tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11014765.post114502619766369334..comments2023-11-23T00:52:47.615+05:00Comments on maarmie's musings : Abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion abortionmaarmiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208449053550101175noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11014765.post-1145114812714898052006-04-15T20:26:00.000+05:002006-04-15T20:26:00.000+05:00No time like the present to beat this abortion iss...No time like the present to beat this abortion issue to death. This one really fires me up.<BR/><BR/>I can understand why many doctors shy away from this practice. The "compassionate conservatives" (a bullshit term if there ever was one) that make up the fringe lunatic clinic-bombing groups have succeeded in changing the cost-benefit equation for these doctors and the doctors are simply making decisions that maximize their utility. While it is a shame, I blame the lunatic-bombers, not the doctors.<BR/><BR/>For too long I think the debate about abortion has been incorrectly focused. Frequently the debate comes down to the viability of the fetus, and whether or not the fetus has rights, and so on. While those issues may <I>seem</I> relevant, they are in fact red herrings.<BR/><BR/>Let us begin with a legal analysis. Simply, the 9th and 13th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America make regulating abortion off-limits to all levels of government -- including State governments. Now, ordinarily I afford State governments the widest possible latitude because the role of the Feds is supposed to be "sharply limited" with each State shaping its public policy landscape in accordance with the needs and values of its residents. However, the States may not violate the Constitution. I'm going to skip the 9th amendment because honestly, most people don't have the intellictual rigor to understand it. The 13th amendment however should be a little more clear:<BR/><BR/>"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."<BR/><BR/>Forcing a woman to allow her body to be used for a purpose she does not wish, is involuntary servitude. If you disagree, let's frame it a little differently. Say your 5 year old child has a newly discovered disease. They will die of this disease if not treated, but if treated, there is a 99.3% chance that they will live a normal, healthy life. But the catch is that the treatment requires the father to agree to undergo certain treatments, for the better part of a year, so his body will make the substance needed to save the child. Only the biological father of the child is compatible with this process. The treatments the father must undergo will result in significant discomfort, restrict the type of activities he may perform, have numerous undersirable temporary side effects, significant permanent side effects, and could actually kill the father.<BR/><BR/>Given the 99.3% chance of success, some fathers (maybe even <I>many</I> fathers, but I'm not sure of that) would opt to undergo the treatments to save the child. The question is however, can the almighty state <B>force</B> the father to undergo the treatments against his will? The answer of course is that they cannot.<BR/><BR/>In case the analogy is not strikingly clear, 99.3% is the number of children who survive childbirth (the complement of the infant mortality rate), and the side-effects of the treatments the father would endure are the side-effects of pregnancy. No court in the land could force a person to undergo this process.<BR/><BR/>In a more simple scenario, can a court force a parent to donate a kidney to a child whose kidneys have failed and is on dialysis? No.<BR/><BR/>Why? Because your body is about the only thing you absolutely own and the use or modification of it is solely your right to control.<BR/><BR/>But what about the "children"?<BR/><BR/>What about them? Even granting the assumption that the fetus has a "right" to life, that does not mean they have a right to the use of the body of their mother (any more than a born child has a right to the use of the body of their father as in the scenario above). If the fetus cannot survive without the body of its mother, that is unfortunate, but does not diminish the rights of the mother. If the State has the technology and the funds to do so, you might argue that the State, to prevent the unnecessary death of the fetus, may have the right to remove the fetus, place it on life support, and, when the fetus is actually a viable human being, place it up for adoption according to customary practice. That notion is one that is mostly tolerable. Assuming that a fetus at any level of development could be "transplanted" and survive in incubation to the point of viability changes the parameters of our analogy.<BR/><BR/>The new analogy would be that either the father or any other person could undergo the treatment to produce what is needed to save the child's life. In fact, pharmaceutical companies are now paying people to undergo the treatment, extracting the needed byproduct, and selling the cure to hospitals. The father is not willing to undergo the treatment, but the cure is available from another source. Assuming that the cure is affordable and the family has the resources to purchase it, <B>now</B> you may be able to argue that the State can compel the parents to provide it, because providing it does not involve the involuntary use of someone else's body - it is more akin to providing food, water, shelter, and other <I>purchasable</I> commodoties for the child.<BR/><BR/>I realize that to accept all of this you must first recognize the right for all humans to control their bodies as inviolable. Many cannot do this. You must also be able to put aside the unfortunate side effect of the mother's unwillingness to accept the burden of pregnancy, because the ends (allowing the child to develop and be born) do not and cannot justify the means (the involuntary use of another human being's body).<BR/><BR/>Before I close, some well-meaning, religious friends of mine once countered the above by saying "if you're not willing to do carry the child, you should not have sex -- if you have sex, knowing that pregnancy is possible, the State can compel you to carry the child". I asked them if the State could use similar logic to prevent a smoker who gets cancer from having an operation to have the cancer removed. After all, the cancer has different DNA than you do, and is dependent upon you for survival. Sure, it <I>might</I> kill you, but, if you didn't want to risk that, you shouldn't have smoked, right? Of course I'm told "that's different".<BR/><BR/>Sigh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11014765.post-1145029277525507752006-04-14T20:41:00.000+05:002006-04-14T20:41:00.000+05:00I read that article in The NY Times, too, and it h...I read that article in The NY Times, too, and it helped me understand what was happening systemically to decrease the availability of abortion in America.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11014765.post-1145028311965703172006-04-14T20:25:00.000+05:002006-04-14T20:25:00.000+05:00Amen. I'm tired of a debate over whether women's l...Amen. I'm tired of a debate over whether women's lives are more important than the embryos they carry. This should be a no-brainer.palinodehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01029915232895358768noreply@blogger.com