I wrote my thoughts about Roe V Wade the other day. Of course, it is still very much in the news and a topic of debate and discussion. The Democrats, lead by Adam Schiff, are going to attempt to codify a legal right to abortions on demand. That effort will certainly fail. The elimination of the filibuster isn't going to happen. The protests will continue and sadly, I feel, only intensify. What the final opinion of the court will be is still speculation. Drafts have a way of changing. What effect will all this have on the Justices? Will it change their opinion? It very well may do just that. Most times, in my opinion, when people are met with criticism or threats they tend to get their backs up! Yeah, that's an old fashioned term but that's what usually happens. They may strengthen their opinion, this may seal the deal, cause the court to strengthen their resolve. That remains to be seen. Any change may be viewed as a weakness, setting a precedent that the court can be swayed by the mob! Any veneer of impartiality will be removed, and that, that isn't a good thing.
I'm writing this to set down a single point I want to make. I do hope that one day in the future someone will read these blogs through the eyes of history. Only the future will show whether my perceptions are correct. In this case I feel like the court does have to issue an opinion, the correct opinion, that a woman does not have an absolute right to an abortion on demand. Abortion Carte Blanche? No, I don't believe that is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
That being said, I do believe that it will be a mistake to just leave all of that up to the individual state legislatures to decide. As I said in my previous blog, creating a house divided. I believe there needs to be national legislation regarding the whole abortion issue. Abortion has always been an option for medical reasons. What needs to be decided are the conditions that justify the procedure. Is a simple, I don't want to have a baby good enough? Can we decide if sonograms or other medical testing determines the baby would be "less than perfect" that justifies termination? Isn't that eugenics? Is eugenics a valid reason? Fewer than 1% of all abortions are performed as a result of rape or incest. It's a startling statistic but according to recent data 96.5% of all abortions are performed for social or economic reasons. In short, either the woman just plain doesn't want to have a baby, or figures it will cost too much. The price is too high!
Using the current data 3.5% of abortions are performed as a result of the "hard cases." That is to say those instances that may justify the morality of terminating of a life. Our laws delineate the morality of the nation. That may be a rather broad view but it is how I see it. The laws do say what will be allowed and what won't. Some laws fly in the face of traditional morality while others support it. Murder, the taking of an innocent life, especially premeditated, is one of the more heinous crimes one can commit. On the other hand we have justifiable homicide. Are we going to justify the premeditated homicide of 96.5% of babies to satisfy the 3.5% of abortions done under perhaps morally acceptable conditions?
Well. I just wanted to write it down. I believe it will be a mistake to simply strike down Roe V Wade and attempt to ignore the ensuing chaos. Whereas I totally support the repeal of Roe V Wade I do believe further action is required. We need to codify the who, what, where, when and why. Simply reasoning that people will do it anyway is not justification!
No comments:
Post a Comment