Once again, the topic is abortion. The leaking of a probable opinion on the matter by the Supreme court has sparked protest. I find the leaking of that opinion unsettling for several reasons. The first hinges on integrity. There is no actual law that addresses this, but those workers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of such documents. I'm amazed that there isn't some mechanism in place, some law. I had to sign an agreement when I worked for an electronic firm that I wouldn't tell anyone their secrets. I didn't even know the secrets! No matter, I had to sign a legal document assuring my employer I wouldn't tell. The other concern is that this is the work of some political operative/strategist to change the course of the mid-term elections. Alls fair in love, war and politics. Is this like chaff being deployed? It has the radar confused for certain. A mobilization of chaos, calculated by and to benefit whom?
Now I've written and expressed my thoughts and opinion on abortion many times. It's an uncomfortable topic simply because it is so contentious. I'm not a person that will remain silent about what I feel. Doesn't make any difference if what I feel is right or wrong to you, I'm telling how I feel. We don't have to agree to be friends. I have never unfriended someone over politics. I have never unfriended anyone because of something they liked, but I don't like. If you don't like me, I will still like me, but I may not like you anymore. See how that works? If you don't like me, I won't like you, even though I still like me.
But let's set aside all of that for a moment. Just what is the Supreme Court considering? Their purpose is to decide if the Constitution guarantees a person a right. In this instance does the Constitution guarantee a woman the right to have an abortion? The short answer is, no. It is not written down in any part of that constitution or its' amendments. So the court has to determine the "intent" of those writing that document. Does it fall under the right to "privacy" that is guaranteed? Depends on if you feel the right to abort another life is a private thing or not. If I decide to kill another person, privately, it is still a crime. Several other amendments are often cited to support the position of abortion. Each is a subjective interpretation of intent. The very reason the court issues an opinion.
What is that opinion really about? For me the Constitution and Its' amendments define the moral attributes of the country. The Declaration of Independence was issued to explain why we were choosing to do what we were doing. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary, etc. etc. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind impels they should declare the causes. This why. The Constitution explains the how. The preamble states the purpose of the constitution. You could say that it is our moral course. It is stated plainly. One purpose of the constitution is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." From whom are "blessings" received. The other big question is, what is liberty?
Liberty, as understood by the framers of the constitution was the ability of every individual to pursue their own interests as long as those interests didn't infringe on another's liberty. Basically, you can do as you like, as long as what you like doesn't hurt others in the process. At that point they started writing down the "rights" and "rules." We know them as articles and amendments. As to where the "blessings" come from it was mutually agreed that there was a higher power that controlled all of that. The manner and degree of control was a subject of debate but it was agreed their is a "moral" authority. Laws exist to define the "morality" of a nation, not an individual.
So to apply all of that to the abortion question. Does a woman have an inherent right to have an abortion? The first test has to be, does that procedure hurt anyone else? For me the answer is always yes. In fact that is the end result of that procedure every time. One, or two lives will be lost. So for me a woman does not have the "liberty" to make that choice. The question really is, are their conditions where it isn't a choice, but rather a necessity? Yes there are. You do have the liberty to pursue you own interests. Ah, but their is that caveat, your liberty can not infringe upon another's liberty.
When the life of the mother is in immediate peril an abortion has always been allowed as a lifesaving procedure. Is that a moral exception? You could look at it that way. I am not supposed to murder anyone, but I can kill you in self-defense. A moral exception to the rule? If my life is in imminent danger I am justified. Did the framers of the constitution address that? No, nowhere in the constitution do the words self-defense appear. It is implied by the second amendment however, the right to bear arms. That is being questioned as well but I feel the majority of us agree, I have an absolute right to defend myself. Is that another moral exception?
Whatever the court decides, it is still just an opinion. It's important to understand that only the congress can make law. It has never been unlawful to perform an abortion as a medical necessity to save a life. What is being debated, the opinion formed, is whether to allow that procedure based on moral reasons alone. Carte blanche?
Does the constitution dictate your personal morality? No, the founding fathers were quite clear in their intent. The glaring example of that is the often quoted first amendment, the separation of church and state. The church dictates moral authority, the state dictates lawful authority. The constitution and the bill of rights do not directly address abortion issues. Does that omission automatically give an individual a "right" to an abortion under all circumstances? That is the moral question central to the issuance of any opinion, whether individually or by the court. Is it moral to take a life as a course of liberty?
As for myself, I feel the court does need to form an opinion and have that opinion voted upon by congress. Abortion as a medical procedure to save a life should certainly be a guarantee. Are there other "moral" exceptions that should allow the taking of a life? In the republic I live in I would hope that there are not. I would only allow that procedure to be used when absolutely medically necessary. That's my morality. It doesn't have to be yours. There are a number of laws I disagree with yet I'm not out protesting or harming anyone else that agrees with that law.
In short, we are defined by our moral exceptions. Yes, everyone agrees on what is moral and what is not, the difference between right and wrong. It's the exceptions to the rule that separate us. True in government and true in mankind.
No comments:
Post a Comment