As I have said previously, forty states have laws banning post-viability abortions. Good, old-fashioned, American horse sense caused this phenomenon. Federalism facilitated it. However this consensus came to pass is not the issue, Mr. Huckabee. The fact that the solution I am proposing already exists is something of note.
Most of these forty states have laws designed to deter even first trimester abortion within their state. For example, 30 states require a patient to be counseled and educated about alternatives to abortion; 38 states require a minor child to get permission from a parent in order to have an abortion; 43 states require abortions be performed by licensed physicians only; 18 states require a waiting period. All of these laws place obstacles in the path of a young woman seeking an abortion. In some cases the laws are not enforced. All have been upheld by the courts.
Government has only two tools at its disposal when its goal is to shape public opinion. They are: force and persuasion. Force is the tool preferred by the religionist, extremist, Right-to-Lifer who would amend the constitution to ban all abortions. “People will be forced to be ‘moral’ whether they like it or not, regardless of the consequences.” For most Americans, of course, force is un-American and unacceptable. The road blocks [mentioned above] were created by the various states to deter abortions, to persuade women to make a different choice. However much I may wish these obstacles be lifted, I must accept persuasion as a fair exercise of governmental power. In fact, my solution will require the state to counsel every woman seeking an abortion. Woman must be educated about their options.
Access to abortion should be wholly unfettered as long as the woman is less than 20 weeks pregnant. After 20 weeks viability testing should be required by law.
If a mother does not want to have the baby, but fails [for whatever reason] to make the decision to abort before viability, she should not be forced to have the baby. No one has the right to force someone to be a parent. What options are available to the state in these cases?
1. The state may counsel the woman, encourage her to carry the baby to term, deliver, and then put the baby up for adoption.
2. If the woman refuses to carry the baby to term [as is her right], the state will accommodate the woman and remove the baby. The baby will not be aborted…it will be delivered.
3. The biological mother, father, and their families forfeit all rights to the offspring once the decision to terminate the pregnancy, to “deliver,” is made.
4. The cost of keeping the premature baby alive will be paid by the adopting parents.
My solution requires acceptance of all pre-viability abortions and an absolute ban on all post-viability abortions [with the exception of the mother’s health]. For those who believe the unalienable right to life begins at conception, this solution is unacceptable. Because their arguments rely on submission to the teachings of their ancient faith and their unsubstantiated belief that a God delivers a soul to the bundle of cells, their arguments require no consideration by the rational, objective lawmaker. The religionists are free to voice their objections to secular law and science. They are free to live their own lives in accordance with their faith, but they have no right to force their irrational faith on others.
My solution saves the lives of viable, thinking, unborn, human babies in every instance. My solution protects the privacy rights of the pregnant young woman. My solution requires no woman to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. My solution kills no babies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I recently changed my stand on recriminalizing abortion. I recently became an anarchist philosophically and support alternative social ordering forms to the state that do not rely on force. To recriminalize abortion would mean the state would have to apply force against women and doctors in order to achieve its goal. (police, courts, prisons, fines, etc) I am still socially prolife and would work to stop abortion by persuasion, but do not favor a state imposed solution to the issue.
On a similar note there is also the issue of creating an affirmative duty on the woman to remain pregnant if abortion is criminalized. When the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade they made the legal cut off point at viability. Viability is the point at which the baby could possibly exist outside the womb. The baby is not totally dependant on the mother for his/her existence at such point. I used to think this argument was so stupid, because I reasoned we are all dependant for our life on something outside us. What about a person on life support, they are totally dependant on the machine to keep them alive. It just hit me though, a person on life support is dependant, but not directly on another person to keep them alive.
In our criminal justice system, we do not have an affirmative duty to act to help or prevent harm to another. (There are some exceptions I will get to) If I came by and saw a person drowning in a swimming pool I have no legal duty to save them. Granted, I would be a horribly immoral person for not trying to save them, but legally no action criminally can be taken against me. Same thing would be true if I was in a hospital and I had a rare blood type that was known and a patient was going to die if he didn't get a blood transfusion, and I refused to give my blood to help save his life. Again, I would be a totally immoral person, but I could not be held criminally accountable for not giving my blood.
In the context of a pregnant woman, the baby will die unless she decides to remain pregnant. To prevent abortion legally, you would have to require a woman to remain pregnant which would force an affirmative duty on her which isn't permissible within our criminal justice system. This is actually a powerful argument that I really haven't heard raised before. I'm surprised. I have heard some hint at it, but they really don't address the creation of an affirmative duty like I just did. Its profoundly more powerful then the "choice" arguments, and it doesn't require anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child.
Ok, there is some exception to the no affirmative duty rule. It goes to people that assume a duty to another. Yes, a parent has an affirmative duty to care for their child. If you don't feed your child you can be charged with neglect. Same is true for other persons like teachers, baby sitters, etc. So you say, well that pregnant woman is a parent, she's the mother. Yes, but where an affirmative duty is created it has to be a voluntary responsibility that they take on, and one that they can legally surrender by ceasing to be in that role. A parent with a born child, can give the child up for adoption (of give guardianship to another) at any point. If they don't give up for adoption they have a remaining obligation to the child until they do that or the child becomes of age. With a pregnant woman, she doesn't have an opportunity to cease being a parent to the child until she could give birth. Thus there is no way she can give up her duty if she has one for several months. That's probably why a woman doesn't have an affirmative duty until the child is viable and/or when born.
I do think abortion is totally wrong, much like the person who will not save the drowning swimmer, but due to what I have said there should not be a legal affirmative duty to act.
Spillerman...You Wrote: “In the context of a pregnant woman, the baby will die unless she decides to remain pregnant.” Not true. The reason my solution to the abortion problem works, is because 21st Century medical science can keep a 25-week old, viable, unborn baby alive. She does not have to remain pregnant: She does not have to have an abortion. The baby can be delivered.
When addressing your affirmative duty principle, you wrote: “Its profoundly more powerful then the "choice" arguments, and it doesn't require anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child.” The entire concept of “duty” implies the use of force. Religionists use guilt and fear of divine retribution to keep the flock in line. Guilt and fear are force. The only rational alternative to duty and force is liberty and choice. Parents and teachers [I am both] have a responsibility to care for and educate their children, not a duty. I chose to be a parent. I chose to be a teacher. I chose to take on these responsibilities. A pregnant woman is not a parent until the baby is born. If she opts for my solution, premature delivery, she gives up any rights she may have had to be a parent.
Thanks for responding to my blog. Did you also read part 1 and 2 of my 3-part post on abortion? They are “Abortion: the problem” and “Abortion: the rationale.”
Regarding the immorality of not saving the drowning man, I direct you to a post called “To survive fires.”
Post a Comment