executed?
GUEST COLUMN
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Roe v. Wade that it was unable to ascertain whether a fetus is human; the Court decided that a woman’s right to privacy prevails over any rights of the fetus, at least through the first two trimesters and prior to “viability.” Accordingly, any rights the fetus has prior to this time are subservient to the rights of the woman carrying the child.
While altering the laws of the land, the Court’s decision has failed to convince most abortion foes that the fetus is not a person with certain natural rights. Some have made theological or spiritual arguments; others have relied either primarily or secondarily on biology. Advocates of abortion-on-demand have, for their part, either emphasized the interests of the woman carrying a child or denied that the fetus is entitled to any rights.
You May Also Enjoy
Would any reasonable person think it appropriate to execute a duly tried and convicted pregnant woman before the birth of the baby?
Suggesting that the very young, born or preborn, are not persons is exclusivist. It makes the betrayal of children almost morally palatable.
People who run no hospitals and who do nothing to help the world's poor are envious of the Church's works of mercy and aim to persecute her.