Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I always appreciate hearing what you have to say. I am of the opinion that one cannot (meaning shouldn’t) legislate morality except for the instances where that infringes upon someone else’s rights. In other words, stealing is not just immoral but it deprives someone else of their property, which infringes on their rights. Murder does violate the civil rights of someone else.
However, in McFall v. Shimp, the judge made it clear that although he felt it was immoral for Shimp not to save someone’s life by donating bone marrow to them, that he could not be compelled to do so due to the body of laws that put his body autonomy over his moral obligation to someone else.
I didn’t go into this in the OP because it would have muddied the issues, but one might reasonably hold the opinion that an unwanted fetus is committing a battery upon the woman. Battery is typically defined as unwanted touching that is non-consensual. So legally, who is actually the victim then — the woman or the fetus? In a country that is all about the rights of the individual, and whose body of law reflects that, it is noteworthy that this is so easily suspended in the case of pregnant women. Suddenly she is no longer an individual with rights but is instead considered a host. At the same time there is no uproar about fertilized embryos being destroyed by fertility clinics on a daily basis. The focus on the fetus as a victim is due to the fact that such women are rejecting their natural, god-given role as mothers. It has little to do with the actual potential lives, as evidenced by the fact that fertility clinics are of no concern because they involve women wanting to embrace motherhood, and by the complete and utter lack of support and concern for babies wellbeing once they are born.