No Compromise on Abortion
In this week's Presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, McCain raised Obama's vote against a proposed Illinois law dealing with providing medical care to a pre-viable fetus that has been aborted but is not yet dead. Obama opposed the bill on Constitutional grounds and on the practical grounds that Illinois already had a law on the books that protects the life of a viable fetus that is aborted but is still alive outside the womb.
Jeffrey Weiss reasonably asked, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, "There's no question about the outcome. There is no medical treatment that would allow the fetus to live. So what is the purpose of the bill?" There was a long and vigorous comment thread, but no one ever answered Weiss' question. What follows is own contribution to the discussion.
Jim: "Obama's objection to the law is precisely that this law would be unconstitutional. If there's a law that does the same thing, why isn't IT unconstitutional?"
Because the law would have done *more* than simply protect the lives of living infants outside the womb, as the law on the books did. Its expanded scope would have violated the protections afforded by Roe v Wade and thus would have been unconstitutional. The backers of the new law were disingenuous about the scope of the law, then and now.
What's sad is that compromise would lead to an outcome perfectly satisfactory to an overwhelming majority of Americans, but extremists prevent it. Those on the extreme right insist on extending to zygotes the same Constitutional rights you and I have. They stubbornly proclaim that compromise itself, as a general principle, is evil. The left reasonably concludes that compromise with the right is impossible. Each concession by the left will be treated as the new starting point for the next pitched battle, so why go there? Sadly, the result is more abortions than *anybody* wants to allow.
bewildered: "If there's more abortions than everybody wants, why don't a number of those people having abortions forego the abortion and bear their child??"
A number do just that. Some people do a wonderful job providing counseling, medical insurance, parental training, job training, day-care services, children's health insurance, etc., so more mothers are able to bring healthy, wanted children into this world and care for them. If we all supported more of this, the number of abortions would surely go down.
A zygote is alive. It's human life. But it's not equivalent to a more developed fetus, a newborn, a baby, a toddler, a child, a teenager, an adult, a senior citizen, etc. That's why we have different words for these. Society treats each stage of development differently, with different legal rights. Some people want to give the same legal rights all the way back to the single-cell zygote. They are in the minority.
bewildered's proposed "compromise" of letting the states decide is not a compromise at all. It's a step towards granting full Constitutional rights to zygotes, one state at a time. bewildered asked what's wrong with letting the people decide? Google "tyranny of the majority" for an answer. Our Declaration of Independence speaks of "inalienable" rights. That means rights that can't be taken away, even by majority vote. Now, of course, some think those rights extend to zygotes. Others disagree. I don't see any hope of compromising those positions. So, we are at an impasse that leads to more abortions in this country than we would have if a compromise were reached. To repeat, I find that sad.
bewildered: "I know you're not trying to imply that the founders of this nation considered abortion an inalienable right."
No, they probably didn't. They also didn't consider that the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applied to African-Americans, or at least they didn't protect those rights in law. The founders weren't the last word on what rights are inalienable or who is entitled to them. But their understanding that some rights are too precious to be entrusted to majority vote has stood the test of time.
bewildered: "And after some compromise that still allowed abortion on demand, what do you think the unborn child that was still in the column of 'aborted' would think of your compromise?"
You are giving your reasons why you won't compromise on abortion. I understand and respect your reasons. Your comments just reinforce my point that compromise isn't going to happen. People like you will never compromise. And so the other side digs in its heels, too. And the result is many more abortions than would happen in this country if the two sides *did* compromise. That's sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment