It's one of the core parts of my belief that individual sovereignty is tantamount. If the technology existed to remove fetuses from the wombs of mother's who didn't want them and if they could be grown outside of the human body to full term then I would reconsider whether abortion was necessary. Whether that would be funded by the State or the church I am not convinced. It's my personal belief that a heartbeat and personhood are not the same, anymore than plugging in a shoebox makes it a computer - but those discussions can happen ad-infintum and many people have religous beliefs that underpin their world view and nobody will budge.

What I will say is that children are formed in the early years. Their psychology is created by their environment between birth and five and the US is not set up to create healthy and well adapted children. This is where Texas, and a lot of people that aren't Texan lose interest. There are a shortage of foster carers, there are a shortage of potential adoptive parents, there's little in the way of free social support, health care and financial aid. It is a pyrric victory to 'save a life' pre-birth then offer little in the way of showing that you value the life.

I appreciate that arguing for state intervention after birth is somewhat contradictory with arguing for a lack of state intervention pre-birth - but that's all part of the fun of being a bleeding heart libertarian and having to draw the line somewhere. That's the ethical line I have drawn. As always, it's instructive to have people disagree with me - all part of the fun of Medium and I'm sure I'll be hopping back over the fence towards the political right soon enough; all part of the fun of being a centre ground Penguin. Thanks for dropping by and continuing the discussion. :o)