Forum

SCOTUS's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade was exactly and precisely correct (stay tuned, you will be surprised).  SCOTUS essentially found that there is NOTHING in the Constitution or constitutional law governing reproduction, let alone any associated "rights".  SCOTUS found that abortion is a state issue and NOT up to the Federal Government.  

 

The Constitution is an instruction manual on how to run government; nothing more.  It was never intended to govern social or moral values.  That was left to "The States and the People, respectively" (Tenth Amendment).  The Constitution grants the federal government very limited powers (Article One, Section Eight).  More importantly, it LIMITS what government can do FOR us and what government can do TO us (Bill of Rights).  That so few know these basic truths is a reflection on the failure of American education. 

 

Juxtapose that with Islamic countries where Islamic fundamentalists use religion to govern everyone, especially women.  Not in America.   We do not use religion to run government, nor do we use the Constitution to govern morality.   

 

Fast forward to abortion, post-Dobbs.

 

In an earlier Kansas case, the Supreme Court of Kansas ruled that the Kansas Constitution allows abortion.  As a result of the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling, and pursuant to SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution would remove the judiciary from the equation and allow the Legislature to pass legislation governing abortion.  

 

I have a problem with the Legislature defining and/or legislating abortion.  I am skeptical of the Legislture's ability to decide something that clearly is a personal matter between a woman and her doctor.  The vote is on August Second.  

 

That said, I do have a problem (personal) with abortion-on-demand for "convenience".  Assuming the fetus is healthy, and the mother's life is not in danger, shouldn't the fetus live?  If a woman doesn't know she's pregnant by the third trimester, there's a problem.  If the mother decides she just doesn't want a baby, well, there's always adoption.  My point is that I don't trust my legislature to make this kind of decision.  

 

The arguments are understandably nasty on both sides.  Each side uses half-truths, which also makes them half-lies.  

 

Prior to this post I intended to vote for said amendment.  Not now.  I'm torn.  Bear with me.    

 

THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN HAVE NO CLUE HOW WOMENS' BODIES WORK!  IT'S THAT SIMPLE!  

 

I would have no problem with abortion being limited by states, but not by Congress and/or courts, AND with  exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother and/or the viability of the fetus.          

 

What exactly is "Abortion"?  We all know what we think it is.  Maybe not.   In some States, abortion is 'legally' defined as the termination of a pregnancy under any circumstance.  For example, if a woman has a miscarriage, and some prosecutor decides the miscarriage was "her fault" (drinking, smoking, etc.) some states call that an "abortion".  These laws are passed by men in Legislatures who literally have NO CLUE how the female body works.  As a result, many (more than you would imagine) district attorneys (lawyers with zero medical knowledge or expertise, but with a morality-based agenda) prosecute women receiving "abortions", even when recommended by their doctors.       

 

Don't believe me?  Ask a woman!  Ask her what an Etopic Pregnancy is.  Ask her why she might have to carry a dead fetus until her body may or may not decide to expel it.  You have no clue, right?  Neither did I.  

 

Some would even ban contraception as a form of "abortion".  Clearly, there are extremists on both sides.  

 

In Europe, where sex education is taught in every school and contraception is common, abortion-on-demand for 'convenience' is almost non-existent.  Unwanted pregnancies are rare.  "Abortions" as portrayed in American pop culture just don't happen.  Instead, pregnancy terminations almost always occur for medical reasons.  

 

Further, the vast, vast majority (roughly 90%) of "voluntary" abortions occur in or about the first trimester of pregnancy.  True, extreme examples of, say, partial birth abortions exist, but these are very rare and are used to promote one-size-fits-all legislation.  

 

I also find it hypocritical when the pro-abortion crowd screams "my body, my choice", then attacks pregnant, pro-life women going into a pregnancy-support center.  Maybe they're not at tolerant as they say.  

 

Some questions:  If (as extremists say), a fertilized egg is a baby, why can't a parent take out a life insurance policy on said "baby", to be paid even if there is a miscarriage or other medical crisis?  Why does the mother/father have to wait until the "baby" is actually born until it is legally a "person"?  If a pregnancy is terminated due to "abortion" AND said procedure is insured by the parents' insurance policy, AND said termination is declared to be a "murder", is the insurance company criminally liable for "murder for hire"?  What about the doctor?  Further, if someone kills a nine-month pregnant woman, how can he/she be charged with TWO murders while the woman goes free if she has the baby killed by a doctor as it exits the birth canal?  

 

The abortion-on-demand crowd insist a fetus is part of the mother, to be kept/eliminated at the whim of the mother.  Really?!  Is a fetus just an appendage like an arm, leg, liver, or kidney.  Is the mother not really just a host to a separate human being, charged with the responsibility of keeping it safe until birth?  Isn't the mother's [physical] life better after 'purging' her body of the [parasitic] fetus?  Clearly, there are arguments on both sides.  

 

Roe v. Wade turned abortion-on-demand into big business, often nasty and gruesome, and beginning a debate that will go on and on.  SCOTUS' decision will not stop it.  This will never end.   

 

Terminating a pregnancy is clearly a medical procedure.  Redefining it as a moral or social issue is WAY outside the purview and expertise of lawyers, politicians, courts, or even religion.  It is CLEARLY a very personal matter to be decided ONLY by the woman and her doctor.            

 

We men have no dog in this hunt, well, except . . .  

 

The sticky wicket:  If a woman (married or single) decides to have an abortion, the man has NO say.  BUT, if the woman decides not to abort, the man is on the hook for serious money for the next 20-25 years.  Tell me that's equality.  I'm listening.    

 

Sidebar, to reinforce my point:  In a 2015 case (I forget the name) decided by a liberal SCOTUS, they ruled that all states must legalize gay marriage.  Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage is irrelevant.  The fact remains that SCOTUS, once again, tried to turn the Constitution into a social construct, something it was never designed to be.  

 

Where does it stop?  Do we also want to outlaw vasectomies, tubal ligation, breast reduction/enhancement, facelifts, and various other medical procedures based on personal and/or political whims?      

 

Just some "inconvenient" observations and questions.  

 

I will leave this issue up to women and their doctors.

 

I will change my vote on August Second to "No" and hope abortion rights remain in the hands of women and their doctors, though possibly with some VERY LIMITED restrictions and exceptions.  

 

I am fully aware that I may lose friends and even family with this post.  So be it.  I'm not looking for a fight, but neither will I shy away.    

 

Oren