Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

[BEGIN SOAPBOX]

I’m mad as hell and I don’t want to take any more, but this will probably do nothing to change the debate.

For the record, my opinion is guaranteed to be despised by virtually everyone on both sides. So be it…

I believe that women have the right to choose, as a matter of ownership of their own bodies, and as a matter of personal religious freedom.

That said:

1. I believe this position is supported by (some) readings of the Bible. Exodus 21:22 (KJV) “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” As I read it, it determines an induced miscarriage (wording of NASB version) as a civil, rather than a criminal matter, meaning that the death of the unborn is not murder (and “no mischief” referring to injury of the woman who was carrying). However, some read the passage to mean premature live birth (e.g the Tree of Life version, supposedly one closest to the original Heberw), and the subsequent verses leading to the same penalties for a miscarriage as for the murder of an adult. Others cite other verses in opposition to abortion (e.g. Christ’s “whoever would harm one of these children, it would be better if a millstone were tied around their necks and they were cast into the sea.”) In either event, abortion is subject to religious interpretation, and thus is not a matter for the federal government to regulate in any fashion due to the First Amendment.

2. By the same token, using tax monies (or any monies coerced from an abortion opponent) to pay for abortion is the establishment of a (secular pro-abortion) religion, and is similarly a violation of the First Amendment (not to mention the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on forced servitude). As Jefferson said, “ To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. [Read more] To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. [Read more] To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. [Read more] To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. [Read more] To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors in sinful and tyrannical.” (As to those who wish public funding to pay for their contraception: what obligation do I have, unless invited and willing to participate, to pay for your jollies—or the penalty for your follies. Either buy your own damned condoms, commit to paying for the consequences if you don’t care to use condoms, or keep your legs closed or dick under your kilt, as appropriate.)

3. Neither of the above prevent State regulation of abortion under the First Amendment. State laws, not the federal government, provide the legal definition of murder, and whether abortion is murder. So take it up with your state government.

4. Roe v. Wade is thus a violation of States rights. Conversely, while it ostensibly supports individual women’s rights, it does so for the most specious of reasons: a right to privacy is no defense against murder (if a state defines abortion as murder). Imagine Drew Peterson’s defense on that basis: “I had a private conversation with my wife, after which she disappeared and I never saw her again.” “What did you do to her.” “It was private.” End of defense, end of story. This specious defense of abortion, instead of legitimate legislation with a legitimate moral foundation, and public debate, has only fueled the contentions of abortion politics ever since.

5. However, much of the American Left can no longer maintain the pretense that it is anything other than a death cult. The progressives’ vicious attacks on Sarah and Bristol Palin in 2008 over their un-terminated pregnancies show that progressives do not believe in “choice.” They believe in the genocide of their political opponents. Just like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and one of Hillary Clinton’s “heroines.” That attitude alone has forced at least some people who were uncomfortable with abortion but not willing to oppose it, firmly onto the side of life.

6. And speaking of Margaret Sanger, consider the Planned Parenthood taxpayer-funded (see point 2) abortion mill which further profits from the sale of fetal tissue. A violation of the privacy (via the DNA information provided by the parents of the fetuses) of their “clients.” Immoral even beyond the obvious abhorrence of the practice. (And don’t get me started on “’partial birth’ abortion.”)

7. Last, but not least, points 1 and 6 lead to the conclusion that abortion is NEVER good. It may be the least bad of available options, particularly in the minds of women who believe is the best available choice, and those who feel it is their best choice deserve sympathy rather than perpetual grief. (One woman of my acquaintance told the story of a pre-Roe v. Wade high school friend who almost killed herself trying to self-induce an abortion because she feared her father’s wrath if he learned of her pregnancy. If nothing else, Roe V. Wade has retaught Christians to feel compassion for girls and young women trapped with that choice, and to gently counsel for the choice they feel best.) All of that is particularly true among the current generation, mostly taught by the progressive-controlled mind- destroying nihilist educational establishment; what cause have they been given to bring life into this portrayed-as-hopeless world.

But abortion does destroy a potential human life, with all its intrinsic genetic value to the human race, plus all of the potential good that it might do with its life (as well, of course, with all of the potential harm it might cause; but far more people do good than cause harm.) Humanity will never know of the potential Einsteins, Gausses, and Ghandis it’s lost to abortion, just as it will never know of the potential Hitlers, Stalins, or Maos. Or just the millions of decent people who were never born because of their mother’s choice.

So the starting points of the debate are: Abortion may in some instances be the best choice, and that is for the mother to determine; and, abortion opponents should not be forced to pay for abortions. And, in my mind, the appropriate middle ground is that abortions should be (in the only words of William Jefferson Clinton that I ever choose to quote) “safe, legal, and rare.” In those states that choose to permit it. Conducted only at the voluntary instigation of the mother, and performed without public funding (or funding from an insurance pool that abortion opponents are coerced into paying into). And only for the first twelve to sixteen weeks, never extending to a fetus that is mature enough to survive outside the womb, even with medical assistance.

[END SOAPBOX]