Abortion before the third trimester

First off, I will concede this debate to you on the grounds that it is unwinnable from either side of the arguement. My reason for that point of view is that, abortion is a moral issue imposed upon by law. And, the law is set and straight forward and any woman or individual performing an abortion is protected by the law if it is strictly followed. Therefore, what points of law could I argue that would give me an advantage? The law, however, does not and cannot make a moral issue right or wrong. That is determined by the ethical and religeous beliefs of the society in which one lives. And, those morals and ethics are reinforced by every individual in that society. As an example: I think you would more than likely agree with me that cannablism is morally wrong. It is, at least, looked at in our society as being both morally and legally wrong. (a case in which both the law and morality agree.) There have been, and may still be, countries in which chasing down an individual in a neighboring tribe, smashing his head in with a club, and having him for dinner was perfectly O.K. And this point of view was shared by every member of the society. But that fact does not change our belief that it is not morally right to do that. And, we even find it repulsive. After all, we are an enlightened society, right? (I sometimes wonder if that is true?) And, so, that brings me back to my view on abortion. Simply because the law says it is legal does not make it morally right. I would venture to say that if a pole were taken, most individuals would feel it is morally wrong. But, that has not prevented nor changed the law and I doubt that it ever will. The reason I feel that most individuals would feel it is morally wrong is because most individuals believe in a supreme god, and their religion believes it is morally wrong.(I would point out here that I am an agnostic and my moral point of view comes from my old fashioned upbringing and old fashioned world. In other words, before todays moral decay set in.) And from a religeous point of view, abortion, in a sense, would be murder. And that is both morally and illegally wrong in our society. But, since those individuals in charge of the law (the Supreme Court) have chosen to declare it legal, most individuals who practice it have also chosen to view it as morally right. The Supreme Court in making it legal chose to arbitrarily set standards to determine why it should be legal. One of those standards was, "when is the fetus viable?" There choice was that the fetus is viable after the third trimester, and, therefore, to perform an abortion, it must be done before the third trimester. Some abortions now are performed on fetus' by reaching in with tongs and smashing the skull before delivery so that the fetus is not viable after delivery. So let's look at what viable means. Webster's dictionary defines viable as: 1. capable of living: esp.: born alive with such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living. :2.capable of growing or developing. :(such as viable seeds or viable eggs) Now I dout very much that you will find any biologist and, more than likely, if you are honest with yourself, that would not agree that most eggs produced by women and most sperm produced by men are viable. In other words, if we put a female egg with most male sperm we will get conception.(the beginning of life) and that in and of itself meets the second criteria of viability listed in Webster's dictionary. From that point of view, the Supreme Court had to totally ignore the second definition of viability and impose the one in which the organs were developed. But let's dig a little deeper. What exactly is viability? Viability from the very beginning of conception depends on the mother providing nurishment to the developing fetus. And that need does not end after birth. A baby is not even aware of its own existance until it is around six or seven months old, as observed and attested to by most psychologists. But even then it is only viable when provided with, by someone else, the necessities of life. Left to fend for itself, it would die within days or weeks. This need extends over a period of five or six years. Now let's extend this idea to rediculousness just as it is with murdering the fetus. If a child is not taken care of outside the womb, as it is inside the womb, it is not viable until it is five years old. Therefore, by the definition of viability provided by the Supreme Court one should be able to murder a child before it is five years old, because it is not yet viable. You and I both know that that is rediculously outrageous. But just as that logic is rediculously outrageous, so is it rediculously outrageous to destroy a fetus in the womb, when, if left to the natural laws of nature, it will become the child outside the womb. And viability has nothing to do with it, nor does it justify it. All the rhetoric surrounding abortion is nothing more than an attempt to justify murder. That is my opinion, of course.