Distinctions are sometimes simpler than they seem.
Morality is concerned with what is right and what is wrong.
Legality is concerned with what is acceptable to society.
Morality is absolute, but unknowable: different individuals have different views of morality, and it is impossible to know which is, in the absolute sense, "right". Social acceptability, and thus legality, are malleable, but knowable.
What is socially acceptable depends in part on the prevailing view of what is moral, and in part on the prevailing view of what is expedient.
We allow our conduct to be governed by social acceptability rather than abstract "right" for very good reasons. Nobody knows - or can know - what abstract "right" is. It is impossible to govern conduct by a standard of behaviour that cannot be known.
Equally important, social acceptability changes, and the capacity for change is a necessary element in any functional code of conduct.
It would be lovely if we could be governed by a moral code. We cannot be. We have, therefore, no choice but to govern ourselves by a legal code.
Bringing this back to the issue under discussion, it's pretty clear that the prevailing sentiment in our society is that a fertilized egg is not a human being with rights, and that a fetus ready for birth is. The prevailing sentiment is also that the state should not force a woman to bear a child that she does not want.
As long as those sentiments prevail - which seems likely to be a fair while - early term abortion will be legal, and late term abortion will be illegal. The line between them will be drawn arbitrarily, according to the judgment of society, which is something that can and will change. Will this solution make everyone happy? No. Is it perfect, or "right"? Probably not. Is it the best we can do with what is known at this time? I think it probably is. |
