A pro-choicer's editorial supporting unfettered abortion made the strange assertion that prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion laws were intended to protect women, not fetuses. She held that it would be "cruel irony" to put them back on the books, on the grounds that the supposed safety of abortion makes them no longer necessary.
Her argument is based on the fact that most early abortion laws focused on "quickening." She claims that this was a simple way to make the distinction between "safe" early abortion and more dangerous later abortions.
Then how does she explain the fact that as medicine grew more sophisticated, the "quickening" distinction was abolished?
Before modern technology such as ultrasound and sensitive pregnancy tests, the only sure symptom of a viable pregnancy was fetal movement. Since many patent medicines were advertised as "menstrual regulators," it might be assumed that the law sought to avoid punishing somebody who did not know that there was indeed a living child involved. After quickening, there could be no doubt.
As medical technology became more advanced, the distinction of "quickening" was abolished, and abortions became illegal at any point during pregnancy. Why, if abortion was previously seen as safe in early pregnancy, would knowledge of fetal development lead doctors to eliminate early abortions as well as later ones? Obviously, the only reason would be to protect the baby.
Although our grandparents might not have realized that even early abortion kills a baby, we know it now. To use past ignorance to promote current evil is despicable.