Karin Robbins: Legal argument on abortion is about whether the fetus has rights, not the mother

To the Daily Sun,

I can’t make sense of Lucy Wolski’s argument.

First, if she is pregnant, she does not have a "hypothetical, potential fetus", she has a potential person in her uterus, requiring only time to realize that potential.

Second, there are more choices than terminating a pregnancy or raising a child. The best would be contraception, responsible sex, avoiding unwanted pregnancy. There are many safe and effective methods. Another is adoption. Infertility is an enormous problem in this country. Because the pregnant female does not value the fetus does not mean that is has no value to someone else.

Third, what is a "full person"? Persons don’t have the right to stop a beating heart, killing is usually wrong. As to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote, I would say the decision to conceive and bear a child is central to a woman’s life, and government and politics is already heavily involved.

And fourth, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will no longer be the law of the land. Individual states will make their own laws. They already are. In some states, it is illegal to terminate a pregnancy once there is a beating heart, and in others it is legal to kill your baby up until a month after birth. Abortion will not go away. The worst scenario is that you may have to travel to get your desired abortion.

I believe the legal argument is about whether the fetus has rights. What is life, and what is personhood, and when does it begin.

Lucy Wolski is arguing about what New Hampshire’s abortion law should be. I disagree with her, but I agree, our opinions are strong and emotional, not easy to change, but it might help if we could calmly discuss them.

Karin Robbins

Laconia