The only way it's illogical is if we're deeming one right 'better' or 'more important' than another. The women's right to privacy is just as an important right as the state interest of protecting the life of the fetus. While there are certain exceptions (ie: national security, public safety), generally rights are deemed equals in the eye of the law. As such, when there are competing interests, the solution generally encompasses some sort of compromise. In the abortion case, the compromise is that as long as the fetus needs the mother to survive, the mother has authority to exercise her privacy right. That doesn't invalidate the fact that the state has a compelling interest in the fetus potential life. They can just be overruled by the mother (and only the mother, seeing it's her right that applies in that context), for the allowed duration. Past that time, and considering the mother no longer is technically necessary to bring that fetus to birth, the state interest takes over (and the mother's privacy interest doesn't stop either, it just no longer necessarily applies as the fetus can be technically separated from her).
The day science manages to extract fetuses at any stage of pregnancy without damaging them, this whole thing will be moot. In the meantime, we have to deal with the competing interests.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote