If laws and judicial rulings about abortion based on evidence, law, precedent and the U.S. Constitution really guided the nation, current restrictions would be indefensible.
It is not surprising that there is not a widely acceptable compromise available when the topic turns to abortion. A zygote forms when a sperm and egg merge into a single cell and it begin to divide. From this rises the question: Is that cell a human being or not?
The science is simple. For all mammals, the process of development from fertilization to birth is the same. If all goes well, the result is a hog-nosed bat, a blue whale or a human being. If that process is interrupted for any reason, there is no living being that results.
Before moving on, it must be clear what abortion is not. The murder of a baby capable of living on its own is infanticide and is illegal, full stop. Medically sound abortions do not “rip babies” out of the womb. Cytoplasms or fetuses do not scream in pain. Late term abortions are not chosen by women who just didn’t get around to ending an unwanted pregnancy. Those horrific falsehoods are exploited for political purposes.
If the current abortion debate in the United States was being driven by science or a focus on public health and safety, the compromises inherent in making laws and public policies about abortion would be possible. The court ruling about the constitutionality of those laws would make sense.
Instead, legislation and court rulings are being made on the basis of religious beliefs without recognizing or publicly admitting that to be the case.
Catholic Church doctrine says human life begins at the instant of conception. Other faith doctrines set different parameters around the beginning of human life and the health of mothers. Whatever the beliefs, they are religious in nature.
The positions driving current debates in the United States about abortion are driven by religious beliefs as well.
The U.S. Constitution is clear on that point.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion, from Roe v. Wade to the Dobbs decision, were argued on grounds of privacy, bodily autonomy and states’ rights. Nowhere, however, did the high court justices seem to recognize that what abortion arguments are really about is the First Amendment.
The Dobbs decision and subsequent lower court rulings are opening the door to allowing legislatures to establish religious beliefs as state law.
Current state laws limiting access to abortion most closely adhere to Catholic standards and require that those of other religions accept those beliefs as well. In essence, some states are establishing religion, even if they aren’t saying so.
Unless legislatures and judges restrict themselves to the regulation of medical practices for demonstrable public purposes based in science, the constitutional reality is that legislatures and courts have no business being involved with abortion at all.
“Our View” represents the opinion of the newspaper editorial board, which is made up of members of its board of directors. Remarks may be directed to editorialboard@mtexpress.com.
Post a comment as anonymous
Report
Watch this discussion.
(8) comments
What's really fun is that there is absolutely zero canonical evidence for Conservative Christians to be against abortion. None, zero, zilch. You have to fast forward to the Didache to find any ban. Isn't that strange considering the practice was widely known at the time?
Hell, the OT even has a trial by ordeal where if a man thinks his wife cheated, he can take her to a specific temple and force an abortive mixture on her. If she aborts, she was guilty.
And if we are created in God's image, then why did he design us in such a way that around half of all fertilized eggs (which have souls according to these people) get destroyed before birth? Terrible if true.
The reality is that we all know that the anti-abortion crowd is religiously motivated using the belief of a soul as the main reason for their beliefs. That's fine. But people who don't have the same religious beliefs shouldn't be subject to theirs. Every other crime on the book today is easily defended without resorting to religion. As it should. Divine Command is the laziest and most BS moral system out there.
Liberalism is its own pagan religion and liberal politicians make decisions based on that belief system in everything they do.
All politicians left and right make decisions based on their beliefs (when not based on self interest). The fact that those beliefs inform their decision making has nothing to do with the first amendment.
"The Dobbs decision and subsequent lower court rulings are opening the door to allowing legislatures to establish religious beliefs as state law."
No! the door was opened long ago! It might be noted here that the Founding Fathers never did prohibit in the Constitution that which existed at the time of the founding where states like Massachuettes did have established state churches. In addition, the Northwest Ordinance allowed the set aside of land "for the purposes of religion" in this new territory in which states were formed. Like the author of this piece now "Until Justice Rehnquist mentioned it, the Northwest Ordinance has been virtually overlooked in this Court's modern discussion of the religious clauses.("The Bill of Rights" Hickcok Jr 1991)
"Murder restrictions violate right to freedom of religion" yeah, human sacrifices are messed up.
Rape is cool though. That's how you know it's a war on women. Men are completely out of control, and we pay the price. You're a hypocrite.
You aren't a serious person if you think anyone is ok with Rape.
Ya, who would ever condone the murder of innocent children?
"Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants..."
-Yahweh
Hardly the only time that happens either.
God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"...... B Dylan
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In