Bye-bye Roe v. Wade – – About Time
A problem with politics is that like a pendulum solutions swing from side to side from one extreme to another in opposition when they need to settle in the middle. Generally, both sides are correct. They just protect different values.
Democrats want to take public money and spend it on programs to help the poor given their condition is a product of our capitalistic society. The Republicans agree with that, but they also believe that there should be limits as to how much money we take out of people’s pockets and give to other people. Some limit is needed. They need to agree on that limit.
When politics works well in this country, the Republicans and Democrats negotiate into that middle point. And they try to satisfy both sides.
Perhaps nowhere is this phenomenon still evident as in the issue of abortions. Democrats argue a woman has a right to control her body and choose whether to carry a child to term. That premise has value. The Republicans, however, say that a baby has a right to live. And that also has value. But each wants an all or nothing result. A sane solution seems beyond hope.
And now that we know the Supreme Court is about to toss out Roe v. Wade, there are many public demonstrations from both sides.
Growing up, I was a Democrat. Today I just vote by what is right and not by any party line.
And as I sometimes considered a Civil Rights lawyer, it will surprise most that I say to Roe v. Wade – – good -by and good riddance. It is about time. But that does not mean that once the case is removed. I agree with the extreme anti-abortion laws that will probably be passed in many states, possibly even by Congress if the Republicans takeover in 2024.
For me, abortion was not an issue growing up. I was a little kid in the 50s when pretty much only married people had sex. In high school, we had sex, but usually with condoms and it did not happen very often. Then things changed. When I went to U.S.C. in 1965–the era of sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll–one day in the Daily Trojan I read that a girl who I had a relationship with went through quite an ordeal to have an abortion. She assured me I was not the father, but I still sympathized with her ordeal. Non-medical abortions were dangerous. People died. So I was for legal abortions and would eventually celebrate laws that made them legal.
And then I became a father. And my views changed. So a mother has the right to kill my child if she so chose? While I still sympathized with avoiding the ordeal, I thought the better solution was not to allow the death of babies. While they cannot yet talk, imagine a baby in the womb wanting to express, “No Mommy, don’t kill me.” Someone has to speak up for the baby. And that’s me and you.
And what about the father, why doesn’t he have a say? It is his child, too. Why should he lose his child just because mother-nature chose the opposite sex to carry the babies to term? Fathers often save the child’s life by marrying someone they do not love. That, to me, seems wrong.
However, the pendulum should not swing all the way to the right. A solution that there may never be an abortion, as many Republicans prefer, eradicates other values the public should support.
What do we do when there is incest and/or rape? The latter is an easy issue to decide. The baby did not do the raping. The baby is innocent. And if the mother does not want to be reminded, there are a lot of people that will provide a good home.
Incest is more difficult. First, we must decide do we want deformed babies and/or mentally deficient. An argument can be made that they should be terminated. But on the other hand, not all babies created by incest will be handicapped, although a large amount will. Waiting to birth to make the decision sounds more like murder. And even a victimized baby, if it could, might argue for life. We must decide do we want the children to be born and we care for them. Although they can never be like us, in a controlled environment they can have a happy life at taxpayers’ expense. Perhaps a solution is to watch the growth of the embryo and make the decision only if proof of the disability occurs. This would also apply to babies with you similar issues, although not the result of incest.
And, of course, if abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life than abortion should be legal in those circumstances.
In my legal profession I fought against suppressive religious rules. One was the right to treat a child solely by religious prayer, with no medical involvement. On a radio show a lawyer for a church gave his argument that the forced medical treatment of a child would be to deprive the parents of the right to raise their child pursuant to their religious beliefs. When I was asked to comment, I simply said: “That is true. But you can’t teach religion to a dead baby.”
That view equally applies to abortions. On the one side if prohibited, a woman loses control of her body for 9 months, but on the other side of the coin is a dead baby. Quite frankly, I am concerned about women who would rally and lobby for Roe v. Wade in order to have the right to kill the baby to avoid 9 months of inconvenience. And I’m equally concerned about the religious right that would seek to eliminate abortions in every conceivable situation.
Instead of everyone arguing for their extreme position, this is actually an issue rational minds should easily resolve. I find it amazing how long it has gone without resolution. And how many babies have unnecessarily died. It doesn’t say much about adults.
