Abortion, Of Course

Last updated on: May 9, 2013 at 6:06 am by Faithful Democrats

Abortion, Of Course 2013-05-09T06:06:57-06:00 Faithful Democrats

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Here’s my take on the issue. As a matter of policy, I’m something of a centrist: I think abortion should be legal only for the first three months or so of a pregnancy. I guess that makes me more or less pro-choice. But as a matter of law, Roe was wrongly decided. The Constitution, after all, has nothing to say on the matter. The issue should consequently be left to the states.

On Friday night I attended an ACLU function in Chicago. The point of the event was to seduce me into becoming a member, and somewhere amid the free booze, free snacks, and free performance from a gay comedy duo, it worked. I probably agree with the ACLU only about two-thirds of the time, but it’s a pretty important two-thirds: they’re the guys willing to stand up for the neo-Nazis who want to march and for the atheist students who recoil at sectarian prayer in public schools. This is an organization worth supporting.

And yet there’s still that other one-third — that substantial minority of the time in which I get the sneaking suspicion the ACLU is more concerned with promoting a political agenda than with protecting people’s constitutional rights. I was talking with one of the ACLU’s board members at the event and got into a debate that I think illustrates some of the fuzzy thinking that goes on in liberal legal circles. We bantered back and forth about a couple of different issues, but the most contentious one (predictably) was Roe v. Wade.

Of course, that’s not the standard line among my progressive cohorts. The most common pro-Roe argument is essentially as follows: There’s a “penumbra” of rights implicit in the Constitution, and one of these rights is privacy. Since the abortion issue is primarily about a woman being able to control her own body, the Constitution implicitly protects her right to an abortion. The Roe court itself found the right to privacy inherent in the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

A second argument — not one that appears in the Roe decision, but one that my sparring partner proffered Friday night — rests on the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. According to this line of reasoning, to ban abortion is to deprive women of equal rights under the law, since men can’t get pregnant and would never face the choice of having an abortion.

To understand the problem with both of these arguments, let’s step back and recall the fault lines of the abortion debate. One side says the issue is about a woman’s body, and the other side says it’s about the life of a fetus. The pro-choicers say the fetus is merely an extension of the mother, and the pro-lifers say an unborn baby has rights of its own. OK.

In seeking to establish a constitutional right to an abortion, both the privacy and equal protection arguments assume precisely what they seek to prove: that the fundamental issue is choice, not life. If one already accepts the premise that a fetus has no human rights — that the unborn child is a non-entity, or at least a non-person — the legal question is fairly straightforward: banning abortion violates a woman’s privacy and, most likely, her right to equal protection under the law. After all, if the fetus is out of the picture, there’s no one’s rights to protect besides the woman’s.

But what if one doesn’t accept this premise? What if one believes a fetus is a person and has human rights? In that case, the equal protection argument immediately gets turned on its head: to allow abortions is to discriminate against unborn babies. Indeed, abortion would also violate the Constitution’s due process clause by depriving the unborn of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

The privacy argument, too, would quickly become surpassed. For if we weigh the right to life against the right to privacy, it’s pretty clear which one wins. We can accept that abortion is a privacy issue only if we trivialize the life question to the point of virtual irrelevance.

And so we’re back to where the abortion argument always starts: as a wrestling match between those who wish to frame it in terms of choice and those who wish to frame it in terms of life. The Constitution may have an implicit right to privacy and it surely has explicit rights to life and equal protection under the law. But on the question of how to frame the abortion debate, the Constitution offers nothing but the sound of crickets chirping.

So what then? Well, the framers knew the Constitution wouldn’t address every issue that might arise over the life of the republic, and they didn’t want it to, in any event. So they provided guidance about what to do in such circumstances. The 10th amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In other words, the guys in the black robes don’t get to make the call on this one — not the ones at the federal level, anyway. Legally speaking, abortion is (or should be) an issue to be resolved in the legislative process, probably at the state level. That might not be welcome news to those who cannot fathom a distinction between their personal views and what the Constitution says — or, relatedly, between the role of legislators and the role of courts. But if we believe in constitutional democracy, then we believe in it precisely when we wish our constitution were different. Otherwise we don’t believe in constitutional democracy.

Sorry to break it to judicial activists on both sides, but to quote the geneticist Charles Murtaugh, the universe is not here to please you.

This post originally appeared at jesselava.com

Featured Writers

Previous Post

February 28, 2009

Budgeting Compassion?

Next Post

March 4, 2009 A Rant on Republicans, Spending, Hypocrisy, the Economy, and Fundamental Change

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category About Us About Us Action Center Advertise Ask a Theologian Ask a Theologian Blogs Books Campaign Blog Candidate Spotlights Commentary Donate Facebook Featured Writers Fellows Fellows From the Pulpit General Information Hillary Clinton Interfaith Blog Latest Media Center Media Center Media Center MyBlog MyBlog News Newsflash Newsflashes Our Team Reader Blogs RSS Sermon of the Week Shop Social Networking Static Items Support Talking Points Test blogs The Basics Theology Uncategorized YouTube

Select a Month November 2020 October 2020 February 2020 August 2019 July 2018 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 January 2006 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which letter has the "armor of God" passage?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Colossians 2 Timothy Philippians Ephesians