The Insanity of Abortion

Greg Ordy, June 1999

I doubt if I can add a new word to the endless and emotionally charged debate on abortion. So, I would like to step back and try to frame the entire argument in a different context.

Just for the record, I do not believe in abortion. I cannot convince myself that it is not murder, and I worry that it has long term emotional consequences for the woman, and perhaps even the man. I also cannot reconcile the dilemma that arises from the absurd proposition that if a baby naturally emerges from a woman we consider it a precious life with full adult rights, but if we want to abort it 5 minutes before that natural birth it is no big deal. Since we live in a world chock full of birth control information, and since two supposed adults have to enter into a conscious and voluntary act to create the preconditions for abortion, it just seems as if there should be little need for the procedure, regardless of its moral implications. This is not slipping on a bar of soap, or catching a cold. To me, third trimester abortions are especially abhorrent, and public funding of abortion forces citizens to pay for what they may consider to be murder.  In the political arena, I think that Steve Forbes makes sense when he talks about changing the culture before even thinking about changing the laws.

Pro-abortion groups couch their position as nothing more than a health issue for the woman. It's her body, so it's her choice. I find this argument to be flawed. I would agree that if it were her body, it would indeed be her choice. But is it her body? Do we want to consider the second body, the fetus, to be indistinguishable from the woman's spleen or leg? Is that all it is, a growth - sometimes desired and sometimes undesired? If we were in court, we would demand that the woman provide proof of ownership in order for the fetus to be considered hers to do with as she pleases. How would she provide that proof? I can think of no better test than a DNA test. If conducted, we would find that DNA of the fetus is not an exact copy of the mother's. It is a blend of the mother and the father.  A new and unique creation. The ownership test fails, it is not simply her body. It is not simply her choice.

The pro-abortion mindset also contains self-deception. They suggest that the woman's choice is whether to have the child or not. That is not the truth. Once a woman is pregnant, she has no choice but to host a child. The only choice is whether or not to kill it. It is not yes or no, it is dead or alive.


In the end, one group of people believes that abortion is murder. Murder has been, and should be, a crime that demands justice. Another group of people see abortion as a personal choice that a woman makes about her own body, a choice that might keep her from a lifetime burden. Again, I have no new or better words to add to the statement of the issue. Others do that much better than I ever will.

But I do want to point out that so long as we remain so divided on such a fundamental issue, our society and culture will destroy itself with the violent debate that arises from the conflict. Both sides believe that they are absolutely and morally right. It's even worse than that. Both sides believe that the other side is absolutely and morally wrong. I believe that in the case of issues that so sharply divide the country we should let individual states determine their own positions. In some sense, this is the philosophy embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment is perhaps the most abused amendment in the Constitution. Every time the federal government gets involved in any issue which does not, out of absolute necessity, cross state boundaries, this amendment is violated. It creates another brick in the wall of socialism, with its central control and bureaucracy. More one-size-fits-all thinking.

If we allowed the states to regulate abortion, we would find that the more liberal states would immediately declare it a basic right, and probably enact state-sponsored funding. The more conservative states would immediately declare it murder. States divided on the issue would continue to struggle. While not a perfect solution, I do believe that it would create a better environment for living with the problem, and possibly even eventually resolving it.

The person who is violently against abortion could move to a state where it is murder. That would hopefully reduce their anger at what goes on around them. After all, we will never have the power to deny or allow abortion on a global basis, so the fact that there are limits to the law is something that must always be lived with. That's true for all issues so long as you believe in the concept of sovereign nations. But, at least this act of murder will not be allowed where they live. On the other hand, those who violently promote abortion can move to a state where they have the total support of the law. Over time, people still deciding the issue can observe the consequences of each perspective. That could help settle the issue for them. The point is, we have 50 states. They are political entities. We are foolish for not allowing states more freedom to follow the wishes of their citizens.

Copyright (c) 1999, Greg Ordy

Next Essay

Back to my Politics Page

Last update: Monday, April 29, 2002 07:39 PM
Back to my Home Page