The Clown, plunging into the shark-infested waters of the abortion debate, has a point of view that has been years in the making. The subject requires slow thinking and measured words. What it does not need is violent protests from either camp and specious arguments about abortion rights “not being in the Constitution”. The Constitution lacks specificity on many rights that are rights nonetheless.
Justice Alito, whose infamously leaked opinion includes the line “….abortion is a profound moral question”, is absolutely right. And, the fact that abortion is being argued in the court is proof that it is also a profound legal question. Key point alert: morality and legality are two separate issue which sometimes meet in a Venn diagram. First degree murder, for instance, is in that overlapping space. However, there are many examples of suspect morality that are not illegal. For example, legally, one can stand by and watch a child drown in deep water and do nothing because the law does not require one to put themselves in harm’s way. This is morally despicable but not illegal. Adultery is considered a moral failing but it is no longer prosecuted. Conversely, it’s illegal to park in a Fire Lane or to ignore the posted speed limit but it would be a stretch to consider either offense as immoral.
Keeping these distinctions in mind, let the Clown offer two scenarios to consider. He doubts that his examples will change many minds but that’s not the point. The point is to reduce the passion of the dispute and offer logic in its place.
First, suppose a young mother learns that her two-year-old has a deadly disease and the ONLY solution is for the mother to undergo a somewhat dangerous and uncomfortable procedure to supply the child with some of her bone marrow. This maternal support is the only means of avoiding the child’s death but she refuses and the toddler dies. (For those who would stop the Clown here and argue that “a mother would never do that”, the Clown observes that in a world with at least 2.5 billion women who have or will ever get pregnant, one can find at least five examples of anything). While the immorality of the mother’s decision certainly seems clear cut, it would not be illegal. The mother would face severe media and public shaming but not jail time.
Second, a young woman discovers that she is pregnant and, for whatever reason(s), gets an abortion within the first two trimesters (preferably the first). The mother is, as in the first example, the fetuses ONLY chance for life but she chooses not to provide support for that outcome.
The Clown submits that the only real difference between these two “failure to support” examples is one of timing, in utero v. born. Why, then, will the second example be illegal in the eyes of the law if Alito and colleagues get their way, but the first is not?
For those readers who immediately argue the illegality of abortion based on doctrinal grounds, the Clown reminds you that we do not yet live in a theocracy and he hopes we never do. You are quite welcome to continue to object to abortion as an important tenet of your religious beliefs but, as a pluralistic society, imposing laws based on religious beliefs is a very bad idea as the founders made clear.
The Clown mostly objects to late-term abortion unless the mother’s life is truly at stake but, according to the Guttmacher Institute and quoted in an NIH article, this is rarely the case. “Most late term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.” The idea that a woman could withdraw support for a viable-outside-the-womb fetus with no major and heartbreaking health abnormalities, at a time when the medical community could and does provide such support, falls close to first degree murder territory for all involved. Those who argue for abortion at anytime before birth, including up until the moment of, fail to admit that medical care for a viable fetus is a reasonable surrogate for the mother’s womb. The medical community is like a second person watching a child drown in deep water. Given the intent of the Hippocratic oath and the current health care circumstances, they should jump in.
Not being a lawyer nor playing one on TV, there may be legal precedents and loopholes that abrogate the Clown’s logic regarding the moral/legal continuum. If so, let the Clown know. He has been mistaken before and will be again.
Observoid of the Day: Six of nine Supreme Court Justices are Catholic and their faith’s doctrine includes specific strictures regarding abortion.
As usual, thoughtful and intelligent. I could write at length on this unsolvable issue, but let me just say that when Roe is overturned women and unwanted and disabled children will suffer and die.