An Immoral Morality: Anti-Abortion or Abortion Rights Legislation Without Responsibility

One of the big, if not the biggest, issues that must be contended with on the Health Care Reform bill is how the bill addresses abortions under the bill. The Pro-Life proponents are pressing to have restrictions on abortions expanded and if possible completely prohibited. To the fullest extent possible, the Pro-Life side is seeking to have abortion coverage completely prohibited from even co-existing with any government funded health coverage plan. The Pro-Choice advocates are obviously against any additional restrictions than current laws entail. Pro-Choice proponents would be eager to see increased availability of abortion coverage, but that is not the direction that the bills are tending toward. Finding an adequate compromise that will placate both sides appears to be an almost insurmountable task. Even holding to a status quo position that federal funds cannot be used to support abortions is not a guaranteed successful strategy.

At the heart of the issue is that moral proposition that Pro-Lifers make that abortion is the murder of a human life from inception. This position is usually linked to the religious orientation of the people taking the Pro-Life stance. In and of itself, there is nothing about their position that is immoral or contrary to the freedoms offered under our democratic government. No law can be made that would infringe upon their right to refuse any imposition of an abortion upon them or a family member over whom they have parental or guardianship responsibility. They may honor their beliefs and moral philosophy within interference from the Government or its agents. But that is not the extent of the Pro-Life position.

Beyond the personal freedom to refuse to avail themselves of an abortion, except under any conditions or circumstances that their own beliefs or moral code would allow, most Pro-Lifers assert that their beliefs are societal in nature and required to be imposed upon every member of society. The right to life that they advocate is required of all citizens, regardless of those citizens’ own religious beliefs or moral philosophies. In this case, Pro-Lifers’ contend that their position supersedes the freedom of anyone who believes that abortion is an individual’s right to choose for their own person. Thus the abortion issue is one of the fundamental dividing lines within our legal system. Abortion rights or prohibitions squarely rest upon the separation of the Government’s scope of authority versus the individual freedoms and rights that each and every individual person has a legitimate claim upon based on the Constitution.

Unfortunately the founding fathers did not clearly or explicitly address the abortion issue within their writings; either the Constitution’s own wording or in extensive writing supporting and defending the text that they had written. And we are not only left with the basic issue of abortion within our current system; but it has now become a pivotal factor in the Health Care Reform effort.

There is no resolution of the question of who is right about abortion, as neither side can even comprehend the basis for the other side to hold a different view. Given this intransigence of position, is it any wonder that politicians cannot find a way to appease both sides?

My problem with the abortion issue is that it is always narrowly focused on a personal belief in the sanctity of life or the absolute right of individual freedom regarding one’s own person. I find this an irresponsible and an immoral view for either side to take. As usual in these situations, I find that the right answer is not the one or ones being espoused by these fervent and self-righteous souls who are willing to tell me what I must believe.

The true issue of abortion is not is it right or wrong; but what responsibilities are associated with the imposition of whatever societal laws are to be made and enforced upon the individuals and the public as a consequence of the chosen laws.

If you prohibit abortions, are you not responsible for the children who are born that would not have been?

If you allow individuals to self-elect an abortion, then who is responsible for the costs of a procedure that is elective and violates core religious beliefs of other segments of a society?

If you are a religious group that opposes abortion should you be exempt from the social costs that will come from this legislative act that your religious activities have help establish?

It is the responsibility that goes along with the consequences of your position that are lost in the discussion. If you do not stand up and accept your share of the consequences of your position, then your claim to a moral basis for your position is abrogated and you are not worthy to have anyone take any heed of your position. Politician should only agree to support your legislative agenda if you agree to accept the corollary legislation that addresses the social and governmental cost and tax burden or the individual monetary obligations that goes hand and hand with what you want.