In reality, both sides have valid arguments.
About abortion.
The two sides are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, but since the A for abortion is something of a scarlet letter, the two sides organize themselves as pro-life or pro-choice.
Because being pro sounds better than anti.
The problem is another A-word — absolutes. A binary yes-or-no choice doesn’t fit this subject.
Revolving this requires the wisdom of Solomon, who ordered the baby to be cut in half to determine the true mother. (Sorry about the cut baby metaphor.)
Is abortion on the first day of pregnancy — let’s say with the day-after pill, poisoning a few cells — legally and morally the same as partial-birth abortion, which kills a fully formed fetus?
Sorry, “kills” is the right word.
I hate the idea of abortion, but that’s visceral and I try to base my written opinions on reason, fact, and logic.
As a matter of “fact,” I see no right to abortion in the XIV Amendment, the key passage found in Section A:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
From this, with a possible wink to the IV Amendment, an earlier Supreme Court divined a “right of privacy,” a term that is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.
This invented “privacy” right extends to people and their bodies.
If you agree with this, you should find government vaccination mandates unconstitutional. (Private employers can make rules the government can’t.)
So, if you agree that a woman (yes, I am saying only women can get pregnant), can do anything she wants to her body, she can get an abortion.
By the same token, would you agree she has the right to cut off an arm, for no medical reason?
Her business, not ours, right? We should do nothing to interfere?
OK, that is coming off as anti-abortion pro-choice.
Let me switch hats, to an extreme example.
A woman becomes pregnant as a result of a rape, by her father.
Should the victim survivor of incest be required to carry the residue of rape to term?
Only absolutists would say yes.
In a less dramatic example, should a woman be forced to live through a pregnancy caused by the failure of contraception?
In Roe vs, Wade, the Supreme Court found a “right” to abortion, but not an unlimited right.
No state could ban abortion before fetal viability, then thought to be about 26 weeks.
The Mississippi law under challenge drops the viability to 15 weeks.
Abortion advocates fear that due to the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, Roe may be rewritten or overturned. They are screaming that this is happening because of a conservative majority on the court and that’s not fair!
They had no problem with 60 years of a liberal majority.
I would like to introduce one thought that I never hear in these deliberations.
The “right” of the father, who “owns” 50% of that fetus, biologically speaking. You know, half the DNA from the father, half from the mother. And the father’s sperm did the hard work of finding and fertilizing the egg.
But once that is done, the father has exactly no rights. None.
If the mother wants to terminate the fetus, she can do so without the agreement of the father. He has no say.
Conversely, if she wants the child and the father does not, he has no authority to end the pregnancy. And once the infant is born, the father is obligated to provide support for the child he did not want.
I find a disturbing lack of — what’s today’s buzzword? — equity.
So much for the all-powerful patriarchy, and just something different to think about.
Stu – fyi… Dave Chappelle including a bit in one of his stand-up routines based on the same concluding argument you made at the end about fathers’ rights. When you really consider both sides of any given argument, the world turns from black&white absolutes to grey, doesn’t it? ‘morning! Bob
I was unaware Chappelle had done that, thanks.
HAPPY FRIDAY !!!
pallie,
Like you, I believe in the constitution. People use “liberal’ and ‘conservative’. Me too. Few use ‘constitutionalist’.
Technology and modern science tells us that we have a living baby at as early as 15 weeks. After that – MURDER.
As you pointed out. Day after pill and other real reasons, such as life threatening, are reasons for abortion. All of which should be determined early in the pregnancy.
Tony
I too see both sides- a heresy I must keep secret in my liberal bubble world.An ardent feminist friend of ours struggled for years to adopt a baby but I’ ve never had the temerity to ask if her strident pro abortion viewpoint had softened any.Ever notice an inconsistency of opinion concerning abortion and the death penalty?
Well, the death penalty deals with guilty life while abortion deals with innocent life.
I had a passionate argument with a friend who denies it is not “life” before birth.
He could not be moved from that irrational opinion.
True- I just meant that the left is fanatically devoted to abortion but hates the death penalty and the right visaversa.
👌
Re: death penalty. Adjudicated guilty can mean innocent; see Innocence project
First, 1 in a million. Second, we are discussing the rational for the penalty, not the individual.
A rare look at an issue so divisive.
Thanks.
POI: Pro life originally wasn’t a result of Roe v. Wade.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/a-brief-history-of-the-
I make no apologies for my belief that life begins at conception. And there is plenty of Holy Scripture in the Old Testament that says the people thousands of years ago knew about life being a gift from God. That hard position being said, let’s move onto the argument of why prostitution is illegal. If a woman has a right to privacy (i.e., a right to do with her body as she wishes — the ‘right’ to kill the life growing inside her right up to the moment the baby is born) why can’t she sell her the use of her vagina for a profit? Where are the women who bellow about a ‘woman’s right to her body?’ They are oddly silent.
Where have you been? That argument is being made. https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/sex-work-is-real-work-and-its-time-to-treat-it-that-way/ ; https://www.vox.com/2019/8/2/20692327/sex-work-decriminalization-prostitution-new-york-dc
I note also that libertarians have long opined that all victimless crimes be eliminated.
On a personal level being the youngest of 10 children, I am happy poverty is not a reason for abortion. Being raised in an Irish Catholic family our faith were the guidelines for our lifestyle. Life is sacred and according to our beliefs, life should be protected at all costs. However, there are millions Of people who don’t believe the Catholic point of view on this issue. In the Middle East several groups practice Shira law and impose their belief religious system on people. The US constitution protects individuals from imposing religious doctrine on any citizens. Do females in the US have a right to choose an abortion. It is a very complicated issue that will be argued for years to come.
If men could get pregnant, there would be no debate about terminating a pregnancy.
That assumes all women are pro-abortion, a belief that is contradictes by fact. Many women oppose abortion.
Back in the day when I wrote a column for a small free newspaper, I took a little heat for writing that if “meat is murder” so is abortion. My point was not either anti-abortion or anti-vegan, but that both positions stem from a sort of puritanism that taints politics in this country. Something can be wrong, without needing to be banned. Something can be necessary, but limited and regulated. But one issue that troubles me about abortion is that as with alcohol, we tried prohibition and it didn’t end well. So in addition to the situations Stu mentions, such as the day-after pill, rape, incest and failed contraception–I would add the health of the mother–there remain the things we put behind us–backroom abortions, and attempted self-abortions, both often fatal.
The other side of the issue is that regardless of what SCOTUS does, some states will allow abortion (when I was a kid, there were rumors of some high school kids flying to New York to get one. ) In other words, nobody who is well off, or even middle class, will likely be prevented from getting an abortion if they want one. Poor people will bear the burden. I lived in a dry town as a kid, and just outside of city limits, there was one bar and liquor store after another. So I see the whole thing as pretty complicated.
Stu’s notion about the role of men in abortions is something I thought about quite a lot. I think it is quite clear that a man should not be able to force a women to have an abortion–we don’t force to people to have unwanted medical procedures, and a woman’s moral and religious objections are entitled to constitutional protection. The duty of support goes to both partners, but it is designed to protect the state–to prevent the child from becoming a burden on it–not to punish the father. Also, the father does not go through the same physical burdens and risks of pregnancy as the woman. What burden, in “equity” should be placed on him in return? (I’m thinking it might just be “butt out”). If she dies in child-birth, do we execute him? One would hope that a couple would make a joint decision in such a matter, but if that doesn’t work, what is the tie-breaker? Finally, it seems to me that as a practical matter, how in the world would one police such a right to have veto power or “make the call” in such a situation.
Sorry, but I’m still of the mind that abortion should be legal, safe and RARE.
I agree with your last line.