Sen. David Fowler has introduced an amendment to the State Constitution that would specify that the Constitution does not women the right to an abortion. Say Uncle finds it odd that an amendment would be needed to specifically rule out a certain interpretation. Given that some folks have tried to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment as forbidding the people to keep and bear arms, this attitude is puzzling.
Here's the thing. Sen Fowler has proposed an amendment based on his own beliefs and the beliefs of his constituents. That's the way representative government works. His proposal was passed on first reading by a majority of his colleagues, who believe that the majority of their constituents also agree.
So far so good.
Now then, folks who disagree are going to raise a ruckus, lobbying their representatives to vote against or stall a vote on the proposal in the House. Again, that's representative government at it's finest.
Having read the State Constitution twice now (By the way, did you know that it is illegal for a professed atheist to hold office in Tennessee? It is.), I've got a good handle on how this whole Amendment process goes down.
First, you have to introduce the amendment in both legislative branches. Both branches must approve the legislation. Then, during the next general assembly, which gives the people plenty of time to replace congress critters who voted against their wishes, the amendment must pass both houses by a 2/3 majority. After that, it can be placed before the people of the state during the next governor's race, and it must pass by a simple majority of those who vote for governor.
So, this is a two year process at a minimum. It's very tough to change the Constitution, and rightfully so. The point is that Sen. Fowler has taken the first step in a long drawn out process because he believes it's the right thing to do. Those who oppose him also believe that they're doing the right thing.
So can we keep the character assasination out of it, please?
Sen. Fowler is not a cruel, evil man for wanting to make abortions illegal. He honestly and sincerely believes that abortion is murder. By the same token, NARAL, PP, and the pro-choice side are not evil, cruel, heartless baby killers. They either believe that a fetus is not a person (a weak argument) or that authorizing the state to interfere in a pregnancy grants too much power to the state (a much stronger argument). Both sides have a good case to back up their side of the fight. Calling each other names, telling lies, and distorting the truth distracts from the process, rather than advancing it. Polling data from both sides shows one thing very clearly; this is a conversation that we've been putting off for decades now, ever since the SCOTUS issued Roe v Wade.
How do I feel about abortion?
Personally, I'm against it. I know as a scientific fact that a new organism is created at conception. The DNA no longer matches the mother, therefore, the fetus is not tissue from the mother; it is it's own being. But is it a person? Today, the assignment of personhood is based on supposition and philosophy, not science, and has beome a matter of law, rather than fact, divorced from any scientific basis. We try to pin it down with terms like self-awareness, and autonomy, but since it's very difficult to assign just when those traits are evident in living beings, much less a developing fetus, it more or less comes down to somebody's best guess. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the government getting to decide what a person is and isn't; that's a lot of power and they don't have a really good track record to date.(cf slavery) Particularly when that decision is based on a guess.
So I default back to science. If an embryo is a new organism at conception, then it is also a new person at that time, since that is the only clear point of demarcation available to science.
However, the problem with eliminating abortion is that if you give the government the right to compel birth then you're also giving it the right to restrict birth as well. Check out China. Once again, that's way too much power for the federal government to have, or the state governments for that matter. Now some may argue that making abortion illegal is not the same as compelling birth, that there are other options, but for all practical purposes, they're wrong. So, as a matter of public policy, it would seem that I should fall into the pro-choice camp.
But I can't.
If a fetus is a new person, then abortion is murder, and murder is and should be a crime.
So where does that leave me? I don't like either answer. Either we give the government the power to decide just what a person is, or we give it the power to determine our reproductive choices. That's a lose-lose if you ask me.
I look to a cultural solution, rather than a judicial or legislative one. What others have given lip service to, I think should be the true approach. We should work to create a society where abortion fades away because it is no longer necessary.
The first step is education. Parents need to teach their children that sex isn't a game; it isn't just about feeling good, and it can have life altering circumstances, of which pregnancy is only one. Parents also need to teach kids about responisibility, and that the choices we make carry consequences, and killing a baby is not an appropriate way to deal with those consequences.
Second, we need to enable our cildren to make responsible choices. I'm a single dad, which means I've had to have several awkward conversations with my daughters, one of which dealt with the need for contraception. All my girls know that if they decide to become active sexually, I will take them to the OB/GYN so they can go on the pill, or whichever method of contraception is right for them. I don't think this is encouraging them to be active, but to be responsible when they decide to be active. My sons know that if they decide to be active, to use condoms. But I've also tried to teach all of them that despite all precautions, pregnancy can happen, and that it is a potential consequence of being active. I've also tried to teach them that abortion is a way to avoid taking responsibility for the choices they made. Finally, I've let them all know that, should one of them get pregnant, that I will support them and their child, making sure that they can still have a full life, just different.
Third, we need to offer viable options for pregnant mothers other than abortion. This is one area that I'm happy to say has seen tremendous improvement. Years ago, the pro-choice crowd correctly pointed out that the pro-life folks were woefully inadequate in this area, so they took action to correct it. The pro-life movement is far more accepting of contraception than they used to be, although there is still room for improvement, and they've strengthened their commitment to supporting adoption and providing services and support for single mothers, particularly teens. This kind of support is vital to any effort to minimize the demand for abortion.
Finally, and here is where I'm going to strike sparks with countless folks, our culture needs to become much less accepting of abortion as a method of contraception. As I mentioned earlier, the choices we make have consequences, and killing a baby to avoid those consequences is wrong. The time to choose is not after the baby is conceived, but before you have sex. If you choose to have sex and you or your partner become pregnant, you are now a parent. It isn't a choice; it's a consequence of a choice you already made. Avoiding the consequence by killing the fetus is just flat out wrong.
Posted by Rich at March 13, 2006 9:00 AM | TrackBack