It is a testament to the passion over the issue that in the midst of Michigan’s Depression-wracked economy, when Lansing leadership has reached such unprecedented heights (depths?) of incompetence and mismanagement that budgetary gridlock threatens a state government shutdown for the third time in the last four years, that tomorrow’s gubernatorial primary will turn on the issue of abortion. In both major parties!
As a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, I am pretty solidly pro-choice. Perhaps, not to the degree that the extremist, National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) faithful might demand. But certainly to the extent that the overwhelming majority of Right-to-Lifers would assign me to that category.
In point of fact, though I find the Roe v. Wade decision hopelessly muddled as constitutional law, the “trimester” conclusion the Supreme Court derived from its convolutions seems about as reasonable a balance among competing (and mutually exclusive) interests as can currently be struck.
In the first three months control is properly in the hands of the pregnant woman. In the last three months regard for the – by then independently viable – baby’s right to survive demands that termination of the pregnancy be considered only when the life of the mother is in imminent danger. (In that tragic circumstance a life is unavoidably in danger. The only remaining question is whether it is that of the woman or her unborn child.) Conditions for termination of a pregnancy in the three months between the first and last trimester is a matter best left to the legislatures of the several states.
However, I long ago came to the conclusion that this is an issue that is truly different in kind from every other. People of good conscience differ because they proceed from different premises, necessarily drawn from faith and/or philosophy since the question is beyond the power of science to objectively resolve.
Contrary to widespread assumptions, the fundamental, political question is not: “When does human life begin?” It is inarguable that a zygote is — from the moment of conception — both human and alive. But then, the same can be said of both sperm and ovum the moment before conception. (For a more developed argument on all of this see Finding Middle Ground on Abortion from the July 13, 2003 edition of the Detroit News.)
The political question is this: “When do rights worthy of protection by the state inhere?”
I have long argued that the best answer to this question is: “at independent viability.” I say “best answer” because there is, likewise, no scientifically demonstrable, discreet moment of transition. Indeed, what is clear is that medical advances have led to a steady and continuing retreat of this indistinct point into ever earlier stages of pregnancy.
Unfortunately, I have never been able to persuade my (otherwise) political allies of the efficacy of this, admittedly inelegant, approach. They find greater comfort in the clarity of the moment-of-conception standard. (Though the vast majority of them are surprised to learn that this position is actually a comparatively recent one for the church – dating only to 1869. The traditional view, going back to Thomas Aquinas, who was himself merely reaffirming Aristotle, was that “ensoulment” occurred, intriguingly, around the beginning of the second trimester.)
Since this is such a difficult and subjective question I have suggested a kind of libertarian truism that I hope everyone on both sides of the issue will take with them into the voting booth tomorrow: “When in doubt keep the government out!”
For the most fundamental, political question with respect to this issue is really this one: “Who should have the authority to decide (in the earliest stages) whether a particular pregnancy is carried to term – the pregnant woman or society as a whole?”
For those who answer that it is properly the latter I have a follow-up question: “Do you accept then, as it seems you must, that an overpopulated society such as China or India has the legitimate authority to require an abortion?”
