Abortion
Mississippi Gives the Supreme Court the Opportunity to Fix Roe-v-Wade
Quote from Constitution to justify abortion, relax and tighten rules, tax churches, support if you are for relaxed gun control
Synopsis
- The original abortion decision was ok, but the Mississippi case highlights a technical error. Also, in my opinion, the Court failed to address the real question and used indirect logic to justify abortion.
- How abortion, slavery, gun control, church taxation, and the Bible relate to each other.
- Let those that are opposed to abortion become accountable for their actions and incur some real responsibility.
- Note: each point could support more articles.
Background
Currently, the woman takes all of the risks to have sex, and the man, in reality, takes none. A woman displays a lot of courage just to go out on the first date with a man.
If the woman gets pregnant, even when using birth control, the woman incurs all the drudgery and risks, before and after birth. They ask the question
Why should men control a woman’s body?
That is a legitimate question and should be the first one that the Supreme Court addresses.
Roe-v-Wade
Roe-v-Wade attempted to put some limits on abortion. It didn’t do a very good job. To summarize, the woman has complete control for the first 3 months, partial control in the middle 3 months, and emergency-only control the last 3 months.
The Mississippi case has been filed because the middle three-month requirements are fuzzy. That was the technical error. For the abortion issue, there needs to be a firm cutoff date for the transition from complete control to the emergency control state.
A firm cutoff date That’s the simple issue.
All others issues revolve around allowing or preventing abortions themselves.
Slavery
13th amendment, Section 1. 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.
Slavery: coercive means to compel someone to work.
Children, especially babies, require an immense amount of work that nature has forced upon the woman from conception, at least until the child is off breast milk.
Some will say that the woman volunteered for the task just by having sex with a man. However, the fact that abortion exists presents a low-risk choice to the woman if made early.
Most women will not make that choice, but Court outlawing that choice at conception makes the woman a slave of the government. Allowing the woman to choose in an easily executable amount of time changes things entirely. The woman can choose to take on the work involved with the child.
People advocating no abortions or impossible abortion restrictions are advocating slavery
The Real Question
Conflicting rights: when does the right of the mother to control her body flip to being overridden by the rights of the fetus? I’ll call that the “cutoff point.”
No matter what the cutoff point is, whether at conception, one minute before birth, or somewhere in-between, the Court needs to decide on a specific cutoff-point based on the number of weeks into the pregnancy. People will argue every issue possible based on their own biases. In any case,
The Court’s cutoff point is completely arbitrary
Therefore, let’s follow the Bible in this case and cut the baby in half. Setting the cutoff point to 4 1/2 months would be reasonable. Maybe a 1 or 2 week extension could be allowed as long as paperwork was signed before the cutoff point.
After that, abortions would be permitted in an emergency-only situation. That relaxes the choice period, but makes the emergency-only situation rule more rigid than now.
What are those fetus rights? The current laws are required to support a civilized society, no matter how inconsistently they are enforced.
So, is the fetus covered by those laws after the cutoff point or at birth? How about contracts and inheritance laws? Some states have laws for intentionally or accidentally killing the fetus. Are they the same as the murder laws? If not, following the logic of some antiabortionists, they should be.
Is this a question for the Court to address in this case? Probably not, or they will have to rewrite the entire legal system, which is up to Congress and the states.
This is another good topic for student debate at law schools.
Abortion & Gun Control
People argue that the government controlling guns infringe upon their individual rights. They don’t want outside government interference in their privacy or lives.
Isn’t that the same thing they are advocating to do to pregnant women? Have some outside entity, namely people with church and government support, interfere with a woman’s decision to terminate the pregnancy.
They want to control others (women) They don’t want controls on themselves
Reverse the Hypocrisy
- Someone said, “Antiabortionists are so worried about the fetus, but don’t care about the baby after it is born.”
Doug Lane, president of Pastors for Life, is a frequent presence in front of an abortion clinic in Mississippi. Well, if you are so against abortion, then put your money, time and work where your mouth is. Most opposition is religion-based, so I propose:
Pass an Antiabortion Tax 10% of all church income
This would be a dedicated tax, like social security, except it would not go back to the taxpayer. It would support medical expenses for uninsured mothers when they give birth, low-income daycare centers, food pantries, and other costs incurred while raising a kid.
Place some responsibility on antiabortionists Now, they have no obligation or accountability
Cascading impact
Does the state assume any new responsibilities if abortions are severely limited or outlawed? Do they need to pass new laws governing the rights of the fetus? How do current laws handle a miscarriage?
Should any mother be able to register with the state for state-provided child support if there is no father to provide it? Should the amount be based on the state’s average income, instead of some minimum? The church tax could provide revenue for that.
What about after the baby is born? Should the state pay child support?
Practical reality
Can the people who eliminated drugs and prevented all border crossings stop abortions? Let’s live in reality instead of fantasyland.
Abortions will happen. The dispute is will they occur in a controlled, sanitary, safe medical environment with minimal risk, or will amateurs do them with no medical backup if something goes wrong.
Then, if they are illegal, do you throw the women in jail or just the abortionist.
Good programs work, bad ones don’t.
Totally preventing abortions has been a complete failure - and always will be.
Conclusion
Eventually, technology will get so good that a fetus can be brought to term if removed from the woman two weeks after conception. Maybe at that time, the whole question will become moot.
However, the Court needs to decide what to do now.
Here are the final proposals:
- Set the cutoff point at 4 1/2 months
- Eliminate the current month 4 through 6 provision
- Tax churches for child support
- Reject the Mississippi law based on the 13th amendment
My related articles
- This will equalize, somewhat, sex risks for men and women. The woman no longer takes all of the risk.
Mississippi’s last abortion clinic at center of US debate (msn.com)
