In June we saw what appeared to be a sea change, a radical shift in the culture. The Supreme Court threw out Roe v Wade, removing it from an unmerited "constitutional right" status and returning it to the choice of the people. The Constitution says nothing about it; let the states decide. Since then I think it has become clear that no such sea change has occurred. Many states had preexisting bans in place ready to fire up when just such an event occurred. Many of those states found their laws blocked by the courts. Others passed laws that enshrined abortion in their states. Currently only 10 states actually ban abortion. The rest spread their permissions from "before a heartbeat is detected" to "legal at any stage" (and a couple are aiming for "and beyond"). Beyond this, some of the upcoming election candidates are being selected specifically for their approval of abortion in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. The land is currenly militarized on the topic. So much for profound transformation (the definition of "sea change").
Back in the 70's when Roe v Wade was decided, the question was about women's rights. The question was about "reproductive rights." In the last couple of decades, though, the debate has shifted. Ultrasound images and scientific examinations and new medical knowledge all pointed to this very important point -- we're not looking at a tissue blob; we're looking at a human being. Questions like "How soon can they feel pain?" and "How soon do they have a beating heart?" became part of the open dialog. It was absolutely evident that women had been lied to. It was not a question of "women's choice" or "reproductive choice" or "men trying to control women." It was the fundamental question of when it is morally right to kill an innocent human being.
You can see, now, what I mean. No sea change. No shift. The court moved the question from "constitutional" (where it never should have been) to "states rights" and states are making their choices. The federal government is working to codify abortion at the federal level. The people of this nation now know that we're talking about killing innocent human beings ... and the loudest voices don't care. Some openly admit that abortion kills a baby and boldly claim, "We can own that." Moral philosophers like Peter Singer argue that we should be able to kill children up to the age of 3. Others suggest it doesn't matter as long as they're not breathing yet; we can kill those. But most just ignore the facts, clear and present and undeniable, and lean back on the lie of "women's choice" without regard to the life in her and "reproductive choice" while ignoring the reproduction that has already occurred. The Supreme Court changed the constitutional standing of abortion in America, but they didn't change any hearts. And the loudest voices today still clamor for more blood. If you thought the SCOTUS ruling was a victory, you misunderstood the human heart. It was the right legal choice, but it doesn't fix humans. Only God can do that.
________
Postscript. I have a question. One of the key points on which states seeking to ban abortion are getting shot down is the "right to privacy." Mind you, the right to privacy is not in the Constitution or its amendments. It might be implied, at least to some extent, but it's not actually in there. Several states, however, do have it in their state constitutions. So in those states Planned Parenthood is going on a rampage to force abortion legalization based on the right to privacy. I don't understand. The right to privacy means that, as long as they do it in private, people should be allowed to terminate the lives of innocent human beings? You may scoff, but to what extent do we have a "right to privacy"? If I'm privately cooking meth in my house, how can law enforcement interfere? If Bob lives in a state where marijuana is outlawed and he's privately growing marijuana for personal use, on what basis can law enforcement intervene? When does a "right to privacy" trump laws like ... oh, I don't know ... killing innocent human beings? What does privacy have to do with it? I read Compelling Interest which gave the story of the whole Roe v Wade process and still don't understand how privacy guarantees the right to kill babies.
No comments:
Post a Comment