(This is not an issue about which I have any credentials – – – but lack of credentials never stopped me before)
The subject of abortions has re-emerged once again as a passionate national conundrum, important in its implications and divisive in its nature. It has repercussions on a broad spectrum of personal issues – – social, health, economic and religious. For some it is a private decision to be settled by, and only by, the family and its doctors. For others it is plain murder, a homicide, an egregious human rights violation. Many would like to see the government, with its heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all edicts, to just butt out and permit such decisions to remain in the private and personal domain.
The fundamental question seems to be: when is a fetus a living being, a live person? Is it at conception, or when a heartbeat is detected? Is it at birth or when the soul enters the body? There is not universal consensus on this, only God knows with certainty.
There can be legitimate reasons why an abortion may be warranted. There could be important medical and developmental issues involving the mother and/or the child. There could be other compelling conceptual issues. For me it should never be a family planning action. It’s hard not to conclude that the practice has been grossly abused. Data on abortions is sketchy since reporting is rarely mandatory. WHO estimates that, worldwide, there are 40-50 million abortions every year. In the US, WHO estimates about one million abortions are performed annually (the CDC estimates 630,000 but acknowledges that many go unreported) and 22% of all pregnancies end in abortions.
If an abortion is prescribed, what safeguards are needed and what limits are justified? I believe medical and other pregnancy complications are most often noted during the first trimester. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to prohibit abortions around that time, unless new compelling medical issues are discovered after that.
As always, the question of enforcement creates a dilemma.
This is not the conclusion of a doctor, a lawyer, a priest or a psychologist
- – – – Just the view of a common man
Views of a Common Man 
Agree !
Sent from my iPad
LikeLike
The following comments in response to Ollie’s blog are not
based on having read the SCOTUS 98-page opinion which
has been leaked. They are just comments based partially on
facts, hearsay, and random opinions.
I am certain that arguing the issue based on when life begins
will not conclusively resolve the matter for either pro-lifers
or pro-abortionists. Pro-abortionists assert that the question
of when human life begins is a metaphysical or religious matter.
Pro-lifers may argue that “science” determines the point at
which the preborn child is a human person, not religion. The
“science” used is that all the characteristics of living things
are present immediately after fertilization (conception).
I am reminded of the time God kicked Satan out of Heaven.
As Satan was leaving he told God that he had heard He
would soon be creating a new creature called Man. Upon
confirmation that this was true, Satan slyly said to God,
“He will need laws” to which God exclaimed, “What!
You, his appointed Enemy for all Time! You ask for the
right to make his laws?” “Oh, no!” Satan replied. “I ask
only that he be allowed to make his own.”
[Ambrose Bierce,The Devil’s Dictionary]
So Man was granted the opportunity to make his own laws,
good or bad. SCOTUS Justice Alito who wrote the pending
opinion against abortion supposedly claims that abortion is
not included as a right in the Constitution. Although he is
correct that the language is not there, an activist U.S.
Supreme Court, which handed down its Griswold v.
Connecticut decision on June 7, 1965, found that the
Connecticut law violated the “right to marital privacy,”
which is in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other
constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg
thought that this protection might lie in the Ninth Amendment,
and Justice John Marshall Harlan speculated that it might lie
in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
What is interesting is how the Constitutions of some other
countries approve and address abortion. An example is India.
Right to life and personal liberty is an important facet of
Article 21 enshrined in India’s Constitution. Their High Court
concluded that women alone have a say in how they want to
deal with pregnancies and recognized their “right to autonomy
and to decide what to do with their own bodies.”
This brings us to the “pro choice” option which is an
understanding that people should be allowed to make
their own decisions based on their life. It is not necessarily
approving of abortion, or whether human life “matters”.
No pro choice advocate is saying that we can dispose of
human life when it becomes inconvenient to us. This is
precisely what the Nazis did when they spoke of “life
unworthy of life” (lebensunwerten Lebens), where the right
to life is not assumed, but must be earned.
Laws should not be interpreted or made based upon public
pressure. This issue also cannot be debated to a
legal conclusion that is satisfactory to all sides. For this
reason, it should not be a “public” debate, but a crucial
consideration that a woman’s bodily autonomy has to be
respected, including the right to privacy which is a
cornerstone of life. This implies the fact that no restriction
should be made on women’s right to exercise their
reproductive choices. It is time that we let women take
responsibility for the choices they make, not the choices
that others make for them.
LikeLike
Jeanette, Thank you for your very enlightening comments on a very controversial subject. Looks like Scotus is going to kick this can down to the states which is something of a cop out. The subject does not seem to have one “right” answer, one that everybody will be happy with. I always look for compromise, maybe not always a good idea.
LikeLike