Despite a claim by Fox News that the final version of the impending Supreme Court decision regarding abortion is dropping on May 23, that move is likely still weeks or months away. Rumor aside, only SCOTUS knows for sure. But if the draft Alito opinion is at all predictive, the ramifications and implications are manifold.
First let me state that while I am opposed to elective abortion, I am also pro-choice. Abortions should be rare, safe and legal. And abortions ought to be largely unnecessary, provided we have convenient, available, safe contraception and universal, accurate sex education. But there are always exceptions.
Let’s dispatch some red herrings and mythologies at the outset.
Life does not begin at conception; biologically, it is a continuum back to our most primordial forebearers. The sperm and the egg are both alive, as is the fertilized egg and zygote that results from their union, so let's drop the question of “when life begins” from the discussion. The pertinent question is: when does the egg/zygote/fetus become −not just human− but a "human being", and when does a human being become a "legal person"? In order for the unborn to have inherent legal rights, they need to have legal personhood.
A human being can be, but not always is, afforded legal personhood (such as blacks during slavery) −or is afforded limited personhood (felons, depending upon the state, or aliens, or those in custodianship or guardianship). The status of an unborn is most closely (but imperfectly) comparable to that of a comatose individual in the custody of a guardian who has medical power of attorney and authority to "pull the plug" when the time comes.
To confer personage upon an undifferentiated mass of human cells (an egg or zygote in this case), or a differentiated group of cells with no consciousness or self-awareness (a 1st-2nd trimester fetus) would be objectively as sensible assigning personage to a gall bladder or even a tumor, and less sensible than assigning personage to an adult cat or dog or cow (each of which are conscious and self−aware). While the science of determining precisely when a fetus would qualify as conscious or self−aware may be imperfect, we are able to ascertain with confidence a point at which abortion would safely not impinge on consciousness or awareness.
In this age of cloning, the argument that the first or second trimester zygote/fetus is a "potential human being" is confounded by the fact it has been demonstrated that a single human cell (which was never itself an egg or a sperm) can be transformed into a fully functioning human being. So, mandating that a zygote or early fetus be granted personage would logically require that any bit of human flesh be accorded personage as well, and excision thereof would qualify as abortion.
What is extremely important, unique and unprecedented here −and has been absent in any discussions I have seen anywhere− is that the leaked version of the impending decision would grant rights of legal personage to the unborn by taking away rights of legal personage from the mother. It effectively robs some of one individual's personage and hands it over it to another. The U.S. Constitution guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...." and this draft decision prospectively imposes a cost upon the right of a woman to have full custody of her own physical person by imposing a custodial responsibility upon her with respect to the physical person of the unborn. It makes her health (physical, mental, financial and more) SECONDARY to that of the unborn. In no other circumstance is a person legally obligated to put another's well−being ahead of one's own.
Also unprecedented would be the potential subsequent validation of a recently proposed Missouri law (and prospective copycat legislation elsewhere) that would restrict the movement of women from their home state to seek abortions. This would clearly create a jurisdictional conflict among states even as it infringes upon settled case law regarding the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It would impose a remarkable restriction upon a fundamental human right −the freedom of movement with the nation− and that imposition would be specifically directed at a single class of American citizens: women −pregnant women, in particular.
The moral/ethical discussion is one worth having, but without contamination by religious considerations. In the United States, we are guaranteed the right to personally practice our religions, but not the right to impose them on others. Just as importantly, we are guaranteed that our government may not "establish" religion −i.e., it will not build into itself via law or practice any component of any religion, or by adopting (establishing) any state religion. Arguments about whether the egg or zygote or fetus has a soul are legally irrelevant, as government is Constitutionally precluded from recognizing the existence of a soul. More to the point, it is precluded from imposing the religious beliefs of one person or group −or even the vast majority− upon any person. It is hard to imagine a situation more personal and more impactful upon one person’s health, well-being and future than an unwanted or unwilling pregnancy or a mandate more cavalier, unconditional, inconsiderate of −and, well, imposing upon− the self than the draft opinion would impose.
Finally, let's be real. Making abortions illegal does not stop abortions. It criminalizes poor women who become pregnant or forces them to have dangerous illegal abortions or have children they are not financially or psychologically or otherwise prepared to care for at the cost of disrupting their lives and those of their families at great cost to society while pushing up the population at great cost to the planet. The wealthy will continue to be able to afford to travel to places where abortion is legal, whether another state or another country, and to afford expensive lawyers in the event they are ever charged with violating the law. It exacerbates the socioeconomic divide and further establishes a class decision with a double standard −one for the privileged wealthy and another for the poor underclass.
Prohibiting abortions accomplishes nothing that is in the interest of society or the economy even if it enables zealots to attain a sense of accomplishment by imposing what they deem (with little liturgical foundation) to be their deity's will upon others and enabling the birth of more souls to save in the false but self-serving belief that somehow their own path to salvation is paved with the souls they have saved; this regardless of the misery, hardship, and even deaths imposed on the reluctant mothers. Perhaps the greater outrage is that a significant fraction of the most zealous see those not as negatives but as righteous punishments for the moral indiscretion of sexually loving another for its own sake rather than that of procreation, even within the confines of marriage. Worse, as punishment for having been the target of a rapist. Yet these mostly Christians) would be among the first to decry the excesses of Taliban or Sharia law.
