Abortion has been one of the most controversial and misunderstood issues in recent decades. The line between conservative and liberal is typically drawn differently for this issue than for most other issues. People are often quick to state their general positions on abortion, either pro-life or pro-choice, without much specificity and without making any mention of the typical concerns of the opposing view. A brief analysis of the elements surrounding the issue can help clear up a lot of misunderstanding and reduce the reluctance to directly address the issue.
Roe v. Wade
The Roe v. Wade decision has been one of the most controversial decisions in our nation’s history ever since it was issued. Most people likely don’t even understand exactly what the decision did, nor have most people likely even attempted to read it. For anyone who wants to read it or look through it, here it is. Like many court documents and legislative documents nowadays, this decision document is very verbose and, in my opinion, unnecessarily verbose for the information it was intended to convey. Simply stated, it divides pregnancy into three time periods and limits state regulation of abortion for each time period, as follows:
- During the first trimester: states could not regulate abortion at all.
- After the first trimester but before fetus viability, which was originally deemed to be the 28-week mark: states could regulate abortion for the purpose of protecting the mother’s health but could not ban abortion.
- After fetus viability: states could regulate and potentially ban abortion out of interest in protecting the life of the unborn but still must allow abortion if necessary to save the mother’s life.
One reason the decision was so controversial is that it took abortion out of the hands of the states to a large extent and outlined a set of provisions that greatly limited the states’ ability to regulate or prohibit abortion. The recent overturn of the decision simply eliminated those limitations from the federal level and handed the issue of abortion entirely back to the states. The states can now set abortion laws as they choose with no federal restraint, and some states will do so very differently than others. People can choose which states they want to live in and can influence their state governments through election results. To some extent, the states will be in competition with one another. This is a much better arrangement than having a centralized federal government imposing a certain set of requirements on all the states on an issue like abortion where many states and areas across the country have significantly different opinions on the issue.
Another reason the Roe v. Wade decision was so controversial is that, rather than interpreting and applying existing laws, as courts are supposed to do, this decision acted as a piece of legislation itself, and the provisions stated in it strongly resemble legislation. The basis for the decision, as described in the document, is that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution imply a right to privacy that specifically applies to abortion and that these and several other Amendments imply a more general right to privacy intended by the Constitution. But no such privacy rights are explicitly stated in the Constitution or its Amendments, and the decision even acknowledges this fact. So, the decision seemingly contradicts itself to some extent and generally has a weak foundation that many, including liberals, have questioned over the decades.
This weak foundation ultimately led to the overturn of the decision in 2022, which led to an uproar from the left and from others who have liberal beliefs about abortion. Most of the uproar was manufactured by the leftist mainstream media, which used the occasion to spread disinformation and inflame emotions rather than share important facts with an underinformed public. Roe v. Wade was virtually the crown jewel of court decisions for the left because it set a precedent for judicial activism and “legislating from the bench,” and the left was simply filled with rage when the decision was finally overturned.
Donald Trump recently declared his position on abortion from a federal standpoint stating that he favors no federal legislation and believes the issue should remain exclusively with the states. Considering the extreme differences in opinion throughout the country regarding this issue, this was likely a wise decision. Many left-leaning people in the media and elsewhere have suggested that we shouldn’t believe Trump’s statements on abortion because he appointed the justices who ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade, but his statements are completely consistent with said overturn in that they suggest that abortion should be left to the states without federal limitations.
Keeping abortion out of the federal government also makes sense in light of scientific advancements that reveal more information about various stages of fetal development. For instance, researchers have made varying determinations of when a fetus can feel pain, ranging from 12 to 24 weeks in most cases. Fetal viability is no longer considered to occur precisely at 28 weeks but may occur as early as approximately 23 weeks. And fetal heartbeats can usually be detected by about 5-6 weeks. With ongoing scientific advancements such as these, states may want to modify their abortion laws from time to time, so keeping abortion out of the federal government is good for this reason. More information on these scientific advancements is described in the following links:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
- https://www.webmd.com/baby/when-can-a-fetus-feel-pain-in-the-womb
- https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/when-does-a-fetus-have-a-heartbeat
Democrats are the radicals on abortion.
Many people think of the overturn of Roe v. Wade (or “Roe“) as a radical move, although that’s usually the result of not being sufficiently informed on the issue. The truth is that the Democrat Party easily has the most radical position on abortion and wants to make no effort to reason with its opposition. Democrats in the House and Senate have recently drafted and proposed several versions of what they call the Women’s Health Protection Act. None of the versions have passed both chambers, but the Senate voted on one version of the bill, S.4132 – Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 (“WHPA bill”), on May 11, 2022. All Senate Democrats voted in favor of it except Joe Manchin (see full results here).
Democrats claim that the WHPA bill simply codifies the Roe provisions into actual legislation, but it really goes far beyond that. The bill is written such that it would allow virtually no state regulation of abortion at any time in a pregnancy whereas Roe allowed such regulation to various extents beginning after the first trimester. Also, the bill would give the “treating health care provider” sole discretion over the question of whether viability has occurred and the question of whether a certain pregnancy poses a risk to the mother’s life or health. No other opinions would be required regarding these two questions, meaning that providers could potentially frame their own opinions so as to justify abortions in all cases regardless of how far along a pregnancy is or any other factors. This would effectively equate to legalized abortion at any time during any term of a pregnancy.
The WHPA bill’s radical intent is further evident in certain language contained in it or absent from it. The bill refers to a “constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy,” but no such right exists. At least for this reason, if the bill were to become law, it would likely get struck down in the courts anyway. Also, unlike Roe, the bill makes no mention of the states’ or any one else’s interest in the life of the unborn, or the “potentiality of human life”. The concept of any concern for the life of the unborn at any time during a pregnancy is totally omitted from the bill.
Democrats’ radical position on abortion is further demonstrated by Ralph Northam’s comments in the video below where he made statements that included the following text, seemingly in reference to the scenario of an infant that has just been fully birthed but has severe deformities: “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired“.
This sickening commentary seems to allow for the possibility that a newly born infant may be left to die when it could potentially be saved. Regardless of the extent of any deformities of the infant, this commentary is extremely radical and disgusting. It shows that the Democrat Party’s radical abortion stance may try to extend into partial-birth abortion and even infanticide. By the way, partial-birth abortion is currently illegal according to 18 U.S. Code § 1531.
The corporate interest in abortion rights.
People may have noticed that the corporate world seems to favor abortion rights, and some large companies have even offered to fly their employees to other states so that they can legally get abortions. There is a specific motivation for this. Many, or possibly most, large corporations want a stable workforce of workers who will do as they’re told, not rock the boat too much, and have minimal obligations or distractions that could compete with those workers’ dedication to their jobs.
Pregnancy, family life, and family values are examples of such obligations or distractions, and corporations will often accommodate their employees and even encourage abortions if it might seemingly make their workforce more dedicated to their company. A healthy family life and healthy family values are generally good for the long-term well-being of a company’s employees, but many corporations don’t care much about this. Those corporations often just want their employees to be happy enough in the moment to continue their dedication to their work.
The moral aspects of abortion.
As uncomfortable as it may be for some people, the moral aspects of abortion must be addressed. The Founding Fathers recognized that a populace with strong virtues and moral values was essential to the survival and well-being of any nation. For this reason, they encouraged the practice of religion and included freedom of religion in the First Amendment so that the people might maintain a strong moral foundation. The term “self-governing” was intended to describe a populace with such a strong moral foundation. Government cannot impose moral values on its people against their will, so the people have the responsibility of maintaining such values. If the people’s moral values degrade to a certain extent, their nation will collapse regardless of how well its government structure is built.
This framing of the importance of moral values also applies to abortion. The obvious relevant moral concern is the importance of respecting all human life. This includes the two lives involved in a pregnancy, the mother and the unborn baby. The term “pro-life” should imply that both of these lives must be respected and recognized as valued human lives. From a moral standpoint, life must be thought to begin at conception. There’s too much ambiguity and, in some cases, major opinion differences regarding the point of fetal viability, when the fetus can feel pain, and fetal heartbeat. But everyone can likely agree, at least scientifically, that a new human life begins developing precisely at conception.
We can’t simply assume that life only begins upon birth when the baby exits the womb. That would be too convenient and would allow for the delusion that a life doesn’t really exist until we can see it with the naked eye. Of course, we have sonograms now that allow us to see a fetus, so that delusion can hardly be avoided.
With the concept of life framed as described above, abortion at any point during a pregnancy must be deemed morally unacceptable with only a few exceptions. In the ever unfortunate event that a pregnancy must be terminated to save the mother’s life, such an abortion must be considered acceptable, even from a moral standpoint, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.
In the scenario of rape, an abortion could be considered morally acceptable if it is done promptly, although some may even argue against this. In the context of moral values and personal responsibility, the term “pro-choice” can be redefined for its more literal and expansive meaning. The scenario of rape is the only circumstance where the pregnant mother literally had no “choice” in the matter of getting pregnant, so she must be allowed a chance to promptly remedy her situation. However, if she waits a substantial period of time without getting the abortion, then that act of waiting becomes a “choice” in and of itself to keep the pregnancy, and the same moral acceptability no longer applies.
Similarly, in the scenario of incest, a prompt abortion could be considered morally acceptable, although again some may even argue against this. Then again, some may even say a prompt abortion is morally required in this situation, considering the broader moral implications of incest and the biological disadvantages imposed on the fetus. Also worth consideration is the fact that incestual pregnancies are often the result of rape or other abuse, which may also deem a prompt abortion morally acceptable for that reason.
In all other scenarios, provided that the pregnant mother was not forced against her will in any way, her pregnancy is the result of her own deliberate “choices” and she is responsible for that pregnancy from a moral standpoint. In this situation, an abortion would be morally unacceptable at any stage in the pregnancy unless the mother’s life were to become threatened by the pregnancy. There are sufficient safe contraceptive methods available nowadays, and people are responsible for utilizing these methods and for otherwise understanding the consequences of their “choices,” decisions, and actions.
For example, consider the typical career-driven woman who cares little for traditional family values. Generally, she is well off and is not in a vulnerable situation, but she discovers one day that she is pregnant and decides to get an abortion because the pregnancy is an inconvenience to her career and her lifestyle. In this scenario, the decision to get an abortion is not only morally unacceptable but is also cold, selfish, and frankly evil because it involves causing the death of a helpless innocent human life for the sake of the would-be mother’s convenience. She is responsible for her “choices” and their consequences and morally must not try to evade those consequences by causing the death of a human life.
Similarly, consider the example of a man who wants no family or relationship commitments but is satisfied with having many temporary sexual partners over time. He considers himself “pro-choice” (back to the more commonly accepted definition of the term) and expects his sexual partners to abort any resulting pregnancies simply because he doesn’t want to end up with any children. Similar to the previously described scenario, the intent in this scenario is cold, selfish, evil, and of course morally unacceptable because it expresses a desire for the death of a helpless innocent human life, again merely for the sake of one’s convenience.
The above scenarios and examples are presented specifically for the purpose of moral considerations. This is not to suggest that these ideas should be enacted into any legislation exactly as outlined above. Again, government cannot impose moral values on its people against their will, so it is the people’s responsibility to consider these kinds of ideas and maintain a solid moral foundation for the well-being of the nation.
Balancing principle with strategy and realistic expectations.
Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, current and potential future office holders must determine how to respond. Democrats at the federal level and in certain states are suggesting a desire to go even further to the left on abortion while some conservative states have already begun passing new laws that are much more conservative on the issue. Conservative states and Republicans at the federal level would be wise not to get too overzealous with extreme conservative legislation on abortion. People may not be ready for that, and there are too many other important issues such as raging inflation and the disastrous border and foreign policy to risk losing elections over abortion.
A Gallup article entitled Broader Support for Abortion Rights Continues Post-Dobbs includes key statistics about popular support for various positions on abortion. Some of those statistics are as follows:
- Should be legal in first three months: 69%
- Should be legal in second three months: 37%
- Should be legal in last three months: 22%
- Is morally acceptable: 52%
- Is morally wrong: 41%
A Pew Research Center article entitled America’s Abortion Quandary includes more statistics on the same topic. Several of those statistics are as follows:
- Generally leaning toward abortion being legal to varying degrees: 61%
- Generally leaning toward abortion being illegal to varying degrees: 37%
- Legal in all cases, no exceptions: 19%
- Illegal in all cases, no exceptions: 8%
Considering these statistics, Donald Trump was wise to disapprove of federal legislation on abortion. It’s also important to consider that legislation isn’t the only way to reduce abortions. Ensuring that certain remedies, such as adoption services, are readily available may significantly deter pregnant mothers from wanting abortions. Also, simply showing a pregnant mother a sonogram of her baby will cause her to face the reality that she is looking at another human being and may have a strong likelihood of deterring her from wanting an abortion. One amazing organization that offers valuable services to pregnant mothers can be found at the following link: https://preborn.com/. States that enact restrictive conservative legislation should certainly utilize these kinds of additional tactics, remedies, and services in conjunction with the legislation in order to be as fair as possible.
(End of blog. Comments section below.)
(The comment form below collects email addresses to help detect and prevent spam. See full privacy policy.)
Leave a Reply