By By Tray Smith
Proponents of “choice,” insecure in the decency of their dubious abortion politics, often resort to their own personal disdain for the procedure as compensation for their inhumane support for its legalization. Their most common refrains come in variations of two phrases, one being that although they are personally opposed to abortion, they do not believe the government has the right to legislate on the matter, and the other that a woman has the right to decide what to do with “her body.” In conversations with social progressives concerning the issue, little additional rationale is offered, as liberals are hardly overflowing with justification for terminating unborn lives. However, both of the above defenses fail to give abortion proponents what they most seek; the moral high ground in the debate over the rights of the unborn. Instead, they simply expose liberal hypocrisy.
It is important for those personally repelled by, but politically supportive of abortion to answer precisely what it is about the practice that leads them to condemn it on an individual basis. If it is because of the human lives ended, or, more generously, human births denied, as a result of legalized abortion, liberals should have no objection to outlawing the inhumane procedure. After all, they have no objection to banning transfats in restaurants, oil exploration in Alaska, or helmet- less motorcycle riders on highways.
Yet, liberals do have a substantial objection to banning abortion, which means that either they do not truly oppose it personally, and use such rhetoric only as a guise, or, worse, they do realize the tragedy of abortion and stand unprepared to intervene and end it.
For those who support a woman’s right to make decisions concerning her body, they should ask themselves: is a subject old enough to have a heartbeat, be filmed on ultrasound actively trying to escape abortion procedures, and feel pain, part of someone else‘s body? If an unborn child is part of his mother’s body because of his dependence on her, should a toddler dependent on his mother for food, shelter, and clothing not also be considered “part of her body”? Is birth not an abstract distinction of whether or not a child is too mature to be terminated, considering little biological development occurs between the day before and the day after a child is born?
Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry drew attention when, during his 2004 Presidential campaign, he stated his personal belief that life begins at conception, along with his personal opposition to forcing that belief on other citizens. Would Kerry be willing to force his views on other citizens if he personally believed life began at birth? Why should Kerry be allowed to force his views on others when he believes a life is present at birth, but not when he believes a life is present at conception? Is an individual’s belief in when life begins a personal belief, or is it a scientific fact confirmed every time a human being makes the journey from conception to birth, producing many ultrasounds, heartbeats, and movements along the way?
These questions, which have yet to, and never will be, fully answered by abortion supporters, unveil serious flaws in the arguments of the pro-choice movement. Ironically, for all of the inconsistencies in their moral rationales for abortion, advocates of choice have yet to focus on the legal aspects of the debate. Perhaps this is the result of their realization that the only thing less debatable than the moral tragedy of abortion is the legality of Roe v. Wade. But it is the reversal of that decision, not a national abortion ban, that remains the ultimate goal of the American pro-life movement. Should such a ruling ever be issued, the respective states themselves would simply regain the right to regulate abortion procedures, independent of one another or the federal government. States are prohibited from undertaking these task now because of a Supreme Court decision, which found a right to abortion that may or may not be implied under the right to privacy which may or may not be in the Constitution. Sound questionable?
Yet, asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade is asking the judiciary to voluntarily relinquish much of its unchallenged assumption of unconstitutional powers. Success will not be possible without the leadership of judges capable of realizing the importance of a limited judiciary. Thus; the importance of having conservative Presidents nominate conservative Supreme Court justices. Indeed, radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who supported Mitt Romney’s unsuccessfully Presidential campaign, made a good point when encouraging conservatives to rally behind the eventual Republican nominee, regardless of who it is, after Romney abandoned his candidacy two weeks ago. Hewitt gave six good reasons. They are all on the Supreme Court, and they are all over 70.
Tray Smith is a political columnist for the Atmore Advance. He is a student at Escambia County High School and can be reached at tsmith_90@ hotmail.com.