Originally Posted by Richard Davis
What do you think if this abominable abortion right Roe vs. Wade decision gets overturned? Is it correct interpretation of the US Constitution if they do so, or do you believe that the Roe Vs. Wade decision based on "Privacy Rights" was correct interpretation of the US Constitution?
Another question: Why are you not vocal, speaking out about abortions in this nation, whenever the subject comes up?
Last question: Are you of the similar Opinion to RK, that if it is overturned, that the "A Team headed by Samuel Alito is deciding the Law of the Land"?
Richard, I have written extensively about this before, maybe it was before your time?
On a personal level, I have been pro-life forever and personally think about abortion as a sin, although I am not nearly as confident in my faith as I once was.
Even so, I am not nearly as willing as some folks to substitute my personal beliefs for the personal beliefs of another. Many people, 50% or more, believe that many abortions are a medical procedure performed by a woman on her own body. I respect their positions, even if I do not agree. I have thought about this a lot, and my uncertainty on a key legal/philosophical issue is why I am not carrying signs in front of Planned Parenthood even though I generally disagree personally with the pro-choice crowd, especially the activists. This explanation below is why I am not "vocal" to directly answer your question, although I've never avoided the topic when it comes up here.
In my mind, the key legal issue is:
"when do humanity and therefore human rights attach to this fetus such that his right to life supersedes the mother's rights to control her own body." It's a balancing test. I think it is a shame so few activist on either side see it this way. You probably do not, your unshakable certainty in the correctness of your opinions is possibly unmatched.
On the issue, some would say humanity and human rights attach "at conception." Others would say "at or near birth." Other would say, "why does it matter?" To this third group I would reply that we legally kill non-human creatures every day for food, sport, safety or even convenience. Since these non-human creatures do not have human rights that is OK. (Obviously many disagree) I think this issue is important. Somewhere along the line from fertilization to birth "humanity" and "human rights" do attach to the growing fetus. Defining the point where humanity and human rights are acquired by the growing fetus is a tough legal question if God is taken out of the equation. Heck, it is a tough religious question in my mind. It is doubly tough, because the mother and the fetus might both have human rights that must be weighed against each other. Because of the uncertainty inherent in this complicated issue, I respect those who disagree with me, within reason. I am confident enough that humanity occurs well before a fetus is born, and therefore I fully support late term abortion bans. I might personally regret the existence of each abortion, but I do not think that early abortions, especially those long before fetal viability outside of the womb should be banned. I have too much respect for the other side of this debate to support fully outlawing abortion.
Here's another personal thought that I was discussing with my wife just the other day: Abortion is characterized by feminists as a woman's rights issue. An unintended consequence of readily available abortions and universal birth control is that males are encouraged to follow their nature and sleep with whomever they can convince to sleep with them. The consequences are much lower from the male perspective than the consequences were two generations ago. Women on the other hand are, in my experience, wired differently. Women continue to bear nearly the entire psychic burden and huge self-esteem hit of disappointing casual sex and abortion. I digress. Probably this line of thought is a paternalistic enough heresy to get me cancelled, but I think it is a valid point.
Legally I think Roe was wrongly decided. The Court should not have identified a penumbra to the bill of rights and then used it to legalize abortion. The Court in '73 should have said that medical procedures are controlled by the state, so let the states legislate as desired. I do recognize the flaws in this analysis. Still, if Roe is stricken down, the states already have and/or will act to legalize some but not all abortions. Some states will have effective bans. I am OK with state by state regulation, even though travel across state lines to get an abortion is an unfair burden on the poor.
I do agree with Rod that the Supreme Court is more or less deciding "the law of the land." But only on the less important federal level. As noted above, the states have the final say. The Supreme Court set the federal "law of the land" in '73 when they decided Roe. They can do it now differently. On an issue such as abortion, it is proper that the Supreme Court has final say on the federal laws on the topic. I don't think this is controversial, or that Alito is a hack like Rod does. I also think that a lot of justices are going to be adding their analysis to the 1st draft before it is published as the law of the land.
Last word, the midterms were lining up nicely for the Rs. If Roe is stricken in June, this could be the sort of issue that flips the narrative and distracts the voters from the economy. Politically, the timing could not be better for the D's, except maybe in a presidential election year.
Jim
