Wrestling With Roe v. Wade
It is probably the most vilified and celebrated legal decision of our time. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, by a 7 to 2 majority, the privacy right of a woman to choose an abortion without interference from the state. Thirty three years hence, it is estimated that over 40 million abortions have been performed in the United States.
I am not a lawyer or a scholar, and I do not play one on t-Blog. But I am an interested observer. I have read through the decision several times. Here are some of my thoughts:
(1) The heart of the ruling is the right to privacy.
Interestingly, I understand this to be a fundamental matter of conservative political philosophy. The conservative believes the best government is one that stays out of your life; "...provide for the common defense, provide an infrastructure, and leave me alone!" It sounds to me like Roe v. Wade is agreeable to this point of view. It is saying that what a woman chooses to do with her own body should not be the concern of the government.
Many oppose abortion for religious reasons. I guess my question would be: Do we really want the law to force compliance to religious views? For instance, some feel that Saturday is the sabbath- to be a day of rest from labor. For myself and many others, Saturday is a day of work; I seriously doubt that a substantial number of Americans desire for the law to force a sabbath rest.
I have a philosophical kinship with those who do not like legalized abortion. Surely we can preach, teach, and try to persuade others. But we cannot use the law to force compliance to our religion.
(2) Nowhere does Roe v. Wade address the unborn fetus as a "person".
It goes to great length to question it as a legitimate life deserving the protection of the state. Contrary views of history and even religion are presented.
(3) Interestingly, the ruling does state that the right of the woman to an abortion is not absolute.
The concern of the state becomes more compelling as the pregnancy develops.
*Thus, the state is not to interfere during the first trimester- it is strictly a matter between the woman and her physician.
*During the second trimester, the interest of the state is limited to the assurance of quality and safe health care.
*But, at the point of viability, when the fetus could potentially live outside the womb, then the government could potentially step in to prevent an abortion.
(4) A most troublesome caveat, to me, is the effective limitation of the state in preventing an abortion during the third trimester.
If a woman and her physician believe an abortion to be in the best interest of her health, then it is to be allowed. The matter does not need to be life-threatening, and can include her "mental health".
To me, this appears to allow abortions at any time during the pregnancy for any reason, including extremely late-term, as long as the woman and the physician agree.
-------------------
Like I have said, I do not like Roe v. Wade. With my next post, I want to share what I would like to see happen with this current matter of law.
You may be surprised.
10.22.06 (10:23 pm) [
edit]
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.22.06 (9:01 pm)
You're right. Many older true conservatives would have jumped on the privacy bandwagon. The Goldwater sorts for sure.
As for third trimester abortions, I'd love to see a panel empowered to go over the facts and make sure that the reasons for the abortion meet some reasonable criteria as long as what they did was kept confidential and the woman and or her doctor had some recourse if they took issue with the panel's findings. My problem is, in the end, I don't trust the government to keep that sort of thing from becomming a political football in and of itself. -People running for election for place on the panel... Yipes! Imagine those ads.
posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
10.23.06 (2:15 am)
dave, i believe this is actually the first time i ever read the actual rowe v. wade thing...my only thought is about the "mental health" portion...women like Susan Smith and that one who drowned her babies in the tub, etc...is that not an example of "mental health" that should have been addressed during and after the birth of those children? doctors and others seem to just negate stuff like that and not protect the living babies...so why would they want to protect a so-called "fetus"? i think the government should stay out of a lot of things!
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.23.06 (7:31 am)
Reply to: surrogate
I'm pretty sure most pro-life Republicans would say the preservation of a human life triumphs a political philosophy, or would even adapt to say he still supports individual rights- the rights of the unborn child. It does appear to be inconsistent. But I think it is equally inconsistent to be so hardcore about a woman's privacy rights with abortion that one refuses to acknowledge any rights for the fetus, even when it is viable.
I concur with your support of a panel to examine requests for third-trimester abortions, and I also concur the way we do government and politics would most likely render the idea amazingly complicated and impotent.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.23.06 (7:35 am)
Reply to: mimi
We know, of course, the government could not force an abortion upon a woman because of her mental instability. Or could it? It readily allows, and maybe even encourages, the procedure when the fetus is determined to be deformed or otherwise abnormal (downs syndrome, etc.). Probably there are political systems, even now, just a step from such forced abortions. Has not China been encouraging the aborting of female babies in favor of males?
posted by:
tfruge1 (
reply)
post date:
10.23.06 (8:19 am)
Another great post PastorDave. I am anxious to read your follow up on this.
You already know my current view about abortion. I am all for the preservation of human life. I would like to see that extended to unborn fetuses. By this belief I call myself Pro-life.
I also believe that a woman or anyone has the right to do what they want with their own body (tattoo's, piercings, drugs, prostitution, etc.) By this belief I consider myself to be Pro-choice.
I believe that a woman shouldn't have to right to kill off her unborn baby even though it is growing in her own body. In my eyes, the fetus has rights too.
I don't believe Roe v Wade should not be completely overturned but I think it needs to be re-inturpreted so the fetus has rights. The only form of abortion I agree with is if it is endangering the life of the mother. All other forms of abortion should be illegal.
I believe that it is important for the government not to be so involved in one's personal decisions. A person's right to choose is their own decision and should be respected by the state. If I choose not to go to therapy, or take my meds, or not have a medical treatment, that should be my decision and my decision only. Abortion should not be included in the right to choose since ultimately it results in the killing of an innocent life.
posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
10.23.06 (8:43 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
haven't they done that for hundreds and hundreds of years?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.23.06 (10:09 am)
Reply to: tfruge1
I am trying to determine if support for abortion restrictions is compatible with the classic understanding of political liberalism. And I think it is. You would like for government to restrict a woman's access to abortion, limiting it to matters of life endangerment. And that gives the government power over the right of the individual. And such is a "liberal" point of view.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.23.06 (5:24 pm)
Reply to: mimi
Well put mimi.
