Abortion and Middle America

For the record, my personal position is that abortion is wrong except to save the life of the mother. My policy position, however, is:

1) that it is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore is not within the federal government's purview, so I agree with the author, it is a states issue, and

2) I think a reasonable abortion law would be to allow abortion to be legal through the end of the first trimester...an arbitrary line in the sand, to be sure…and illegal beyond that. If a woman cannot make up her mind within the first three months, then she should carry to term. As for the oft cited rationale that an unwanted pregnancy could ruin a young woman's life, that is just bunk. Adoption is always an option. Keeping and rearing an out-of-wedlock child no longer carries a social stigma. Pregnant women, regardless of age, can continue to go to public schools, work until almost delivery, return to work almost immediately after...or take that 12 week family leave if they so choose, etc. So, in what way are their lives ruined because of the pregnancy? 100 years ago, even 50 years ago, yes, it very well could be, but today? No way! Their lives may be a little inconvenienced for a while but, hey, when you play with fire you should expect to get burned occasionally.

As for the federal constitutional issue, while I believe it is not within the purview of the federal government, the feds have been intentionally misreading the constitution since it was proclaimed Especially during and since FDR’s “rule” the federal supreme court as well as the legislative and presidential branches of the federal government have tended to ignore the constitutionality of a great many things. If it could be considered a constitutional issue it would, in my opinion, have to be from the stand point of individual rights; in this case, that the unborn child is an individual and has a right to life under the constitution. Given that, the constitution would seem to mandate outlawing abortion. We never have the right to take the life of another individual unless we do it in defense of our own life and property. So under what twisted logic does the mother have the right to end the life of the unborn that is not endangering the life of the mother? Because the unborn is part of her body? Well, it isn’t. The unborn is just “nesting” there temporarily. Is the unborn infringing on the mother’s rights? I don’t see how. As I read it, there is nothing in the constitution that says she has the right to end that life....unless you can somehow fit it under the "pursuit of happiness" right. Killing the child preserves her happiness. But then, which right takes precedent? Why, the right to life, of course, because the pursuit of happiness is infringing on the unborn child's right to life.

On a related note, if we allow abortion, then other laws regarding rights of the unborn child need to be consistent with whatever the abortion laws are. Currently, many states allow abortion but if an unborn child is killed either accidentally or intentionally by means other than abortion the ender of that life can be subject to manslaughter or other charges. It is a violation of the child’s right to life and thus illegal to kill an unborn child EXCEPT when the mother wants to do it. Now, does that make sense?

It is a very thorny issue but not all that complex. That’s my opinion, for what it’s worth.

SusanP

If you admit that the byproduct is a human life then you already understand that it is murder to kill him or her except in self defense, regardless of whether the murderer and the co-conspirators believe it justified. From whence the disconnect?

jerubaal :

I don't see the disconnect...other than I'm not advocating a FEDERAL law for or against abortion. I'm advocating that such laws, if they need to be made at all, should be executed at the state or local level.

So, using your analogy of murder in self-defense, is a woman aborting a fetus to save her own life not, in some sense, self defense? That may be stretching a point, but which life takes precedence...especially if the mother in question already has one or more children that she's the primary care give for?

That said, I'm against abortion in principle...but I don't believe the Feds have the Constitutional authority to regulate it and that there are times when an abortion is justifiable. But, abortion as birth control is not justifiable....