A Philosophical and Practical Discussion on an Emotional Subject

(Editor’s note:  This is the first part in a series we at LOL are calling “Touchy Subjects” where we will examine hot button issues from a liberty based perspective.  These are subjects that most people hold strong and passionate opinions about; comments from all sides are encouraged for open and thoughtful dialogue.)

This is a topic that really gets the blood flowing, dividing families and even whole communities. In our case it has become such a sexy, divisive issue that it has escalated all the way to the national level for many a decade; that topic-abortion.  This is the most tragic level of escalation for this to occur because like all issues introduced to the federal level the solutions always exclude the beliefs of some part of the population at the behest of another. More tragically the result of federal legislation robs all sides, even the ones it represents, of more personal freedom and usually at the hands of disconnected elite.  One has to think about the implications of enforcing restrictive federal laws outside constitutional limits and, particularly in election cycles, the practicality of voting on those emotions especially for a President.

Lucky for me, I side with a liberty based solution to these discussions.  This sort of philosophy kind of excuses me from the usual argument and separates me from both sides while alienating from neither.  It’s one of the many perks of believing in personal freedom and using it as your guiding principle in public policy. Let’s begin the discussion from my personal experience. It is my belief that I myself would not have my unborn baby aborted.  This is my personal choice.  To me the damage, pardon the crude term, is already done and a life is forming.  So once conception is my reality, I believe I would use a “pro life” decision model. So I’m a pro lifer you might say?  No, I don’t think that accurately characterizes the position.  It is a moral injustice for me to enforce that model on everyone else’s situation.  Why should my moral beliefs be thrust upon you by the shackles of law, especially federal law?  I also understand life’s complexity and the folly in judging others.  The absolute truth is I don’t really know what I would do because I have enjoyed the luxury of avoiding such a situation. I am now a married, employed man and would welcome such a blessing, but that was not always the case.  For many, many people facing this decision such a favorable environment doesn’t exist.  These are hard decisions that always come down to a person’s own moral code. I am morally opposed to abortion if it were my issue to face, but even more fervently opposed to the notion that I or government has the right to dictate that choice for you. 

I don’t know that I would call this position pro-choice either.  This is really just another media contrived label that obscures the issue.  I disagree with Roe v. Wade on the legal grounds that it falls outside of the jurisdiction of the US Government.  This issue clearly falls within state boundaries much like other criminal offenses such as murder, theft, etc. You can still advocate personal choice in the matter and disagree with a federal mandate that restricts a state’s legally entitled ability to address the issue (in other words, you can be pro choice AND anti-Roe v Wade).  I know this take sounds evasive, but I will take it a step further to avoid sounding politically vague.  If Roe v Wade was overturned and the issue came to vote in my state, I would always side with a person’s choice over a state mandate.  Just because it’s restrictive at the state level doesn’t mean that it’s OK to strip citizens of their own moral challenges. Liberals contend that a more decentralized, state (ie Constitutional) solution would create a more restrictive atmosphere in a woman’s right to choose.  It’s the same kind of attack on state sovereignty they use with the slavery and Jim Crow examples.  But if Roe v Wade was overturned and some state did outlaw abortion, plenty of other states would still offer the option. Even in the theoretical situation where all 50 states unanimously outlaw abortion or more alarmingly a new federal law enforcing a similar ban, abortions would still happen.  All the law would achieve is a fuzzy feeling of accomplishment for activists and confused broken teenagers in hospitals and jails. 

This is an essential beauty of our country; choice and diversity under one united banner. But this unique blessing is rapidly disappearing in the face of ever increasing federal overreach.  The belief that the Federal government will always more effectively protect freedom is misguided.  Sure there are examples where the federal rulings on a case resulted in what most would agree were favorable conditions for human life and freedom, but there are plenty of examples of the opposite as well.  Government itself at all levels is an opposing force to personal liberty, but at a more local level the accountability to those governed is at least a bit stronger and its laws more representative.

I hope this doesn’t exclude our pro life readers. I fully grasp their perspective as they believe, much like I do, that the unborn are individuals.  If you think you are definitely pro choice I suggest googling some images like the ones I accidentally came across when doing some research on this post.  The critical question in the debate is this; when is actual “life” created? Lifers argue that this occurs at conception; most choicers argue that it occurs sometime in the 3rd trimester or actually at birth. So at what point is the cellular system developing in the womb eligible for basic rights to life that we all, on all three sides of the argument, hold dear? I think we all agree with the concept that once life exists killing it is murder, but when this metamorphosis from matter to life occurs is the variable between the factions.  This is a difficult question for me and has been for much of human history. It may not be for some, but the complexity of the philosophical and moral issue at heart is not one that should be decided for one person by another and especially not by a disconnected government regime.  

More important than the philosophical dilemma, especially given the election frenzy which seems to get more drawn out every cycle, the abortion argument is a really terrible distraction for Presidential contests and political affiliations. No matter where you stand on the issue remember this, a President’s direct impact on the case is minimal.  Even if the most pro life prospect made it to the White House, his direct influence on the matter of Roe v Wade is flimsy at best.  Most Presidents are lucky (so to speak) if they appoint one Supreme Court justice during their term.  They sometimes stick around long enough to snag a second, but that’s pretty rare.  Even if a President has two appointments those Justices’ influence for the cause is only slightly less faint. Thereare a lot of hurdles to clear on the road to overturning such rulings and most justices tend toward the center on things after a few years on the bench.  The point is the President has little influence in the implementation of an abortion free world.  Voting largely because of some one's belief on this issue is a bit short sighted and requires a re-evaluation of the real issues that a President can and should address.  Just because he may side with your philosophical position on this most passionate of issues, doesn’t mean he is the right man for the job.

You cannot legislate morality, it is a personal process.  

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!