Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: The Other A Word

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Norm Singleton’s post of Ron Paul’s view on abortion is greatly appreciated. My goodness is abortion one of the most challenging issues of our times. I am tepidly pro-choice, but when I read Dr. Paul’s view, part of me agrees. But, then, part of me doesn’t.

Is the fetus a life that should receive the full recognition of rights that a person does? Does the fact that the fetus is within another person’s body change the situation? Is abortion about “State tyranny,” or is it about the State not intervening in a decision by a woman and her doctor? Can this question be answered by science, or is it a moral and philosophical question?

I would be interested, though, in just how far pro-lifers would go? Say a woman did something to induce a miscarriage all on her own? No one else would be involved except the woman and the fetus. Would a pro-lifer have the State step in and stop the woman? Would a pro-lifer put the woman in prison and somehow stop her from engaging in the behavior that was intended to induce a miscarriage?

If the answer’s Yes, then this implies that the State has the power to quarantine pregnant women, on the theory her right to control her own body is superceded by the fetus’s right to be born. Pregnant women, then, cannot ingest drugs of their choosing, run marathons, or do anything that might injure the fetus. And how could any of this possibly be enforced?

Do we really want to codify certain behaviors for pregnant women that non-pregnant men and women have a right to do? At the moment, I say No, but this is one issue that I remain highly open-minded about.

-Robert Capozzi

Comments

Personally, I think this argument is hampered by the ever-present Myth of State. The question asked is: should it be legal or illegal? I think that's the wrong question. The real questions regarding legality or illegality that need to be asked are two:

1. Is abortion moral or immoral?

2. Is it the job of this particular governing authority (not government in general) to police this particular issue?

The first question is fairly straightforward. There are some for whom the fetus is a person and therefore entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines, and therefore the protection of the government in this matter. There are some for which a fetus is not human, but the mother is, and therefore the mother's rights come first. For those that inhabit the second camp, the second question is easy: no, it should not be illegal at any level. But for those of us in the first camp, we must then address the second question. We must also remember that the State is not the only mechanism by which rights are protected.

I think one thing we can all agree upon is the idea that which is legal is not necessarily moral, and that which is illegal is not necessarily immoral. My rationale (others may vary) is that God delegates certain kinds of authority to the governments of men, while reserving other authorities to Himself. Our governments are to punish sins against men (though we are asked to forgive sins against ourselves), but sins against God are handled by God directly, at His discretion. If He isn't punishing, He has His reasons, and we should not question His judgement. In addition, the State has no special exemptions from God's usual rules; he who steals in the name of the State steals just as surely, for example.

For abortion, we must ask question two for EVERY level of government separately. Does abortion fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? I would say no. The federal government has neither the resources nor, in my opinion, the authority over that sort of thing. (Certainly a WORLD government could not enforce a law without a hideously tyrannical system, and would be a profound usurpation of God's authority.)

Then there's the question of state governments. Now, there are some states out there that are small enough that, perhaps, partnerships between private authority and public authority could work to deal with the problem. However, were my own state of California to do this, it would be little better than the Feds doing it.

Perhaps municipal, or county governments, could enforce communal standards in that area. But in this area, I am going beyond the scope of a national blog. I would be willing to say that the Federal government does NOT have the authority to prevent local communities (or even state governments) from enacting and enforcing regulations of abortion... in other words, Roe vs. Wade was a mistake (and, indeed, the cause of this entire heated debate).

Ultimately, let abortionists know this: God will avenge the murdered unborn. And, as I believe it was Peter wrote, "Vengence belongs to God." Thus, I shall keep my peace. Neither shall I vote in favor of legislation banning abortion and setting up an American Gestapo to enforce it (I(I may as well put on the jackboots myself, in that case), nor shall I stand silently while persons I know consider whether or not to have, or morally support, abortion.

Posted by: Tarvok | March 14, 2006 07:04 PM