UPDATE: 15th December 2017
In a recent discussion with a rabbi, my Jewish friend and theologian observed that, in Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." He went on to say that, under Judaic tradition, life begins when a baby draws a first breath (implicitly, from God). The implication for my thinking is staggering.
For my adult life, I have assumed "instinctively" that life begins at conception. Since this was a matter of "straight-forward intuition", I had no reason to question this premise. Fact is that I grew up in an R.C. home, though not a strict one, at least theologically.
Had I grown up in a Jewish home, however, my "instinctive" assumption would be that life started with the first breath. That would make the pro-choice position "intuitively" evident. In no way am I saying that such an argument endorses abortion as birth control. It does not. Additionally, abortion has proven not to have become a form of birth control in the last forty-three years.
"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” --Mother Teresa
"....Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?...She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." --Saint John 8:10 & 11
“Suddenly, I began to wonder: If one in three or four American women had an abortion at some time in her life--a common statistical estimate, even in those days of illegality-- then why, WHY should this single surgical procedure be deemed a criminal act?” --Gloria Steinem
NOTE: table added on 04may22
Introduction. I have been fairly constant in my pro-life preference over time, though I believe there has to be compassionate flexibility built into the resolution of the larger issue across American society. These include the following:
- minors notifying parents of an abortion unless to do so would injure them or others;
- notification of the father – and of his anticipated responsibilities should the mother carry the pregnancy to term and not choose to place the baby into an adoption program – except when to do so would injure the mother or the baby;
- unfettered right to an abortion in cases of rape or incest;
- mandatory waiting period for the procedure with exposure to pros and cons of the decision;
- funding for pre-natal care including drug rehabilitation (if necessary), occupational training during the pregnancy and early child-care assistance after the birth of the baby;
- mandatory availability of the surgery across the country and within the states; as well as,
- affirmative adoption tax credits for the adoption of minority children.
J.C. Himself would never demonize women who terminate pregnancies – so many being poor and feeling abandoned – that many of my fellow conservatives do. One should consider seriously how (s)he might feel if a pregnant daughter or sister were unwed and, perhaps, underfed, chose to end an unwanted and crushing pregnancy. Remember what J.C. said to the adulteress who was not stoned after He said let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
If one
undertakes this exercise in moral fortitude, I find it hard to believe that (s)he
would over-rule every impulse toward empathy and compassion. Aside from Xian
theology, the over-riding point is that a woman retains an independent moral
agency to determine whether the fœtus remains a part of her body or whether it
constitutes a separate life. That is to say: as long as this question is
unresolved, the moral right belongs to the individual, namely the individual
woman.
Our Constitution
makes it clear that individual rights in everyday exercise – even implied
rights protected by Amendments IX and X – can not be curtailed by the Federal
government. The States theoretically can restrict abortions but I can not favor
this idea unless two-thirds (67%) of the women should first consent in a concurrent
referendum. The idea of a concurrent referendum of women applies Calhoun’s “concurrent
majorities” to demographics, not states.
The irony of this conservative pro-life stand.
As far out of step as this
thinking has often been with my friends, particularly women, in practice my
thinking seems to be coincidentally aligned with what the American people think
– and have thought consistently since the mid-1970s – with respect to choices
by a woman during pregnancy. The extensive Gallup data have, embedded deep
inside them, key findings.
Women have the
right to choose abortion without restrictions in the first trimester of the
pregnancy. This makes sense since other
data indicate that many or most unplanned pregnancies are a consequence of
failed birth control, either in working or in use by the one or both parents.
Of course, that nudges the door open for whether birth control is itself
permissible. For me, that door is ajar and – hypocrite that I am – I intend to
keep a lid tightly sealed on it.
When the issue
of reversing Roe v. Wade is in contention, Americans ramp up their opposition
to such a move (i.e., during a conservative presidency). These data indicate,
to me at least, that people want Roe v. Wade to remain in place. Its reversal
is a theoretical nicety when a pro-choice régime is in power but when the
rubber hits the road, the true preferences emerge.
Summary. Women have
a right of dominion over their own bodies, whether the rest of us agree or not.
Like it or not, a woman’s view of the fœtus as a part of her body rather than
an utterly dependent life is intellectually defensible. The American people
tend to agree with this idea of free agency early on in the pregnancy, though
that support fades in the second and, radically, third trimesters. The consent
of women is required for any curtailment of the implied right of privacy with
respect to their bodies and lives.
