There are two separate and distinct issues in the abortion argument that are invariably merged together by both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" camps. They are:
1) Should abortion be legal?
2) Is there a right to abortion in the United States Constitution?
That these two completely different questions are treated as synonymous in the debate is a sad commentary. It is yet another example of how we, as Americans, think that whatever our particular policy objective might be, that we must impose it on others by the force of law.
Within the context of the abortion debate, the process works like this: No matter my answer to the first question, my answer to the second question must be the same. This does not follow and is intellectually sloppy. The rationale is that if one believes in something as a matter of public policy, then the foundation of that public policy must be found in the Constitution. That line of reasoning is a non sequitur. It is nonsense. It is simply wrong.
The answers to both questions are absolutely and completely independent of one another.
Personally, as an answer to the first question, I have an absolutely weak and unconvincing belief that abortion should be legal for the first trimester. As to the second, I can state unequivocally that there is no right to an abortion in the United States Constitution. The "right" was created out of whole cloth by justices that felt it was their duty to set policy - and not interpret and apply a written document with specific words with specific meanings.
If the Supreme Court had actually followed the Constitution in Roe v. Wade, the federal government would be out of the abortion issue all together, and each state would have to address the issue. This horrifies the statists, of course, because it is much easier to control us all from D.C. than it is from 50 different state capitol buildings.
--------
* Yet another example of a "progressive" statist championed by a Republican. Stevens was nominated to the bench by Gerald R. Ford.
0 comments:
Post a Comment