All human abortions should be prohibited unless the woman’s health is in danger or the fetus is shown to have severe physical damage (i.e., either lack of or severely malformed important body parts like arms, heart, liver, nose, etc.) or is shown to have severe genetic problems that are very likely to cause at least severe debilitation or death by adulthood (age 20).
Technically, the development of a human being cannot be ended simply at will anytime after fertilization takes place because fertilization is when a human life begins. Rape does not qualify as a valid reason for an abortion.
However, the natural mortality rates of blastocysts and zygotes are impressively high, with less than 50% of pregnancies naturally successfully graduating to the fetus stage of development. Because of the complexity of the process of human biological reproduction, the hard to pin-point moment of conception, the incredibly small amounts of natural hormone and other chemical levels that could potentially alter the success of the pregnancy, the amount of statistical ‘noise’ concerning survival rates at these early stages of development, it is easy to understand that natural processes are far riskier to any conceived child (zygote) than any human policy could be.
Therefore, for any abortion policy to be respectable, it cannot apply the label of ‘human life’ to blastocysts and zygotes which naturally have a higher than 50% chance of being naturally aborted. While actions deliberately taken to induce abortions at this stage (anything from eating the wrong foods to taking abortifacient drugs), including taking drugs that prevent attachment to the uterine wall, could be treated as murder, trying to prove that from the statistical noise at such early developmental stages is a very unwise commitment of resources.
Restrictive abortion policies should be applied when the statistical noise has settled down to a point where far more predictable statistical outcomes are known. This means that there is a significant ‘gray area’ within which predictable outcomes are so low, that government regulation of outcomes would be too arbitrary to be justified.
Given the huge life impact that a new person would bring to the parent(s), and given that sexual intercourse is such a common activity, and given the huge statistical natural variance that normal developments entail, and given the huge demand for abortion services, and given the potentially huge resource demands that successful and effective prosecutions of ‘human life at conception’ violations would entail, and given the high danger posed by risky illegal abortions that are certain to occur, it would be beneficial from a resource conservation standpoint, and from a social stability standpoint, to determine an alternate point on the timeline at which to begin enforcing ‘human life’ protections.
Under this principle, aborting a blastocyst (before its implantation on the uterine wall 5 to 9 days after fertilization) would raise the least controversy.
Since there are no definite markers during the rest of the pregnancy other than the beginning (fertilization and conception) and the end (birth), it appears that the only other alternative would be time limits measured from conception or, most likely, from the last menstrual cycle before conception.
Active Euthanasia – Abortion After Birth
In addition, abortions, or what would better be termed ‘active euthanasia’, permitted under the exemptions stated above should also be allowed at any time after the birth of a child, as well, with no maximum age limit.
Passive euthanasia should also be legalized. However, death should not be aided or accelerated, but life-extending medications and treatments could be withheld while maximum comfort is supplied until death occurs. This treatment would generally be given only to post-birth people, but most commonly used for the elderly.