Morality is nonsense, perhaps nowhere more so than in this right to choose vs. right to life debate. The way I see it, we show love in lightening the burdens of the people, which in this case is the role of the physician. Neither a judge nor a patient is competent to make the medical decision, which is between the right to choose of the baby and the right to life of the mother. [Yes, you read that right.]
Everything else which attempts to circumvent the wisdom of the physician in this matter comes from the failure to provide the necessities to the least of us. Indeed, I advise here that we have an unconditional provision of the necessities, as the most efficient and liberating provision. I have long argued that this unconditional provision moots all of the arguments for a non-medical abortion.
It should be quite clear to any reasoning person that the trauma of a rape threatens the life of the woman, that it is, by that circumstance, cause for a medical abortion. By the same token, if it is a case of a young woman being pressured to falsely accuse her lover of rape, such pressure would be unlikely, if even possible, when both young people have their own provision of the necessities. The liberating effect of an unconditional provision extends even further, destroying the tyranny of society and the power of morality, replacing all such repressive devices with a communion of Love.
I should add that cases of rape which do not involve physical trauma are not causes for a medical abortion and that, even with a violent rape, the physician is the only one who is competent to make the medical decision. My point is that all of the decisions made for a medical abortion have been unduly influenced by economic and, therefore, social circumstances. An unconditional provision of the necessities to all would therefore remove that influence. It would therefore end the corruption of medical decisions by socioeconomic bias.
We should also not ignore the undue influence of the courts via Roe v. Wade. Here, also, the unconditional provision is crucial, since the arguments for Roe v. Wade are entirely based on socioeconomic predicaments which the unconditional provision eliminates.
Therefore, overturning Roe v. Wade REQUIRES an unconditional provision of the necessities to all. Failing to meet that requirement is what has gotten us to this juncture, with each side claiming the other side is heartless. The “pro-choicers” have always defended their advocacy of non-medical abortions to me by making the scurrilous charge that, in rejecting their cause, I was somehow not in favor of the life of the baby once it was born. My response that I favored the life of everyone through an unconditional provision of the necessities, and my asking why they did not do the same, shut them up privately, but not publicly.
When I ran for Tompkins County (New York) Representative from District 5, some 28 years ago, I caused a bit of a stir when I presented my pro-physician position on the meet-the-candidate night. As with the politics of today, the organizations of the Republican Party had been commandeered by Conservative Democrats having nothing to do with American Republicanism, and I was steadfastly presenting a Republican position and Republican reforms. The political lay of the land was thus of two factions of the Democratic faith predominating, and actual Republicans being a dwindling remnant within their own political organization. I did not win the election but I inverted some of the votes, with some mainline Democratic voters siding with me and some Conservative Democratic voters siding with my Democratic opponent. It is quite possible that the inversion was due to my position on this issue.
If there is truly a rejection of democracy — for that is what a rejection of elections by the populace implies — we may indeed get a consensus on, first, an unconditional provision of the necessities to all and, second, a renewed deference to the physician by both mothers and judges. Then the choice of the baby and the life of the mother will be protected.