There are three cases coming before the Supreme Court this term that are going to prove a challenge to the current regime of Abortion on Demand in America. In each of these cases, a person is on trial for murder because they killed an unborn child.
The problem for the Supreme Court is how to square the notion of murdering an unborn child with what is considered a fundamental right —abortion— even though there is no fundamental difference between a child killing its offspring and someone else doing so. Supporters of abortion will argue that the difference is in motivation; mothers abort to save their lives, while other (boyfriends and fathers) cause abortions because the child would be “inconvenient.” In a world where a large number of children are aborted for “quality of life issues,” by mothers, however, it’s hard to see this argument holding water. Millions of children are aborted each year because of a medical condition detected in the womb, because they are the “wrong sex,” or just because “it’s not the right time, it’ll destroy my chances at college and a career.” In fact, abortion is touted as the solution to income equality “problem” between men and women in many parts of the feminist world.
So what will the solution be? There are only four possible options.
The first is for abortion to be restricted to “real” cases of self defense, when the mother’s life is in verifiable medical danger. This simply won’t happen without howls of protest from the left, including predictions of an immanent theocracy ruled by the “religious right” (never mind that almost all real theocracies in history have been ruled by the “religious left” –Geneva and the Roundheads being the notable exceptions).
The second is for these murder convictions to be struck down. The left won’t stand for this, either, because that will expose the left as uncaring about human life altogether.
The third is for the murder convictions to stand and abortion as it is today to stand with no explanation, or an explanation that doesn’t explain anything. This is a real possibility, but I don’t think it will actually happen.
The final, and most likely solution, is for the Supreme Court to simply rule that not all life is created equal. While this would be unConstitutional, there’s little force left in that argument any longer —in modern terms, the Constitution says what we want it to say, nothing more, and nothing less. The path to this answer has already been provided in a recent article in Salon:
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always. –Salon
A key phrase here is the term used to describe the child —and it is a child— inside the mother: a non-autonomous entity.
Sure, it’s alive, but it’s not autonomous, so it’s life is not worth that of the mother, who is really autonomous —in fact, this non-autonomous life doesn’t even equal the weight of the mother’s circumstances (her career or relationship aspirations, for instance). Never mind the contradiction of the left lecturing us on the lack of value in a non-autonomous life in one instance, while lecturing us on how none of us are really autonomous (even values are really collective!) in all other instances —logical consistency has never been a hallmark of the left.
The solution offered begs for misapplication; it is pregnant with unintended consequences. Does a domestic dog’s life have less value than a wild wolf’s, because the wolf is “more autonomous?” What of the aging among us —does Grandma’s life have ever lessening value because she is less able, over time, to care for her own needs? When you retire, and therefore stop making money, is your life instantly less valuable because you’re no longer “productive?”
Who calculates such things? Will we now need a government department of “value of life?” Oh, wait —isn’t this precisely what a “death panel,” really is? Isn’t the entire objection to “death panels,” that you have some faceless panel of people deciding on the value of your life, or the life of someone you love?
And why should the lifestyle of the mother be more important than the lifestyle of the father? Why should a father be held responsible for his actions only when the mother decides the “non-autonomous entity,” growing inside her should be called a “baby?” Why can we insist that a father live up to his obligations, and not a mother? The clear implication is that the father’s life is another one of those things that just isn’t worth as much as the mother’s life. Another unintended consequence? Perhaps not…
Where does this idea that some lives are “worth more” than others come from? In a world where narcissism reigns supreme, all logic and thought may be cast aside in the service of that ultimate arbiter of all truth, the ultimate aim of the entire universe: ME!