Originally Posted by incantana
The question is whether or not abortion constitutes the denial of a constitutional right.
IMHO, the problem with clinging to the constitution for everything is that it is a very old document that was written for a time when options and choices like we have today didnt exist. And, in all fairness to the original authors, these options could not be anticipated to exist. It is a set of rules for a VERY different time, and unfortunately, while there are many great aspects of it, there are some weak aspects to it as well, since it has not been updated as needed. Everything was simpler, judgement calls were more black and white.
The grey areas we discuss today that aborting a fetus at point X is not murder, but at point Y it is, were not even conceivable back then (no pun intended).
Now, a very premature baby can be removed from it's mother, hooked up to a variety of machines, and can survive and even grow to be a full size normal person. Back when the constitution was written, such a thing was about as inconceivable as going to the moon would have been at the time. However, such rigid adherence to rules from another time gives us dilemmas the forefathers could not have possibly anticipated.
I'm sure when the notion of the constitutional right to life was being developed back then, nobody had any idea that one day it would involve having to make a judgement call over whether the 1st-trimester fetus inside a mother is an independent, sentient "life" or not. If it has brain activity, is it a life ? Back then, the concept of scanning and measuring brain activity in a fetus while it is still in the womb, would be as far fetched as the idea of time travel is to us.
If someone perfects time travel 200 years from now, wont that open up a whole rats nest of moral and ethical issues that makes it impossible to apply today's laws in a meaningful way?