[MD] Morality, Abortion and the MoQ

[Ham Priday]

Michael wrote to Ham:


> And what about societal freedom?
> R v. W, not for its specifics, but for the process
> and over-reaching by the Judicial that it represents
> does EXACTLY what you describe on a societal level.
>
> I am not directly disagreeing with the specific *results*
> of R v. W (at least at its initial ruling.)
>
> I am simply adamantly opposed to the means by which
> R v. W and the court which produced it reached those
> results, and for the impact that has had on our societal
> freedom of self government.
>
> R v. W represents the surrender of societal freedom
> corrupting societal value.

The collaboration of human beings to establish a livable society 
necessitates a degree of accommodation by the individual participants, just 
as a functioning family requires its members to abide by the rules of the 
household.  The trick is to limit the rules so that there is a maximum of 
freedom for each person involved without corrupting the social order.  While 
no human system is perfect, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments come 
about as close to fulfilling this objective as any other societal 
foundation.  The original document made no reference to abortions as such. 
What I quoted was the 5th Amendment having to do with life, liberty, and 
property.  The 14th Amendment cites other liberties or rights.

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, the 
"legality" of abortions was left to the states.  The Roe v. Wade case 
involved a pregnant single woman who brought a class action challenging the 
constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited any 
abortion except to save the woman's life.  The court ruled that, anywhere in 
the U.S.:
1)  A woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during 
the first trimester;
2)  State governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester 
with laws intended to protect the woman's health;
3)  Abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health 
or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.

Most societies value human life and generally oppose "infanticide" as well 
as fetal terminations at any point in the gestation cycle.  Iasmuch as 
biological life is continuous from one generation to another by virtue of 
the sperm and ovum, dating the development of an individual "human being" is 
speculative at best.  The "first trimester" ruling accommnodates the 
cultural belief that consciousness is not "present" in the first three 
months of gestation.

> By yielding to the third party authority of the court for
> the specifics we diminish the value of our democratic
> legislative freedom. By not accepting the responsibility
> to act on our own authority and craft reasonable legislation
> on abortion we deny our autonomy as free agents of
> societal value. Failure to value and preserve our legislative
> freedom will eventually reduce us to vassals of the tyranny
> of the court.
>
> Does my position make more sense that way?

I am generally in agreement that, as distasteful as it is, abortion is a 
private and personal matter.  But so is shooting a thief who breaks into 
your house.  At what stage of gestation is the medical profession committing 
"murder"?  And, if you don't believe the Supreme Court's decision is fair or 
moral, how would you "craft reasonable legislation" that is?  What would be 
a reasonable ruling in your opinion?

Thanks and regards,
Ham