I view it the idea of keeping personal morality out of law about as relevant to not having laws against killing late term fetuses
Let me start by saying that I wouldn't get a lot of heartburn over state laws banning late term abortions. That is really a horrid procedure and the incidences of it are so few and far between that its practical impact is trivial. If it makes people feel better to have a law against it on the books, I won't give them a hard time over it.
That's the practical perspective. As a matter of principle, there are lots and lots of things that people shouldn't do because they are either wrong or stupid or both. Not all of them need be nor should be illegal. A key theme in Americana is that we are free from the intrusion of government to the maximum extent possible, ceding our freedoms only to the extent that it is essential to assure order--the safety of our citizens and their property from assaults from each other or from the government. Abortion laws do not meet that standard. They are better suited for the "wrong and/or stupid" standard in part because they are not essential for good order and in part because the issue is too complicated, too personal, too culturally and religiously tied, and too hot to legislate. Those who have an abortion hobbyhorse should concentrate their efforts on "wrong and stupid" rather than legislatures and courts.
Regarding your point about killing babies just before vs. just after they are born, my understanding of late term abortions is that they are done primarily on severely damaged fetuses. If the risk is to the mother, then the baby can be delivered prematurely and the child spared. So the only point of a late term abortion would seem to be to destroy a fetus before birth that would have insurmountable medical problems after birth.
I would imagine the complexities of such decisions are mind-boggling. I will deal with just one of them, the one that seems most relevant to your reference to killing babies after they are born.
We do allow people to die. We withdraw feeding and medical support in hopeless cases. That is legal and, I think, generally accepted. If we're willing to allow support to be withdrawn from that baby after a month of failed attempts to make it viable, I don't see a much difference between that and aborting it a month before it is born. So I agree with you that the killing is the same. And I come to a different conclusion about abortion law.
It seems odd to me that we would outlaw a killing in utero that we permit after birth. It seems odd to tie the hands of parents and doctors more before birth than after.
When faced with that kind of decision, there is a lot for parents and doctors to deal with. If the infant would suffer for a month of useless treatments, would it not be kinder to spare it that suffering? And the suffering, not to mention the expense, of the parents watching nature take its course would be awful. OTOH, perhaps the parents would be comforted by allowing the birth and death process to occur because they would know that they did all they could and would not have to deal with the guilt of having made the decision to abort. I think that questions like that are why it is important to handle these matters on a case by case basis. I don't know. Perhaps it would be easier on the parents if there were a law outlawing the abortion so that they wouldn't have to reflect to the extent necessary to make the decision. Laws always limit our decision making. That's the way communism worked. People didn't even get to choose what brand or color of shoes they wanted. That makes life easier. Perhaps the kindness would be in making life easier for the parents and doctors by sparing them the decision. No, I don't think that's what this country is about. Decision making can be a bitch, but freedom is what we're about. |
