Topic: Constitutional Issues
Abortion: Everyone's Rights Must Be Protected Now that R. J. Moeller has brought up the issue of abortion, it's time to discuss the whole issue and not just the part he wants to emphasize.by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Friday, October 26, 2007
I knew the day would come when this issue would arise on this website. That day is here. R. J. Moeller yesterday published his article on why he believes that abortion is the most important moral question facing America and why the rights of unborn fetuses to life must be protected.
He's half right.
Unfortunately, Moeller (like so many other pro-life advocates) ignores the core argument that pro-choicers make, just as pro-choicers routinely ignore the core argument that pro-lifers make.
Pro-life is the claim that fetuses have the right to life.
Pro-choice is the claim that women have the right to decide what will grow in their bodies at all times.
That's what the real core of the whole issue is. It's also why neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers are capable of solving the issue by themselves. The core issue isn't just whether the right to life should be protected. It isn't just about whether the rights of women to decide what shall grow in their own bodies should be protected. Rather, the true nature of the issue is how to protect both sets of rights. This is a much more important point than most people realize, because the moment that we pick one side over the other is the moment that liberty loses and statism wins, which means it's the moment we all lose except for the ruling elite.
But how can we protect both sets of rights? That's the problem that stumps everyone, and there's no doubt that it's an extremely difficult problem. Yet, instead of facing the problem, we run away from it. We yield to the statist argument that the problem is insoluble, and that we must choose between one side or the other. One right must prevail over the other. The statists must win.
It's no accident that statist Democrats argue for one side of the issue while statist Republicans argue for the other side. You will never see a statist politician speak in favor of protecting both rights. After all, what's in it for them? They can't add to their power if the problem is soluble. They can't justify their claim that the world needs statist leadership if politicians are expected to protect and defend everyone's rights. Only by picking and choosing which rights to protect and which to step on can you continue to justify government that forever grows larger, more powerful, and more intrusive. The moment that you commit to defending and protecting everyone's rights is the moment that you begin that walk up that slippery slope toward liberty and smaller government...and that cannot be permitted to happen from the statist point-of-view.
It's also no accident that libertarian-leaning politicians, regardless of their personal views of abortion, do all they can to put the issue aside. It's no accident that Ron Paul and the late Harry Browne, who both felt themselves to be pro-life, and who both previously ran for President on the Libertarian ticket, tried to de-emphasize the abortion issue in their campaigns, saying that the Federal government shouldn't be involved in the issue. The reason they took this approach (and the reason Congressman Paul is taking the same approach in his current Republican run) is because they knew that the issue itself is insoluble as it is currently defined and that it's a terrible mistake to choose candidates based upon it. By declaring it a non-Federal issue, they hoped to help push the point that we need a smaller Federal government. Yet it is equally clear that the approach satisfies very few people.
It's also no accident that our Supreme Court justices are selected primarily based upon whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. The idea that they should be advocates of strict Constitutional constructionism or the idea that their priority should be to place strong limits on the executive and legislative branches of government hardly even comes up in the discussion of whether to confirm their nominations. Again, I say that this is no accident. It's intentional. It's part of the statist strategy.
Do I know how to solve the abortion problem? Not entirely, but I can point us in the right direction. We now know how to safely transplant all kinds of tissues: bones, hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers, muscles, tendons, ...the list goes on and on. Surely we could learn how to surgically transfer fetal tissue safely. It could either be transferred to the womb of a woman who wanted to have a baby but couldn't, or it could even be transferred to a laboratory environment where it could be grown out of utero. There might even be other possibilities that I as a non-medical-scientist don't even know about. Who knows? Perhaps it's even possible for a male to carry a child to term. Men may not have the internal plumbing to conceive a child internally, but who is to say that their insides couldn't be transformed in some way to allow them to carry a fetus to term that has already been created elsewhere? In an age of medical science miracles, I certainly wouldn't want to rule that possibility out.
I don't doubt that there would be difficulties and obstacles to overcome no matter what approach is chosen. It doesn't matter, because so long as the debate is about pro-life vs pro-choice, our medical researchers will never investigate how to overcome those difficulties and obstacles.
By defining the issue as pro-life vs. pro-choice, we insure that there will only be an ever-widening gap within our population. You're either a murderer (if you're pro-choice) or you're an enslaver of pregnant women (if you're pro-life). How can there be any rational discussion, any attempt at working together to solve such a difficult problem when the lines of division are so emotionally and passionately drawn with such ruthless and merciless opposition to the major point being made by the other side?
If that were the only consequence of the issue as it is defined, it would be bad enough. Unfortunately, it's much worse than that. Libertarians are divided on this issue, just as Americans are divided on it. When liberty-leaning people allow their political decision-making to be driven by this divide, the results are catestrophic. I can't begin to tell you how many people I know (or know of) on both sides of the chasm who otherwise lean libertarian, yet who also threw away all other issues of liberty in favor of this issue.
In 2004, many libertarian-leaning people voted for George W. Bush, not because they liked him as a leader or liked most of his policies, but because he was "pro-life." Similarly, I also know many other libertarian-leaning people who supported John Kerry in 2004 because he was "pro-choice." Again, they didn't necessarily like Kerry himself. If they were honest enough to look closely enough, they realized that Kerry really wasn't very different from Bush. He was just as statist and advocated many positions that were just as toxic to liberty as Mr. Bush has proven to be. In fact, the two men were in many ways very much the same. Only the rhetoric was slightly different. Their actual positions on the major issues were couched in terms designed to appeal to their respective constituencies, but the substance was very similar.
In other words, because the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers were and are unwilling to work together (or even to consider working together) to protect the rghts of both fetuses and women, statism got a whole bunch of votes from people who are otherwise libertarian in their thinking, and it got those votes for both of the two major candidates who both happen to be statists.
If lovers of liberty truly want to protect liberty for everyone, and particularly if they are passionate about the abortion issue, then they should commit to protecting both sets of rights. Pro-life leaders who love liberty should seek out pro-choice leaders who love liberty and vice-versa. The emphasis should be on working together without villifying each other, to try to find a solution that protects everyone's rights.
Until that happens, we will all continue to lose. Human rights will continue to lose.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Interesting piece, Walt. There is obviously more to the debate than what I wrote, and I acknowledged that, but before the rights of a woman are discussed, as Reagan said, we must decide what the fetus is. If not life, then her rights triumph. If life, then its illegal and immoral. That should be the starting point for any debate on abortion, and then we can move from there. Instead, the argument starts for pro-choicers on the outskirts of the issue because the discussion of fetuses and murder are uncomfortable and messy. Why should we "protect" any right that, at its core, is potentially immoral and murder???? Walt, you "address" both points, but never really answer the question about the fetus inside a mother (whether she wants it to be there or not). The different camps on this issue I agree do talk over each other and miss each other's core arguments, but I am not one of them. I haven't missed the point of the pro-choicers, and I fully understand their concern. However, the purpose of my well-written and though-provoking column is to get people discussing the question of whether or not it is murder? Is it a life? At what point does it go from not life to life? These are the fundamental questions that ought to supercede a mother's alleged "right" to decide if she wants to keep it or not (even if we eventually did all decide it wasn't a life).
We question everything in this society. The Constitution (not just the Roe v. Wade supreme court) says the president is the commander-in-chief but must get permission to go to war from congress. when that has been accomplished, like it was in 2003, that president (even a dumb texan) is the supreme commander of the army and military decisions. the soldiers that fight in said war are all volunteer and professionally trained and equipped unlike any fighting force the world has ever seen. they then vote for the president who sent them to war to the tune of more than 80% in the 2004 election (while public school teachers and the mainstream media vote in the same numbers for liberal democrats who will denounce their efforts in iraq). so we've got a constitutionally-backed military effort, led by a constitutionally-backed commander-in-chief, being fought by all-volunteer warriors who literally are engaging in the very thing they signed up to do. my point in rambling through all of this is to point out that we disect and discuss and second-guess and protest about this war unlike anything else in our nation's history (save, the Civil War). the very same politicians who are aganist the war, are for abortion. they say the voices of the soldiers must be heard and that they are being taken advantage of by a cruel and tyranical president who wouldn't hear the soldiers supposed (yet rarely, if ever, heard) cries for mercy unless brave journalists and party leaders spoke out ad nauseum on their behalf.
my question is this: why not take the same moral precaution on behalf of an innocent life in the mother's womb? what if that mother isn't hearing the baby inside her's cry to want to live in the same way we're all missing the cries from soldiers to end the war prematurely (no matter the consequences)? when liberal pro-choicers protest the California court system after they charge scott petersen with a double-homicide, does any one else get the sense that their cause has superceded even common decency? if the helpless voice of the unborn is brushed aside as a matter of some legal "right" of the mother, then why can't we push aside the voice of politicians and reporters speaking on behalf of soldiers (who dont want them to) and remind them that it is the president's "right" per the Constitution to protect us at all costs, and when Congress signs off on it, it's his war to win or lose, not the DNC's. the Left says the war is illegal and immoral and that the president doesn't care about the number who've died (200 less than die from abortion every single day of the week), and they get pulitzer's and oscar's and emmy's. genuine advocates of life on the right voice their valid and often over-looked opinion on abortion and are dismissed as fanatics and silly and naive.
well hopefully you see how ridiculous that scenario is that i've described and it has subsequently helped you see how ridiculous it is that we do not seriously engage the core moral dilemma at the heart of the abortion issue. Is it life? Is it murder? When does life begin? These are simply religious questions, they are moral ones. Our founding document, the Declaration, says it is self-evident that our life and liberty is gifted from our Creator. if it isn't ours in the first place, how can we say any of us have a right to take it from the most voiceless among us?
sorry for the length here, and i appreciate you being willing to dialogue here Walt (and others), but i'm just trying to show my deep, genuine, non-naive, heartfelt take on this issue. you'd have to agree that if it is someday decided that abortion is the murder of a baby, we will be guilty as a nation for the loss of some 50 million lives in three decades and only the communists can operate with that kind of brutalistic precision.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-27 06:43:31
RJ: Your argument demonstrates quite clearly that you are against recognizing the right of women to decide what grows in their own bodies and when it will grow there. As long as that's the case, it doesn't really matter whether we begin our discussion with the rights of fetuses or not.
It's frustrating how both sides attempt to minimize the arguments of the other side by minimizing the others' rights claims. Pro-lifers tend to minimize the rights of women as "inconvenient" or "messy". Pro-choicers tend to minimize the rights of fetuses as being "not yet human" or "not human." Both sides make the same overall mistake, albeit in different ways.
Rights are always inconvenient. There's no such thing as a right that isn't inconvenient to someone else. The question isn't whether or not they're inconvenient. The question is whether we're going to honor and protect rights for everyone. Those who say we shouldn't protect others rights, who minimize the rights of others as "inconvenient" or "less important" are asking for trouble, and they usually get trouble.
Why is it a right for a mother to end the life of her fetus or not? Because of Roe v. Wade? So that's it then? End of story? You've granted the status of "right" on a practice that's never been legislated or decided upon collectively, but ruled on by an activist court 34 years ago. Your logic, as fair and just as it may sound to the simple-mided among us, is the very same people used to justify slavery (the point of my original piece). The Supreme Court upheld segregation and sanctioned slavery at various points in history, yet I would wager you don't lose sleep thinking about how intolerant those pro-abolition Americans were toward the rights of pro-slavery Southerners (and some Northerners). It was the legal right of plantation owners to have slaves, but millions of Americans KNEW it to be morally wrong. Part of the beauty of this government is that we have the capability (legally speaking) to Right the Wrongs of previous generations. It was the right of business owners before the Civil Rights movement to discriminate when hiring employees. Millions believed it was wrong, and the right to discriminate was not more important than the equal treatment of all human beings.
Believe me, Walt, I understand what you are saying and that you're point of view is accepted by many who don't want to delve into issues of morality (or at least you dont want the government to do so)....but, there are enough of us out there who do have a problem with it and seek to either change it via the courts (i.e. the same way it was legalized) or more appropriately through legislation. if abolitionists had listened to men like you, think of how much longer slavery might have existed? i'm not condemning you, and i don't disregard the feelings of pregnant women or the pressure-filled predicaments they can find themselves in, but sometimes what right is right and you have to stand on what you believe. we talk about the Constitution and our laws as if they were devoid of morality, and anytime someone brings up ethics or "right/wrong" regarding a legal issue they are no longer credible or have let their feelings get the best of them (as you allude pro-choice and pro-life advocates do), but I say anyone who does not have strong feelings either way about the potential murder of an unborn child is either lying or insane.
Walt, you seem like a smart man with many great things to say, and in truth, my hope is for a reunification of libertarians and conservatives (fiscal, religious, pragmatic, etc) under the banner of republicanism (small "r"), de-centralized federal power, strong economy, etc. that has quickly begun to deteriorate (to the delight of Liberal-Socialist Dem's everywhere) in recent years...but, i have to say that if libertarians want to build a workable coalition with us, it will have to allow for our fervent belief that life is precious, that there's always a better option than abortion, and that while we don't need to make criminals of desperate pregnant women, it also isn't necessary that our government sanction and subsidize the practice either. (Sorry for that run-on sentence). i know it's become trite and cliche to quote Reagan, but another great thing he said in his autobiography was that he went into meetings with the opposition, whether as gov. in CA or President, he went in with 10 goals in mind, but was ready to settle for 7 or 8. this made the other side feel good about taking away some of his agenda (kind of like Bush's plan for tax cuts in 2001 when he allowed the Dem's to think they'd talked him down below his asking price). my point is that we should find the common ground between our schools of thought, and not hold out for perfection. i realize Roe v. Wade is the "law" of the land currently, and i also realize abortion being made illegal is unlikely any time soon (if ever), but that shouldn't prevent values-voters from doing what they can to change the hearts and minds of americans (women especially) on the issue, nor should it prevent libertarians from maintaining their coalition with us to find acceptable candidates to vote for.
I guess, in closing, I would say that I'm not interested in taking away the "rights" of others, but if the Constitution was amended to say that pork-barreling was not only tolerated, but required for members of Congress to tack onto bills, you'd say that was wrong and work to change it (like I assume you feel now about over-spending in Congress). Or if the law was changed back to where slavery was allowed, and it suddenly again became the right of people to own other people, that you would stand with me to denounce its practice, regardless of the legal protection that slave-owner might enjoy. We know it's possible for people to make mistakes on legal issues just as easily as moral and ethical ones. any pro-lifer who says women should be locked up for getting an abortion is a fool and dead wrong. just as a pro-choicer who says that federal funding of abortion through the third trimester is a "right" (like hillary's recent quote that "health insurance for americans is not a privelage...it's a right") is dead wrong and a fool. its not enough to just say "both sides have valid points and rights are involved" but then allow abortion to continue and allow pro-lifers to be made to look like kooks and fanatics. its not my right i am fighting for, but the rights of the unborn. i will never have to carry a child or know the emotional and physical stress involved, but i was a baby inside a womb once, and i am a human being who cares deeply for sanctity of life, so i think it fair that my opinion and voice be considered just as valid as anyone's. i just do not understand how the right of a mother to choose whether or not the child inside of her lives or dies (except in the case of rape/incest or to save her own life) is of more importance than the rights of the human baby to have a chance at life. less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape/incest or to save the mother's life, so that leaves more than 49 million abortions attributed to "inconvenience" or "bad timing" or a "bad financial situation" or "embarassment" or "dead-beat father" or whatever other reason (that wasn't life threatening and wasn't an issue of a crime rendering a girl pregnant). that's not to diminish the harships that each individual mother faced, but it's a reality check that the abortions happening in this country are not as much about protection as they are about convenience, and that argument does not hold up (legally or morally) in other areas of society where a battle of "rights" is involved. why did the plantation owner's right get superseded by Lincoln? why aren't business owners allowed to hire all whites or all mexicans or all blacks and be forthwright about it? all laws are codified morality in one way or another, so why, if we believe abortion to be the taking of an innocent life, would it be such an offense to work for legislation that outlawed unfettered abortion access to women in america? why are so many so against even the curtailing of the practice? why did the Big Three Democratic candidates all oppose partial-birth abortion bans if it's just about the "rights" of women to despose of a non-life mass of molecules? they supported the "right" to kill an 8th month old baby that could easily live outside his or her mother's womb when the overwhelming majority of americans at least recognize that as being wrong and immmoral. so it seems to me that the debate is really more about when the life is considered "life" now, and for that we turn to science. well science changes and now 5 month old premature babies are living outside the womb where a few years ago that wasn't possible. so we've collectively admitted that allowing the abortion of third-trimester babies (for reasons other than the life of the mother) was wrong for us to do, but why is it so outlandish of pro-lifers to suggest that perhaps we've gotten even more of it wrong (or the whole thing wrong from top to bottom)?
if your point is, walt, that as of today, Oct 27th, it is the legal right of a mother in the 1st or 2nd trimester to abort her baby, then yes, you are right and we need to "respect" that "right" legally. but, if you're saying that the entire issue should be abandoned as fruitless by the values voters that comprise the base of the conservative and Republican party, then i respectfully disagree and would ask you to lend your support to at least the curtailing of a practice that ends 4000 lives a day.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2007-10-27 20:28:16
I really have nothing to add to the abortion debate. On a related topic, since it came up in this article, I'd like to point out that choosing a candidate to support based on their pro-life or pro-choice position is folly. If a president could eliminate Roe v. Wade, it would have been done by now. Reagan would have done it, GHWB would have done it, GWB would have done it. Attention to a candidate's position on this topic is a tactical decision that is only effective on people who do not know they are being manipulated.
When a woman exercises the willingness to engage in sex, sans contraceptive, she does so knowing the possibility exists that a new life may result from her behavior. She has, in this case, exercised choice. If the life created as a result of said behavior is unwanted, it is an unfortunate consequense of the exercise of choice. To terminate the life of the unborn individual is placing the ultimate price of someone elses poor judgement on an innocent third party.
I will not address the rape and incest scenarios, as my point deals with the exercise of choice. And I believe the vast majority of abortions are a way of escaping the consequenses of poor judgement. To label the termination of life "pro choice" requires convoluted reasoning that devalues humanity.
WASHINGTON - The State Department promised Blackwater body guards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month's deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, The Associated Press has learned.
As a result, it will likely be months before the United States can — if ever — bring criminal charges in the case that has infuriated the Iraqi government.
"Once you give immunity, you can't take it away," said a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation.
A State Department spokesman did not have an immediate comment Monday. Both Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd and FBI spokesman Rich Kolko declined comment.
-------------------------------------------------
The moment I read this I thought about the fire in North Carolina. Paybacks are hell. Six for seventeen doesn't seem fair, but it's a start, God.
Hilton, that was so eloquently put. RJ, I agree with you about 99.9996536432739%. Jahfre, I understand your pragmatic point, but some of us do still care about principle, and let's not forget that the president's viewpoint on this issue usually determines what kind of justices he is likely to appoint.
On the arguement of "when is life, life?" and that we turn to Science for that answer/ and that this is a moral issue...
Scientifically speaking a sperm is a form of life. Scientifically speaking an egg is a form of life. The Catholic Church, in its doctrine, does not allow contraceptive. Condoms are "illegal" if you are Catholic. All form of birth control aside from abstinence is "illegal" if you are a Catholic. Each in individual shapes there own morals (reference Sociology 101).
If the arguement is that you are ending a life, then one can very reasonably argue that using a condom is potential abortion.
Walt never mentions in his argument Roe v. Wade. The point that he is making is that it is not a decission for the Federal Government to make. It is a decission for the Localities and States to make.
"but, there are enough of us out there who do have a problem with it and seek to either change it via the courts (i.e. the same way it was legalized) or more appropriately through legislation." - isn't that really one in the same?
I did not see anyone define life, let alone when life begins. Nor was human life defined, nor what makes a living thing human. One could say that the combination of sperm and egg is the definition of human life, and defines when it begins. But one could also say that trees are smarter than members of congress. By most consistend standards of logic the last statement is more accurate than the one preceeding it.
Given that 50 to 80% of fertilized eggs never make it to term, and that fertilized eggs can give rise to multiple unique human beings, the theory that a fertilized egg is a good place to define uniquely human life lacks empirical evidence and logical consistency. One can not even say that God (whatever that is) defines human life that way.
Given this massive ambiguity, it would seem that, until some sort of general consensus is reached, any decisions should not be based on abstract theory enforced by the power of the state, but should be entirely between a woman and her care give.
I think that, in general, a consensus exists that a viable fetus should not be aborted unless said fetus has severe defects that would mean it would not have a life beyond a few months, and/or the womans health would be put at risk from delivery.
But those are medical decisions, and I am not sure we want the state second guessing medical decisions. Look at how well the state handles pain medication.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
