Abortion and the Law

Will, you wrote an excellent essay. It illuminates the issue and taught me a couple things I didn't know.

If "I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion" is in the Hippocratic Oath, how in the hell do doctors justify performing abortions?

I also did not realize how truly convoluted was the logic underpinning this ruling.

One thing we all need to realize as Americans is that abortion is a multifaceted issue. For one, it's a states' rights issue. How is it we live in a country where 7 black-robed lawyers decided for over 250 million Americans and 50 state legislatures what their laws would be vis-a-vis abortion?

Another aspect of this argument is obviously moral. To you and I, it's the most important and really the only one necessary. But in order to engage morally relativist people, you cannot deal in morality. The only critique I can give your essay is that toward the end it's rooted more in morality than logic. I understand, but someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes will just shut you out. In order to engage these people we have to use logic (although plenty of amoral people are also alogical when it comes to abortion- hence it's always euphemistically referred to as a "woman's right to choose.")

To any pro-choicers out there, I propose a compromise: Strike down Roe vs. Wade and leave it to the states. I would venture to guess that once they all decided, the "choice states" and the "life states" would look a lot like the last couple of electoral college results. And if somebody knocked up his girlfriend in Alabama, he'd have to drive her up to a blue state to get an abortion.

It's not a perfect solution, because a lot of...let's use a neutral term here..."potential humans" will still never get a chance to enjoy that first right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. But at least you and I could have the "choice" to live in an abortion-free state, if not country.

A warning: before somebody throws in the "rape, incest, or health of the mother" red herring, you damn well better have the intellectual honesty to concede this truth: 99% of the time it's done for convenience and is therefore morally and legally unjustifiable. If you don't, I will be all over you like a vegan on a tofurkey.

From the article:

I think one must be careful not to sell one's anti-abortion views, or any views dealing with law, as "because that's what God says." Despite the fact that Judeo-Christian beliefs were held in higher regard at the time of the Constitution's writing, one must acknowledge the fact that the Constitutions grants American citizens the freedom of religion and ensures that they will not be subject to church-based national policy. Given this and the wide variety of religions that now inhabit America, any God-backed argument quickly loses a certain amount of credibility in the realm of national laws and decisions of right and wrong.

I think this is the most attacked aspect of the majority of pro-life arguments, and rightfully so. I think your argument stands alone without the mention of God. I'm not denying God, however in a country regulated by laws, building your foundation upon an entity that one can never hope to prove exists is an exercise in futility. I think your cause would be better served by knowing that a god, if one exists, will provide you with a certain amount of natural reason to affirm your claims.

Aside from the mention of God, I think you have a valid point. I find it odd as well that we won't allow a dying person, clearly at the end of their rope, to end their own life peacefully, but we have no problem letting a mother kill her unborn child.

"Meaningful life" is without a doubt one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. Lucky for you Will, it only applies to unborn babies. ;-) Just kidding... good article.

Burninating the countryside!

Burninating the peasants!

Burninating all the people!

And tears through cottages!

I know it has nothing to do with abortion but that game yesterday sucked. Damn Army QB. If Navy can make a bowl game, we should be able to.

Grumble...

Since everyone that's willing to reply to this article seems to agree that abortion, in general, is wrong, let's examine the more specific cases that deal with instances like rape. Is someone who gets raped and had absolutely no intentions of having a child wrong if she gets an abortion?

It's given that the abortion still kills a person, but the circumstances are much different than a girl who was messing around with her boyfiend and made a mistake. In the case of rape, you have a woman that is not only pregnant with a child that she did not want, but she has suddenly become the to-be mother of a rapist's child. It is undoubtedly a horrible situation.

So now as the judge you have two decisions. It is your choice to force the sustained impregnation of an unwilling woman, or allow her to abort the child. Which do you chose? The woman clearly made no effort to make the child, does not want it, and also has the means to remove it. Is it really within the power of a third party to make such a decision for that woman? How does one determine right given two so-called evils?

I tend to lean toward allowing abortion in specific instances like this, though it is not without hesitation. Anyone else have thoughts on this issue, or perhaps a stronger justification (for either side) than my own?

I have a question that has bothered me for years. Where does our legal system get off using precedents from other cases to make their own decisions? I sort of understand the concept, but what I don't understand is how you can use one case, with it's unique twists and turns to justify a ruling on a completely different case.

The argument that a court has come to a ruling on a subject and that becomes the de facto law of the land is ridiculous. Besides, what if the ruling was, God forbid, WRONG? Then an entire series of rulings will continue to be wrong, based on the original ruling.

Call me old-fashioned, however, I would rather that the judges use their brains and make the difficult decisions instead of blindly following precedent simply because a different judge had made a similar ruling.

Don't lemmings follow blindly and die by the hundreds when they fall off cliffs?

G

P.S. I have a problem with our legal system. I think it needs to become a JUSTICE system, but it never will.

Well, this weekend marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It would appear and I would hope that the President will have opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court in order to eliminate its longstanding hypocrisy. I guess we'll see.