If today the state can say you can’t have an abortion, what’s to stop it from saying you must have an abortion in the future, as it does in China?
- Today the state says you cannot murder, rape, assault, rob, etc. Must we seriously worry that because the state can prohibit these crimes today, in the future the state might force people to commit such atrocities?
If such an insane proposition were valid perhaps murder, rape, assault and robbery should all be left to “choice,” unencumbered by government “interference,” lest such crimes become governmentally mandated at a future date.
- Such an argument neglects to examine why legal abortion should be restricted. Calls for proscription are based upon the humanity of the preborn child, the inalienable right to life our Constitution guarantees, and the primary purpose of a government to protect its people. The objective is not merely to restrict women’s “choices,” just as abolishing slavery was not sought merely to restrict white’s “choices.” In both cases a higher, more noble objective is being espoused.
- Current law, while allowing abortions, does not explicitly prohibit a state from forcing abortion. Once personhood is established for preborn children, this threat will no longer exist.