Before, during, and in the wake of the Alabama (and now Missouri) abortion ban legislation—as in the run-ups and final votes in similar state houses and governors' mansions—I, a male, viewed, and continue to view, such medieval, muddle-headed, misbegotten actions levied on women by (mostly) men as sexually hypocritical, socially harmful, and sacredly heretical. To me, any legislation directed at a woman’s right to choose whether to have a child runs counter to three principles:
- the right of any person to reflect, without external pressure, on her (or his) internal moral and ethical compasses;
- the right of any person to decide on a path of intimate action that is not harmful to society;
- and the right of any person, unimpeded by secular or church-based organizations, to come to terms with her or his religious, agnostic, or atheistic precepts and the outcomes of actions based on those precepts.
On the other hand, these same intolerant religious leaders, and their intolerant congregations, are unwilling to let their gods be the final arbiters absent a prejudiced public thrashing and shaming from an outraged human assembly. Such religious orders lack the confidence in their god-belief and myth story to leave the judgement of a person’s actions to the ultimate judge of their deeds. If a congregation and its leader believe in their god as the apex justice, then why do they find it necessary to act as prosecutor, jury, and earthly judge in lieu of their final judge’s decision? If you are worried “He” won’t get it right, why bother with “Him” anyway? (Of course this intolerance applies to more than abortion-seeking women, but that is for a different column)
Then there is the civil law side in which mostly male legislators in state and national forums, have taken upon themselves the mantle of all-knowing, all-seeing, all powerful decision-makers over what women should do with their bodies. Unlike intolerant religious societies, which embrace ancient myths, lore, and highly-interpreted and oft-poorly-translated writings defining their anti-abortion (principally, “thou shalt not kill”) strictures, democratically-elected male legislators and presidents care little for well-documented founding principles when it comes to usurping a woman’s right to choose. That some women legislators and female governors fall into this category says more about religious intolerance and ignorance than it does about women in general.
Then there is the civil law side in which mostly male legislators in state and national forums, have taken upon themselves the mantle of all-knowing, all-seeing, all powerful decision-makers over what women should do with their bodies. Unlike intolerant religious societies, which embrace ancient myths, lore, and highly-interpreted and oft-poorly-translated writings defining their anti-abortion (principally, “thou shalt not kill”) strictures, democratically-elected male legislators and presidents care little for well-documented founding principles when it comes to usurping a woman’s right to choose. That some women legislators and female governors fall into this category says more about religious intolerance and ignorance than it does about women in general.
I have combed the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution (and all its Amendments) to find the key words that encourage or permit elected officials or judicial panels authority over a woman’s body and to thus violate her private decision-making by legislative or judicial fiat. Those words aren’t there. Rather, Roe v. Wade made it abundantly clear: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. Legislators in Alabama, Missouri, and all the other states where a woman’s right to her own privacy—her liberty to choose—is in jeopardy, are overstepping their roles as lawmakers for society writ large. They are attempting to legislate the private path of a person’s conscience—a goal more metaphysical than legal.
To be sure, there are civil penalties for murder, manslaughter, the unintentional, accidental taking of a life, etc. Such laws are in place to protect society from its darker elements, and to compensate society for its losses. It is here that the argument founded on “Thou shalt not kill,” gets very murky when it comes to abortion, and the definition of life is as clear or as vague as suits special interests. In the chaotic world outside a woman’s body—a world fraught with myriad life-and-death decisions, from willful homicide to tragic accidental deaths—a catalog of specific laws exist to apply justice, mete out penalties, and determine compensation as necessary to promote a sense of social and personal well being and safety.
In order to function freely as a vibrant society, we need to perceive and believe in a safe world in which to thrive as persons. The world of a mother and her unborn child is not a world in which male-dominated legislation or religious stricture should have any bearing, in my humanist opinion. As frustratingly dogmatic and pragmatic as I can often be, I am mostly a rational and empirical thinker. I admit I cannot see into the workings of a mother’s mind, nor can I see into her womb. I can never know her absolute circumstances of conscience and emotion; I cannot presume to judge what her decision-making factors are. What I do know is that her decision, either way, will not hurt secular society, nor will any tut-tutting, shaming, or overreach of law on society’s part affect any final judgment alleged by any religion.
If Roe v. Wade is a religious matter (which, if one believes in the separation of church and state as I do), then it has no standing in secular society and should not have been a social-civil case to begin with. If Roe v. Wade is a matter of settled civil legislation based on Constitutional precedent (which it is, see the Fourteenth Amendment), it has no standing in the religious community, and, therefore, it should not be an issue for debate within that community, nor should that community have any standing in court arguments. You cannot have it both ways. And yet, both sides—secular and religious—embrace the issue as falling within the four corners of their contracts with their constituents and congregants respectively.
In the end, it is the woman stripped of her freedom to choose who is harmed by society and religion. Alabama’s law, a clearly-stated test of Roe v. Wade and not a true law for public protection or advancement, is a sham and a shame. With no exceptions for rape and incest added to the overall insult of the legislation, and the Draconian penalty of life in prison for any doctor performing an abortion, Alabama has sunk further into the acidic depths of social ignorance, public shaming, and religious fear-mongering that characterize too many states—and too many political operations—today.
To be sure, there are civil penalties for murder, manslaughter, the unintentional, accidental taking of a life, etc. Such laws are in place to protect society from its darker elements, and to compensate society for its losses. It is here that the argument founded on “Thou shalt not kill,” gets very murky when it comes to abortion, and the definition of life is as clear or as vague as suits special interests. In the chaotic world outside a woman’s body—a world fraught with myriad life-and-death decisions, from willful homicide to tragic accidental deaths—a catalog of specific laws exist to apply justice, mete out penalties, and determine compensation as necessary to promote a sense of social and personal well being and safety.
In order to function freely as a vibrant society, we need to perceive and believe in a safe world in which to thrive as persons. The world of a mother and her unborn child is not a world in which male-dominated legislation or religious stricture should have any bearing, in my humanist opinion. As frustratingly dogmatic and pragmatic as I can often be, I am mostly a rational and empirical thinker. I admit I cannot see into the workings of a mother’s mind, nor can I see into her womb. I can never know her absolute circumstances of conscience and emotion; I cannot presume to judge what her decision-making factors are. What I do know is that her decision, either way, will not hurt secular society, nor will any tut-tutting, shaming, or overreach of law on society’s part affect any final judgment alleged by any religion.
If Roe v. Wade is a religious matter (which, if one believes in the separation of church and state as I do), then it has no standing in secular society and should not have been a social-civil case to begin with. If Roe v. Wade is a matter of settled civil legislation based on Constitutional precedent (which it is, see the Fourteenth Amendment), it has no standing in the religious community, and, therefore, it should not be an issue for debate within that community, nor should that community have any standing in court arguments. You cannot have it both ways. And yet, both sides—secular and religious—embrace the issue as falling within the four corners of their contracts with their constituents and congregants respectively.
In the end, it is the woman stripped of her freedom to choose who is harmed by society and religion. Alabama’s law, a clearly-stated test of Roe v. Wade and not a true law for public protection or advancement, is a sham and a shame. With no exceptions for rape and incest added to the overall insult of the legislation, and the Draconian penalty of life in prison for any doctor performing an abortion, Alabama has sunk further into the acidic depths of social ignorance, public shaming, and religious fear-mongering that characterize too many states—and too many political operations—today.
No comments:
Post a Comment