Sunday, January 22, 2006

Much Ado About Nothing

I have for nearly all of my adult life entirely rejected the notion of the objective existence of human rights. I cannot accept the proposition that human beings, alone amongst all other life forms, are imbued with the natural right to more of anything than a hamster or racoon. God-given rights are a matter of faith rather than reason and have no traction with those, like me, who are devoid of religious faith. Furthermore, I think that our Bill of Rights is better understood if we think of it as what it really is: a bill of restrictions on government power. Nevertheless, I cherish liberty and would like to see its blessings conferred on the people of all nations. I recognize this as a personal preference. The best objective argument I can make for liberty is that where it flourishes so do economies, political stability and individual lives.

No fair and straightforward reading of our Constitution leads to the conclusion that it confers on American women a "right" to abortion. Nor does the same reading lead a rational person to conclude that the Constitution forbids abortion. In that regard Roe versus Wade was a thoroughly dreadful decision and should be reversed as soon as possible because it was an act of judicial fiat rather than a legitimate Constitutional ruling.

The reversal of Roe versus Wade would make abortion, as it always should have been, a matter to be decided by the states or their subordinate political units. If that were to occur we could expect all blue states to quickly eliminate any residual statutes forbidding abortion. Most red states would soon follow suit and at the end of the day a few states would inconvenience female residents desirous of an abortion by making it illegal within their borders. The worst possible outcome is that some women might have to cross a state line to secure an abortion. NARAL and its various affinity groups could then spend their millions of dollars of donations assisting them rather than hiring lobbyists, running TV ads and harrassing Congress.

The Supreme Court has never had a dog in this fight. The whole matter is a tempest in a teapot. It is much ado about nothing.

2 Comments:

Blogger BlackCatAlfa said...

While I agree the abortion debate should be "much ado about nothing", I am appalled and outraged at the tactics of some of the "right to life" groups ( all headed by males ) who march along highways with enlarged photos of "aborted fetus'", and want to rule over womens..all womens' wombs. ( even black women??? )
The next time this happens in my area I will be there with a "enlarged" penis ..which this is what it's all about anyway...isnt it?
I feel, this medical procedure should be determined by the womans physician, her husband or the father, and herself. No government involvement at all.
No politician , priest, reverend, or pastor will have any say over MY vagina, MY womb, or MY decision.
This so completely angers me beyond viable verbiage. sorry...

5:19 AM  
Blogger Moved Elsewhere said...

I respect those who value human life in the womb. I think abortion is a bad moral choice and that women should be free to make it. I am sympathetic to those on both sides of the issue. I think that is called tolerance.

10:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home