Under what circumstances should we permit the government to require a pregnant woman to continue her pregnancy against her will?

I. We should not treat the issue of pregnancy as we do, say, the measles or some other disease. Pregnancy may not always be a matter of choice, but it is always a question of choice of action and of personal responsibility. By this we mean that the woman had to decide to engage in certain activity in order to become pregnant, and that choice has created a life that now comes under the protection of the law. The unborn child is a human being and deserves the protection of the law. The government has not determined that a woman should get pregnant, but once she is pregnant, the government has the responsibility to protect the child.

Even the court that imposed the Roe v. Wade decision on America in the first place could see a reason, a rationale, and a responsibility for requiring a pregnant woman to continue her pregnancy against her will, under certain circumstances. Justice Blackmun wrote the majority decision for Roe v. Wade and affirmed the opinion of seven justices that there was a constitutional right to abortion. Blackmun wrote:

[A] state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.