Don’t Be Fooled

More precisely, don’t let the politicians and their minions fool you.  They want you to be upset over the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.  They want to use this for their own political gain, to garner votes for themselves.  They want to make this a really big deal, but really it is not. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal.  Be clear on that.  (My previous post on 6/24 addresses the opinion itself and includes a link to the full opinion.)

All the ruling does is give the people back their voice that is rightfully theirs.  The people themselves, through their elected representatives in each state may now determine their abortion rules or lack thereof.  The power is rightfully theirs and the rules of the states will be diverse reflecting the diversity of our country. 

All that the Supreme Court did was read the Constitution and return the power to the people where it belongs.  The people of each state, exercising their voices through their elected reps, can and will choose a variety of limitations ranging from total bans to no restrictions whatsoever.  Most will likely not stray too far from what has existed under Roe.   This is the way democracy works.  Rather than being angry, everyone should rejoice in their power and if they do not like their state's rules, they can use their voices through their state representatives to change them.

I would hope that in addressing possible state regulations that the legislators and people of each state do not simply react with emotion, fear, and hate, but sit down and spend time researching the many ramifications of abortion laws and listening to the many views that exist.  I would hope that there will be a tolerance of views that are different from one’s own.  Following are some initial thoughts for such discussions.

First, what is abortion? 

I think we have to begin there.  Abortion kills a preborn human.  That preborn child can be called an embryo or fetus depending on its stage of development.  In humans, the embryo is medically defined as “the developing individual from the time of implantation to about the end of the second month after conception.” From the third month to the point of delivery, the individual is called a fetus.  

So, beginning with conception we have a human organism, a human life.  Though not fully formed, it is unique and it is alive.  We have to acknowledge that regardless of stage of pregnancy, abortion ends the life of this unique human organism.  Abortion is quite simply the taking of a human life.

Is ending the life of a pre-born human acceptable, and if so, when?

Acknowledging that abortion is a killing, the people must decide if this is ever acceptable.  Generally we protect life.  Rules are sometimes, but not always, absolute.  Every state has statutes addressing various forms of homicide.  Some will be various degrees of murder, others will be various degrees of manslaughter, and others will be justifiable homicides.   

The people, through their representatives must decide whether they want an absolute ban or an absolute 9+ month permission for abortion.  If neither absolute, then it must be decided what will and what will not be allowed.

Restrictions and permissions might focus on the point during pregnancy at which the abortion is performed and/or the reason for the abortion.  It should be clear that such allowances are exceptions to the general rule that all life is to be protected. 

For me, the idea of setting a specific and perhaps arbitrary time during the pregnancy before which killing is OK and after which it is not does not comport with this country’s basic belief in the value of life.  Many will have religious beliefs that oppose taking a human life.  Some will believe there is a point before which the child is not well-enough formed to be of value.  These are emotional issues, but they must be considered so as to hear all sides and beliefs as well as the science related to such things as when a fetus can feel pain and when it is viable.

If not time, what circumstances should allow an abortion?

Abortion is seen by many as simply another form of birth control.  It is not. 

Most abortions terminate the lives of children conceived during consensual sex.  Should children so conceived be allowed to be aborted simply because they are not wanted by the mother?  This brings us to the tired phrase of “a woman’s right to choose.”  Should she be entitled to engage in consensual sex and then, if she becomes pregnant, be allowed to abort (i.e., kill) her child?  Or does her “right to choose” occur at an earlier stage?

To say that in such consensual cases the woman was not capable of making the choice to have or not to have sex is demeaning to women.  What happens is that the woman is either unaware of or willing to ignore the possible consequences of that act.  If unaware, we need to do a better job of educating our daughters (and sons); if unwilling to take responsibility for her act and its consequences then we also need to do a better job of teaching our children that acts have consequences and that they cannot do whatever they want with impunity; they cannot disregard the effects of their actions on others (including a child that they might conceive).  Abortion is not just another form of birth control, and we need to teach our children that you can’t just dispose of a life because it is inconvenient for you.

But what about rape and incest or circumstances where the child will have significant medical issues or the mother’s life is truly in danger?  These are exceptions that prove the more general rule.  These are the circumstances that might make a specific abortion acceptable in the same way that certain circumstances make a homicide justifiable.  But abortion should not be generally accepted simply in order to allow it in these small percentage of the unwanted pregnancies that now end in the death of the child.  Any exceptions should truly be exceptional.

Who has the right to order the killing?

Another tired phrase is “my body, my choice” which is often combined with “abortion is reproductive health.”  

Beyond the idea noted above that the woman’s choice comes earlier in the process, the reality is that there are two bodies involved here: the woman’s body which is the carrier for the second new human’s body.  Both must be considered.   In this country we do not give any one group of people the right to murder another.

As to reproductive health, again, that involves the health of the woman before pregnancy along with such things as birth control.  Once she begins the reproductive process the health of both her and her child must be considered.  Indeed, the CDC includes both maternal and infant health in its discussions of reproductive health.

Once there is a pregnancy there are two lives to consider.  But there are also others:  the father, perhaps siblings of the preborn child, and other possible family issues.  The pregnant woman may be carrying the child, but that person is also the child of the father, carrying his as well as the mother’s DNA and family legacy.  Should the father have a voice?  And if so, when?  Personally, I think the child consensually conceived is of both father and mother and neither should alone be allowed to terminate that child’s life.

And what about society in general and our obligation and responsibility to protect all life?  Every one of us bears some responsibility in the creation of any right to abort.

Criteria

If abortion is not completely banned or allowed up to and including birth with no exceptions, then there must be criteria for allowing exceptions to whatever rules exist prohibiting abortion.  It is not just the mother, or mother and father, but also the child that must be considered.   Beyond the interests of the parents, the best interests of the child must be considered; those interests do not usually include death.  The exceptions of things like rape; incest; etc. might fall into an exceptional category making certain abortions justifiable even though they take the life of the unborn and innocent child.  But convenience of the parents, or interference in their careers, lifestyle, finances, etc., should not create the extraordinary circumstances that any exception should require.

Facts, Emotion, and Reason

Right now, everyone seems to be coming to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is no more.  Emotions are running high.  Sadly, those emotions are being manipulated by politicians and the media as they feed the public fiery rhetoric filled with false facts. 

Feelings are emotional interpretations of events.  The events themselves are generally neutral.  That is the case with this decision – it basically just reasserts the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government with power left to the states and the people.  There are those who want you to believe that is evil, but actually it is empowering.  The key question that everyone must ask is “Are your feelings your own or are they being manipulated?” 

Then, we need to put those emotions aside, listen to those with other views, examine in detail all relevant facts, and move forward with reasonable and rational abortion rules that consider and protect everyone concerned, including the unborn children.

Equal Rights are not Special Rights

I listened to the entire Supreme Court argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health last Wednesday.  You can listen to the recording here – DOBBS RECORDING  or read the transcript here -TRANSCRIPT. 

I have no intention here of going through/evaluating all the arguments or predicting outcomes.  Many commentators have already done that and you also can listen/read the above and make your own judgments and predictions.

After making a few brief comments I simply want to focus on the idea of the woman’s right itself, as it struck me from the arguments of the Respondent and the Solicitor General.

As to the few short observations – I thought the attorney for the Petitioner State of Mississippi was outstanding.  Regardless of one’s biases or feelings about the case, he was a fine example of what should be expected of anyone arguing before the Supreme Court.  He was incredibly well prepared, thoroughly knew and understood the relevant law and facts as well as the policy arguments involved.  He listened to the Justices’ questions and concerns, answered their questions, and presented a persuasive case for his client.

I found the other attorneys, while polished orators, to be less prepared and less able to actually answer the Justice’s concerns.

I was impressed with all but one of the Justices.  Eight seemed to ask fair and important questions that were designed to help them to understand aspects of the case or the arguments so as to better render an appropriate decision.  I was disappointed in Justice Sotomayor who seemed to be unnecessarily biased and argumentative in her questions during this argument.

But one thing that struck me about the arguments of the Respondent Jackson Women’s Health and the U.S. Solicitor General were the seeming reliance on some sort of special equality held by women.   These attorneys were arguing to uphold Roe v. Wade and to strike down the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks. 

These attorneys argued that women have a fundamental right to abortion.  When asked what this specific right is – where it is or arises from in the Constitution, they repeatedly referred to “liberty.” If one cuts through all the chaff, their argument seems to be that while we all have a right to liberty, women have a special right within that which allows them to terminate the life of another, at least until that life becomes viable outside the womb.

Now last time I read our Constitution, it provides and demands equal rights for all citizens, not different or special rights for one group or another.  Yet what their argument does is to take the liberty right from the unborn child, giving it no rights at all, and then adding that child’s rights to the woman’s liberty right, giving her some sort of super right.

A woman’s right to control her own body is not a special right, but one that exists for all of us (mandates not withstanding).  But when that right includes the right to take another life as abortion does, it becomes a special right.  Giving women the right to take away the right of another in essence gives them a super-equality; an “equality” that is more than the equality of others.  That flies in the face of the demands of our Constitution and our core principles of equality and liberty for all. 

The weakness of this pro-abortion argument exemplifies the underlying weakness of the Roe v. Wade decision and of the assertion that a woman holds the right to choose not only what happens to her life, but to the life of a separate individual in her womb.  If the woman’s right is based on liberty, it is also a denial of liberty to another.

Other arguments were similarly weak:  for some reason it is, in the mind of the respondent and the DOJ, acceptable that a woman’s right to abortion may be curtailed after the point of viability (somewhere around 24 weeks) but 15 weeks is too early.  Their reliance on the difficulties faced in raising a child were cut short when Justice Barrett reminded them that a woman could give up a child for adoption almost immediately after birth, thus avoiding the alleged harm of parenting.

They also had no real answer to why this question of right to abortion,  not set forth in the Constitution, should be decided by 9 Justices rather than by the people or their legislative representatives.  They asserted it was because those 9 had, in Roe v. Wade, said it was a right.  This circular reasoning does not answer or prove why those 9, not the people, should decide whether that right exists and if so to what extent.

The arguments of Respondent and DOJ simply were not convincing.  They asserted a right exists which puts the women’s rights, her equality, above others, but couldn’t explain precisely what this right is or where this right came from other than a Court decision.  They couldn’t explain why it is necessary that women be granted a special right, giving them some sort of greater liberty or super-equality.

And, when it came to the question of whether the Court should re-examine and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, they argued no, primarily based on nothing more than that the case and its created right to abortion has been around so long. 

Indeed, there was much questioning about whether the court should touch the Roe ruling, especially with the strong political split about a woman’s right to abortion.  Is it some super case that the court cannot touch?

The State’s attorney analogized to the overturning, after 58 years, of Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that created separate but equal, by Brown vs. Board of Education, the case that ruled racial segregation unconstitutional.  In his rebuttal he stated:

In closing, I would say that in his dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson, Justice Harlan emphasized that there is no caste system here. The humblest in our country is the pure, the most powerful. Our Constitution neither knows nor tolerates distinctions on the basis of race.  It took 58 years for this Court to recognize the truth of those realities in a decision, and that was the greatest decision that this Court ever reached. We're -- we're running on 50 years of Roe. It is an egregiously wrong decision that has inflicted tremendous damage on our country and will continue to do so and take innumerable human lives unless and until this Court overrules it.

Just as Brown v. Board, while focused on race, demanded recognition of true equality, so it is crucial that our current Supreme Court also focus on the equality demanded by the Constitution.   Neither women nor any other group should be granted super-rights or super-equality.  And especially not at the expense of the liberty and life of another human being.

Roe v. Wade is not protected from overrule.  If it is Constitutionally proper to overrule it then that is what should be done.  As Chief Justice Roberts noted, no matter how the Court decides, it will likely be charged with political bias in its decision.  So let us hope that they, like the Justices who decided Brown, have the courage to do what the Constitution demands, no matter what the political fallout may be.

About the Abortion Debate

Even though the abortion argument is misplaced in the nomination process for a Supreme Court Justice (and thus reflects ignorance of the Constitution and the role of a judge), since we will nonetheless be having the abortion discussion, here are my thoughts.

First, I think that it is necessary to make the discussion honest.  Here is the medical definition of abortion: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus.

One will note that this definition does not include the words “reproductive rights”  or "women's rights" or “choice.”  Abortion itself is simply ending a pregnancy – killing a living entity growing in a woman’s uterus, regardless of how you may define that life that is terminated.

Reproductive rights would be rights that address reproduction.  That reproduction, while it may occur over a period of time, begins when the egg is fertilized and the reproduction begins.  So those rights would seemingly be involved with the act of creation, not of termination.

This leads me to the word “choice” and the phrase "woman's right to choose."   Excluding acts of forced creation such as rape or similar criminal occurrences, a woman has the opportunity to choose whether to engage in a sexual act long before she faces the decision about abortion and a child growing in her womb.  To assume that women are incapable of understanding the possible consequences of intercourse or the possible failures of birth control, is to assume that their intelligence is fairly low.  Are we to assume that women are incapable of knowing what they are doing, that they are likely to be so overcome with passion or sexual drive that they do not understand the consequences of their act?  Really?

Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body, but that right does not only exist after she has become pregnant.  When a woman freely enters into intercourse, she has made a choice that includes the possible consequence of becoming pregnant.  If she does not want to be pregnant, does not want to carry another life inside her, then she needs to make a different choice when faced with a situation that could result in pregnancy.

Once a woman has made the choice that results in the union of a sperm and egg to begin the reproductive process, she now holds a separate life within her.  Yes, it is her body within which that being will grow, but she has made a choice to place that being there.  And, now, in my opinion, it is not only her life that matters.

There is a selfishness in the idea that the child within the woman’s womb is meaningless; that it is only the woman who matters.  This, to me, is a part of our more generally selfish culture:  if it is inconvenient, just get rid of it.  It is also a childish response to one’s own activity and an inability to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.  And, the encouragement of this response, the failure to hold women accountable for their actions and to instead give them an out,  like the failure to recognize their ability to make a choice about having intercourse, is simply degrading to women.  Real respect for women would not treat them like children.  It would acknowledge their ability to be responsible for their own actions.

Beyond the disingenuousness of abortion being an expression of women’s rights, those who engage in the abortion discussion often fail to even consider the broader effect that abortion has on our attitude towards born children, the family, and on humanity and life itself.

If we can abort lives that are simply inconvenient or not to our liking (e.g. the movement to abort Downs babies), then we are turning children into a commodity.  It becomes about the life of the adults, and not of the children – we will select a child when it is convenient for us, in the way that one selects a dog or even a piece of furniture.  It becomes about enhancing our own lives and not nurturing the lives of the children.  Thinking in the long term, this cannot be healthy for future generations of children or for the future of humanity.

Speaking of humanity, when life becomes a commodity it tends to lose its special value.  If it is OK to kill an unborn child, then why not one being born?  If it is OK to have live birth abortions, then why not well into an infant’s life if that life is just too troublesome?  If we lose our respect for human life, then it becomes much easier to kill in the same way that soldiers are often indoctrinated with the idea that their enemy is somehow less than human.  Easy abortion, abortion on demand, has a way of cheapening life, making it valueless and hence one can more easily take or destroy any human life without remorse.  Is this really the direction we would like to see for the human race?

I believe that the above  points suggest a strong argument against abortion generally.  There will, of course be difficult individual cases such as rape, incest, or simply those rare situations in which an abortion would seem to be the best choice for all concerned, including the child to be aborted.  How to handle these types of situations invokes the beliefs and religious values of those concerned.  But, because these difficult situations will always exist does not mean that abortion should be an accepted alternative in every pregnancy.

Abortion follows the act of reproduction. It is not reproduction.  It is a termination of a reproduction that has already occurred.  It kills a living being, regardless of what one chooses to call that being.  To assume that women have no voice or choice until they find themselves pregnant is incredibly demeaning of women.  To readily accept abortion for reasons of personal convenience turns children into little more than commodities and makes life itself if not valueless, at least less meaningful.  The long term consequences on our civilization seem far worse to me than allowing an unwanted pregnancy to come to term.