My View on Abortion
Part of going to law school, I'm told, is that your beliefs get tested. For many students, this entails an upheaval of their old value system. Even though I've yet to begin classes, I think this process has already begun. The more I learn about the law, the more my opinions change.
There was a time not too long ago when I felt that abortion should be illegal.
That has changed. Here is my new opinion:
Abortion, while morally reprehensible, should be kept perfectly legal.
The government can legislate morality, but it is helpless to legislate nobility. There will never be a law requiring me to wave to my neighbor, feed a stray dog, or donate blood. All of these things, I believe, should be done- but it's not the government's place to ensure it happens.
To illustrate my point, let me present a hypothetical. An infant is wandering dangerously close to a cliff. A man, totally unrelated to the child, is sitting on a nearby park bench and watching the entire incident. It would take him thirty seconds to get up, redirect the toddler, and sit back down. Yet he does not. The infant wanders over the edge of the cliff and drowns.
According to every court in our country, this man has committed no crime- and rightfully so.
The government is hesitant to compel us to act because to do so would impinge on our personal liberties. The idea of the individual is so strong in our society that we give greater weight to the stranger's choice to be left alone than his heinous decision to let the child die.
It is the same with abortion. The Constitution is commanded to guard our liberties- if it could force someone to not get an abortion, then the very ideal of personal liberty erodes into nothingness. Like it or not, the government has to value the person's autonomy more than whatever moral mistake they might choose to make. For they are free to do with their bodies what they wish- even if it means ending a human life that lives inside of them.
Morally, I can't condone it; legally, we have to allow it.
There was a time not too long ago when I felt that abortion should be illegal.
That has changed. Here is my new opinion:
Abortion, while morally reprehensible, should be kept perfectly legal.
The government can legislate morality, but it is helpless to legislate nobility. There will never be a law requiring me to wave to my neighbor, feed a stray dog, or donate blood. All of these things, I believe, should be done- but it's not the government's place to ensure it happens.
To illustrate my point, let me present a hypothetical. An infant is wandering dangerously close to a cliff. A man, totally unrelated to the child, is sitting on a nearby park bench and watching the entire incident. It would take him thirty seconds to get up, redirect the toddler, and sit back down. Yet he does not. The infant wanders over the edge of the cliff and drowns.
According to every court in our country, this man has committed no crime- and rightfully so.
The government is hesitant to compel us to act because to do so would impinge on our personal liberties. The idea of the individual is so strong in our society that we give greater weight to the stranger's choice to be left alone than his heinous decision to let the child die.
It is the same with abortion. The Constitution is commanded to guard our liberties- if it could force someone to not get an abortion, then the very ideal of personal liberty erodes into nothingness. Like it or not, the government has to value the person's autonomy more than whatever moral mistake they might choose to make. For they are free to do with their bodies what they wish- even if it means ending a human life that lives inside of them.
Morally, I can't condone it; legally, we have to allow it.
posted by Yorick at 11:40 AM
13 Comments:
Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. If the government can say that murder is a crime, then it can certainly say that abortion is as well. But I guess that goes back to your Christian beliefs and whether or not you believe abortion is murder.
But it seems that the court finds that taking the life of an embryo isn’t okay if it isn’t the mother’s decision. If someone kills a pregnant woman they will likely be charged with double homicide. If a doctor prescribed a pregnant woman an inappropriate drug causing the baby to die I’m sure that most courts will allow a civil case to proceed.
Abortion in the willful destruction of a life, just as murder is. Maybe there can be exceptions such as self-defense in case the health of the mother is at stake.
Personal liberties? Doesn’t abortion take away the future personal liberties of the child that is being killed? If I purposely suffocate my child when they are but a day old I have deprived them of their personal liberties.
But this reasoning all depends on the definition of when life begins. In my opinion, it begins when implantation occurs. The government obviously thinks that is begins at a later date.
Since you use the word morality you must believe in God? Without God and religion there is no such thing as morality.
If you truely believe in God than it isn't up to the stranger to save the child, it's up to God. Since God doesn't give a damn, why should we?
The law in America is broken, I hope you can fix it.
I don't think my post was fully ingested- or perhaps I didn't make my point clear.
The government is commanded to protect our individual liberties. If a woman wants to keep her child (a position I wholeheartedly espouse) then the government is expected to respect this decision and protect the life of her and her unborn child. (The government would consider the embryo property, for the sake of this discussion.)
On the other hand, if a woman wants to have an abortion, then the courts are legally forbidden from intruding. Why? Because the fetus lacks autonomy. It is difficult to conceive of individual rights in a being that is not capable of being independent. This is why there is more of a state interest when the fetus reaches "viability"; the mother is no longer needed. This is also why, perhaps, children are afforded less rights than adults.
Thus, the government must respect the wishes of an autonomous being over than of a non-autonomous being- regardless of how heinous that decision is or appears to be.
One last time- I strongly disagree morally with abortion. (To one of the posters- morality in no way is connected to a belief in God, even though I do believe in Him. Morality is a code for human beings to act toward each other, not a profession of belief. There are several moral atheists.)
I frame my argument in legal principles, which sometimes leads us to conclusions that aren't exactly pleasant to discuss.
Please continue to post- I think that a healthy debate will clarify both our positions.
The point being made here, I think, is that if we allow the government to decide if a woman can or can't have an abortion- then legally, you open the door for the government to tell us what else we can or can't do with our bodies.
I agree that abortion is murder- but I don't know if we should give government the right to decide whether or not a woman can choose to have one. Besides, if abortion is made illegal- abortions will continue to be done at much the same rate as they are done now- they will just be done illegally endangering the life of the mother (include mothers who have been impregnated by rape or incest).
I think this is why our founding fathers decided that there should be a division between church and state. You can't legislate morality- you can't force people to do the right thing.
While abortion, I believe, is murder- it takes place inside the mother's body..... the question is whether or not govenment should be able to govern a woman's uterus.
You sure can't force morality on people-that's why ya can't make sombody stop robbing people or shooting up drugs-but you can create punishments for doing said things! Wait! Doesn't America punish criminals? Sounds like they are already monitoring morality!
Your sarcastic tone is refreshing
(sigh)
Yes, we are monitoring morality, because it is necessary to do so in order to maintain a civilized society.
I said in my first post that we cannot leglislate nobility- things that go beyond the call of duty.
Hence the examples of donating blood, feeding a stray dog, etc.
Our legal system is set up to only punish deviations from the bare minimum levels of morality- those things that almost all people agree are "wrong", regardless of belief or creed.
Your example of robbery would fit here nicely.
As far as taking illegal drugs, as a practical matter, that has more to do with your discretion in the matter than the act itself. The government is loathe to intrude itself into your private life, based on Constitutional issues. Thus, if you only hurt yourself in the confines of your house, there is a very good chance the government will never know about or pursue the matter.
As a society, we are much more concerned about those things that regulate how humans deal with each other, as opposed to how a single human deals with himself in private.
I thought your post was spot-on. I couldn't agree more.
Who is making fun of my sarcasm? It's all I have!
So your stance is that the rights of the strong should outweigh the rights of the weak. I would think that the weak need more protection than the strong.
Government is never perfect and neither are legal principles. The fact that the government allows abortion for any reason is definitely a flaw. Basically it all comes down to who is sitting on the bench when the case it presented.
The courts can already decide what takes place in a woman’s body. Prostitution being illegal is an example. I hope you can figure that one out without me going into detail. The government is already telling us what we can and can’t do with our uterus by not allowing abortions after a certain point in gestation.
And I think that the number of abortions would be reduced drastically if it became illegal. If abortions weren’t as readily available as they are now, I think more women would consider adoption. I still have not set an opinion on whether or not an abortion should be allowed if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, but this is a very rare occurrence these days anyway. But a child’s life should be valued the same regardless of their parents. Whether their father is a rapist or their second cousin.
And I’m not so sure how civilized a society is that allows mothers to kill their young. It sounds more like we are acting like animals. I think protecting the life of a weak and defenseless infant is not beyond the call of duty. And I certainly think it’s more than a matter of nobility.
You're clever, I'll grant you that.
The words "strong" and "weak" are yours, not mine. I used the terms independent and non-autonomous. A being that cannot survive on its cannot have individual rights by default. Evan a newborn can live for a while on its own without help. A fetus, however, is constantly in need of support of the mother. There is a profound difference, one which dictates the legal schism.
You say the case comes down to "whoever is sitting on the bench when the case is presented". I couldn't disagree more. O'Connor was expected to overturn Roe V. Wade and yet did not. Once placed on the bench, most justices (thank God) place the Constitution above their own personal agendas.
As for prostitution, well- that's a tough one. Some jurisdictions have made it legal- basically using the same reasoning you are.
Most jurisdictions, however, prosecute for prostitution because it generally creates more crimes that are not "victimless". This is also, generally speaking, why people prosecute people for putting certain things in their bodies- drug use inevitably leads to more concrete crimes.
Abortion, generally, does not follow such a pattern.
Finally, you resort to an appeal for pity when you resort to calling the unborn child a "young and defenseless infant." No court of law would ever allow you to use such terms to persuade a judge- which is precisely what you need to do in order to try and get the law changed.
Which brings me to my final point- I feel pretty sure in telling you that I feel just as strongly against abortion as you do. I just think it should be legal. I also think it's a horrible thing to committ an affair, but there's not a law for that, either.
A law based on how people "feel" about things would be chaos- not one in which the power of the individual remains supreme.
I did some more research- apparently a lot of legal theorists are concluding that prostitution should be legal- for precisely the reasons I outlined.
So your point is so valid that leaders in the law are reevaluating the issue, so that it's more symmetrical with the abortion ruling.
I don't like the general idea that folks who can't survive on their own shouldn't have the same rights as those folks blessed with independence, but this makes me curious-is that why abortion is "cut-off" at a certain point in fetal development, because the baby might survive on it's own if delivered? But, wow! I liked the chic's comment about how messed up a society has become when we allow(i.e. don't punish) women to harm their children!
Post a Comment
<< Home