In my view, voluntary abortion is both the most neglected, as well as attended to, subjects by our judicial system. I deem many of the cases pertaining to this issue to be both politically charged and arbitrary in nature. In order to resolve this matter once and for all emotions must be set aside in order to allow for clear philosophical and constitutional reasoning to be applied.
I have wanted to write about this topic for a long time now. My intention is not to be divisive or offensive; the question of when a human being should be protected under the Constitution is too important to be used as a political wedge or leveraged legislation. My arguments will be based purely on the constitutionality of voluntary abortion, taking into account both the rights of the potential mother and child, not an argument of morals and ethics. I want to create clear legal boundaries concerning the rights of conceived but unborn human beings because current ambiguities in abortion laws are an embarrassment to a country of our intellect.
Any good argument begins with a stated position. Mine: unborn children have the same inalienable rights as a man on his dying bed the moment that child can survive independent of his mother. For some this may be 22 weeks into the pregnancy while for others 32. With improvements in technology this void may dissipate. Regardless, if a potential mother requests an abortion the medical doctor has a responsibility to determine if the child can be extracted by Cesarean section with a reasonable chance of survival.
As Aristotle said, newly born infants come into existence with the capacity to acquire concepts and dispositions, but in the beginning we suppose that their consciousness of the world is a “blooming, buzzing confusion.” (Our legal system and society as a whole apply this observation to those who are mentally deficient or in a persistent vegetative state by appointing an arbiter to speak for them in certain instances.) The capacity of a child to one day realize his rights is what makes human rights inalienable, as opposed to those of an animal, which has no such ability. In short, Aristotle would agree, as soon as a child has the physical and mental independent capability to develop and eventually exercise his God-given rights, then that child must not be denied the right to do so.
Induced abortion is not a state issue but a federal one. Most know of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, states have been given unconstitutional rights concerning issues of viability, parental notification when dealing with minors and informed consent. It is the federal government’s responsibility, not the states, to protect who we as a country determine to be viably intellectual people. The survival of an unborn child should not be dependent on whether the mother lives in Oregon or Texas.
With reference to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy clause becomes a moot point in the context of my argument, and in fact that of the Court’s. A woman’s right to privacy is superseded by that child’s right to life. Timetables for when induced abortions should or should not be legal are irrelevant and irresponsible. A case-by-case basis to determine when the unborn child develops the faculties necessary to qualify as a potential intellectual is an obligation of ours to future generations.
It’s important to clarify the issue of morality so as not to allow it to dilute or convolute my argument. I’m not one who subscribes to the idea of moral relativism; there is such a thing as right and wrong. However, I also believe that some of our most destructive laws have been created from the concept of what is or is not moral. I believe that all laws should be made with individual rights in mind, not so much the collective society’s (although at times these two will cross paths). Moreover, I believe that the legislating of one’s morals will lead to a society numb to any understanding of what is right or wrong, instead relying on the state to inform us.
I’m not sure if this conclusion makes everyone satisfied or no one. Generally, feasible solutions will result in the latter. Women don’t have rights over a child throughout the entire nine-month pregnancy. Religious enthusiasts can’t control women by legislating their morality. In this case individual rights must prevail, both that of potential parent and child.
[email protected]