Sunday, June 10, 2007



Abortion is one of those issues that I rarely comment on as I usually manage to peeve those on both sides of the divide - but, having read several recent pieces on it and having been exposed to the latest liberal diatribe on the subject at a blog which shall remain nameless, here we go.

At some point, a point that folks far wiser and and better acquainted with the biosciences than I will from time to time determine (likely occurring between conception and age 18) sentience sets in and one suddenly has a conscious critter of allegedly human nature on ones hands, and that snuffing said critter without a *really good reason* qualifies as one of the gradations of wrongful death. However, in that same breath, if someone is to force another to carry a child to term - they can bloody well PAY for raising that child to adulthood.

Where that point falls is presently a matter of some debate - for myself, the test is that if a fetus can survive outside the mothers body under its' own power (more or less - such cheating as incubators and respirators and medical care seem reasonable to allow) with a reasonable probability of surviving to the "talk and build a fire" level of consciousness, then the critter has crossed that line in the sand.

Much before that, and I'd ever so gently point out that a womans body is her own, and its' between her and her god to decide what's right for her, without my unsolicited comment or contribution.

And now to distress the liberals amongst us. Roe V. Wade and decisions subsequent to it, based on some phantasmagorical creation found in the alleged and hazy penumbra of the Constitution, is quite simply bad law, IMNSHO.

When judges, most especially and particularly the Supremes singing 9-part harmony, pull legal logic from startling new sphincters - it's a very bad thing indeed, no matter how noble their purpose and/or beneficial their effect in the short term. Simply put, once judges start getting creative on the bench (particularly and especially the Supremes) there are darned few restraints upon their creativity and/or originality.

And it is from this philosophical base that I take the view that a Constitutional Amendment defining as broadly as possible a "right to privacy in ones personal affairs" would be an absolutely stunningly good thing and perhaps reduce the BS per capita rate in the nation by more than 60% - that having an incremental series of pseudo-amendments inflicted from the bench is just as stunningly bad as that devoutly to be hoped for amendment would be good.

After all - what's to stop the Supreme Court from a creative interpetation that it was their job to decide a Presidential Election (as, say, opposed to the Electoral College or Congress, as clearly laid out in the Constitution)?

The level of creativity that judicial friskiness allows is dreadful to contemplate, and should be discouraged whenever possible. That said, stare decisis notwithstanding, there comes a time when even the Supremes should admit that they were wrong - and undoing prior judicial activism, should not be considered judicial activism in and of itself. Roe v. Wade, while certainly not alone in that regard, is a precedent well worth reconsidering - not on the basis that abortion should be illegal, but on the basis that it is bad law that opens doors best left sealed.

Abortion is a simple issue for those that feel, rather than think. It is a simple issue for those that allow others to do their thinking for them and merely parrot the party line. But if one has the wit to cognate under ones own power, the decency to look at the concerns facing both mother and child under a wide variety of hostile circumstances, and the caution to not place faith blindly in judges or demagogues - it gets rather more complex, rather quickly.

Ah well, rant mode off...

No comments: