Monday, November 03, 2008


Over the last year I have had numerous arguments/debates/discussions concerning individual rights. In every conversation that I discuss the idea that the individual is sovereign, I get complete agreement ... until....

The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Until we to abortion. Then, the individual is not sovereign. The individual is a surrogate, a slave to the child. Everyone objects to that characterization, but if a mother's actions are limited to benefit another, against her will.

You can argue this point if you wish, but let me discuss some practicalities.

Human life amendment: can not be enforced as long as Roe v Wade stands. And overturning Roe v Wade would require several things - ONE of which I doubt anyone wants to have happen: overturning the right to privacy.

Overturning Roe v Wade will not be overturned without cases being brought before it. Eight conservative judges will not wake up on the first day of a session and say, 'hey, the past was wrong, we are just going to toss Roe v Wade out'. It will not happen. So, what kind of cases have to be brought? Privacy issues.

The alternate is that, so far, any attempt by a state to make abortion illegal that does not have a 'life or health of the mother' clause has been tossed by the court.

Remember a certain argument I made several months ago when first discussing here our rights. Any sufficiently large number of Americans, with purpose held long enough, can deny the rights of others. Slavery can reintroduced, free speech eliminated. It is possible for Americans to deny the rights of others. Legally.

One of the issues often raised by conservatives is consequences. What would be the consequences of making abortion illegal. Most that argue for that outcome are quick to point out that they will not make the mother criminal. How that position can be reconciled - IT CAN'T - with any support for a strong support for laws, is beyond my ability. Those that have argued with me have told me they would arrest the doctor for murder. RU-486 and other types of abortive drugs would be banned. Of course, we can not ban abortion or drug availability in other countries - but that doesn't bother some, anyone that leaves pregnant and comes back not is guilty...what punishment they want in those cases is usually left unstated.

If the mother can not be allowed to have an abortion, what about actions that could be reasonably thought to cause spontaneous abortion? No one wants to go there, but a few have suggested that overt acts should be illegal. In other words, actions that can cause abortion would be made illegal.

Overturn Roe v Wade, lose the right to privacy. Make abortion illegal, you significantly infringe upon the mother's rights. These seem to be irrelevant, and many will tell you that we would never go so far. Really? I doubt it. Because the same people (often) that will tell you that gay marriage is a slippery slope don't seem to think that banning abortion has a similar slope.

And finally, where are those that oppose abortion on adoption. There are 50,000 kids awaiting adoption in this country. There is no mass movement on the right to address this life issue. Victoria and I became foster parents. Of the 15 couples and women that were in our training group, 2 were 'conservative'.

I oppose abortion. I think it is wrong. I oppose smoking, most drinking and all illegal drug use. My opinion is not enough. The individual is sovereign. And until a child is viable, the ONLY individual we have is the mother.

No comments: