Tuesday, November 18, 2003


Is abortion really the most important judicial issue facing the country today? The Democrats apparently think that it is and that's why they have conducted a filibuster against several of Bush's nominees.

Priscilla Owen, for example, is being opposed, in large part, because she upheld the parental notification law passed in Texas. Can it really be that Democrats believe that the parents of minors don't have the right to be informed before a daughter has and abortion? Yes. Oh...the humanity!

This has gone wayyyyy to far. The United States government is not supposed to get into these sorts of issues unless a state has violated a right guarranteed by the Constitution. I don't see the right to an abortion mentioned there...maybe I missed it. All this talk about a woman's "right to choose" and the "right to privacy" is all just a bunch of crap.

The argument against restriciton of abortion is always framed as "a woman's right to choose" what to do with her body. Supposedly this should end all debate because we all know that everyone has absolute soveriegnty over what they do with their body (and other private transactions between consenting adults).

But if this is true, how can the state regulate assisted suicide? It's my body and I don't want to go on living so how can the state make it illegal for a physician to render a service that I am willing to compensate him for? In this case you can't even argue that my decision will place a financial burden on the rest of society - I pay for my own burial and that's it.

And what about marijuana? If I want to smoke pot and I'm not forcing anyone else to do it with me, how can the government regulate that activity? Or cocaine? Or heroin?

What about consensual adult incest? If a woman is 25 years old and wants to sleep with her father isn't that a private affair that should be beyond the reach of legislation?

You get my point. It is accepted that the government can prohibit certain actions even when they involve one individual and affect no one else. It logically follows that a state government should be able to prohibit abortion if that is the will of it's residents. The Supreme court should never have inserted itself into the process.

If Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow the status of abortion law in this country would not change. For change to occur new laws would have to be written in state legislatures and women would have a great deal of influence over how those laws would be composed (or if they would be passed). And, whatever laws that would be passed would reflect the will of the people in that state - and the last time I checked women were abundant in all states and had the right to vote in every one of them.

The fact of the matter is that, excepting the case of rape (incest with a minor is rape so I don't make a decison there) or a threat to the life of the mother (as opposed to the "mental health"), there is no denial of choice involved in prohibiting abortion. Women can easily prevent unwanted pregnancies by not having sex with men when they don't want children. Simple as that. So even if abortion were to become illegal tomorrow (which it won't even if Roe is overturned, which isn't going to happen) women would not be denied the choice of whether or not to become pregnant - they just wouldn't be allowed to get a "do-over" at the price of terminating the pregnancy.

And this is the most burning issue of our day? And Ted Kennedy thinks I'm a Neanderthal? And Michael Moore thinks I'm stupid (I do, by the way, have a passport)?

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=