A different take on abortion, and equity

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.