Considering the legal framework for abortion
Threads addressing issues such as abortion have a tendency to closure for much the same reasons as constructive debate on legislation tends towards failure - entrenched positions. I would like to see if we can revisit the topic in a rational manner and - whilst consensus might prove beyond reach - move towards a proposed legislative framework that the majority might support. I'm not seeking to address right and wrong so much as how we deal with abortion in law.
To set context, I would note that to my understanding, a major battleground for legislative evolution is the United States, where the political framework is failing on so many fronts that require compromise. In this, the Backroom perhaps represents a similar microcosm. There may be other administrations that suffer the same paralysis - it would interesting for contributors from those countries to outline the specific challenges. I shall no doubt, approach the problem from a somewhat Europe-centric point-of-view.
My own personal position is this:
1) I believe that the foetus has rights as a human being from conception and that morally, abortion is wrong. I would like to see the end of abortion as an option for dealing with unwanted pregnancies. This is a position partly rooted in my Catholic upbringing and the Church's teachings, but also my wider belief in human rights derived from a belief in the sanctity of same developed outside any specific religious framework.
2) I believe that a woman has the right to control and choose what happens with her body and that whilst the foetus is resident and dependent on that body and her choices, there exists a potential conflict of rights. Whilst the adult woman is completely responsible for the well-being of any foetus she carries, she is correctly the decision maker in regard to that foetus. No-one else can exercise this choice on her behalf, least of all a government. Whereas from position (1) above, I contend there is a moral responsibility that the woman ought to undertake, my moral viewpoint (particularly as a man) cannot bind her since we are considering an entirely dependent being. I also recognise that throughout history, whether legal or not, if a woman so chooses, an abortion will happen. Indeed, such loss happens spontaneously as well as by deliberate action. Thus there is a pragmatic recognition of the real world that must be taken into any account: A woman has choice whether government grants a legal right or not.
3) I am, by inclination and practice, a conservative (though perhaps not in the modern political sense) and a believer in small government where administrations interfere as little as is practical in the lives of their citizens. Therefore, I have an instinctive aversion to legislation which seeks to enforce social moralities, particularly those that rely on religious grounds as there are so many religions and so much inconsistency in their advocacy. Equally in my book, conservatives are by nature pragmatic and recognisant of both personal responsibilities and those of the wider state should it advocate or impose a position by law. Extreme positions are by definition radical, and thus one should avoid extremist or fundamentalist options.
So, as with the wider debate, there is a conflict between my personal views. In my ideal solution, the starting point is to address unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Appropriate provision of transparent, comprehensive sex education (and wider educational achievement) for all must be a starting point, along with a consistent moral framework from both religious and secular authorities that explains and teaches - but does not hector or demand - the responsibilities inherent in sexual relationships. One cannot legislate human behaviour, but one can inform and set an example. (It goes without saying that I am not a fan of current sexual mores, which I would view as irresponsible at best - but it is not for me to legislate my views, but hope that others might come to agree with me through example and data).
Given that in any society, not everyone is going to adopt a set position, unwanted pregnancies will still occur. I would like to see the state encourage and incentivise adoption, so that more women might choose to go to term knowing that their child will be quickly taken into a new family and given the chance of a good life. I find it insane that we spend so much money on IVF treatments and the like when we also abort many viable children. Adoption should be seen as a great good, and a first choice. A loving, positive choice that women may take - when I take my position as pro-choice, this is one of the choices I should mean. I find it unconscionable that many pro-life proponents tend to portray a great deal of concern for the foetus, but very little commitment to the fate of the child once born. Yes, this probably means state taxes (given that my preferred solution through charities tends not to get a great deal of private funding - which is odd, given the numbers of those who profess pro-life attitudes).
Failing the above, there is no way a civilised society can condemn women to backstreet butchers armed with knitting needles, and therefore a legal method of abortion must be available. As noted above, my proposed compromise to the conflict of morality and pragmatism is viability: abortion should be freely available up to the age of consistent viability plus two weeks (which on current understandings is about 24 weeks I believe). It is at this point that the foetus - now able to survive on its own more often than not - acquires rights that can be guaranteed without the consent or agency of the mother - in other words, it becomes a viable human being. Those rights pertain prior to this point in theory, but are unenforceable, and thus moot. There should be very few cases where the choice to abort the foetus cannot be made within that early period of time, therefore any later term abortions would have to be decided only through the intervention of a judge, and that rarely. The presumption for any later term application for an abortion would be that the child now has the right to life and should be brought to term.
So, to summarise: Legislation should be pro-choice (i.e. the choice resides with the woman and solely with her, with no requirement for her to justify her decision to anyone) with abortions legal until the 24th week. Past that, any application would be granted only on judicial review with the default position that the child has full human rights. Concurrent with this, adoption should be made considerably easier and incentivised through tax allowances for the new parents.
This is not very far from the position taken by most European governments. Roe vs Wade appears to have hamstrung any such approach in the US legislature, as the pro-choice lobby hangs on to the ruling for grim death lest the equally determined pro-life lobby use any movement to outlaw abortion altogether.
I'd be interested in other people's views as to how they resolve the inherent conflicts, preferably without throwaway lines about religious stricture or secular immorality - the right to life is something we should consider very carefully and consistently, whether it be for a foetus, a soldier, a death row inmate, or indeed, for any moment of the human condition.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Bookmarks