There is a lot being made of abortion rights and Roe v Wade with the The Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh being grilled in the Senate to see if he meets the standard that we expect from our highest Jurist Prudence officers. The fact that we are still worried about abortion rights is a little troublesome. Having two cases that set precedents in that area, we would think that the matter is decided. It seems that there are still people that think that a man can tell a woman what to do with her body or even another woman can tell a woman what to do with her body. However we feel about abortion, we should first realize that these people are individuals and can do whatever they want to their body as long as it does not hurt another living person. The question that then rises is when do we become living people? Is it on conception or when we can freely breathe on our own outside that mother’s body, it will never be the father’s body and even if science ever thought of a way to make that happen, I ain’t doing it, see Twins with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
To play devil’s advocate, lets say that abortion rights were overturned. How then can you not illegalize orphanages? Some people that choose abortion, choose it because they are not financially equipped to take care of a child, among other reasons. If that person is not, for whatever reason, able to take care of that child, then the State steps in and takes custody of that child. They then try and place that child in an institution until they can FIND a suitable home. Well, I think that they should be able to force a family to take that child, that’s right, I said it, forced to take that child. Not just any family but billionaires, millionaires, senators, congressman, judges anyone that can give that child a good home and upbringing. How would the law not interpret that as a reasonable solution if you force a woman to have a child who wanted to opt for an abortion? If you can force a person to have a child than you can force a suitable family to take care of a child that is in an orphanage or a State institution under the same reasoning that you outlawed abortions in the first place. That’s a laymen’s opinion and to be taken any way you want. Taking away choice is a dangerous game, they start with minuscule choices and work their way up to who you can marry and who you can’t and then proceed from their. Democracy is synonymous with freedom that is synonymous with choice. Once you allow the erosion of choices you allow the erosion of democracy.
My views on abortion don’t matter because I’m a man and I can’t have a child but if your argument is that the Constitution affords you the right to life, my argument is that it also affords you the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being locked in an institution is not liberty nor do the chances of happiness increase when you are put in a place where affection is limited to a math equation, time allowed with minor divided by amount of minors taking age of minor into relevance. It seems that the constitution would best be served by forcing a capable family to add one child then forcing an institution to have 50 children.
Law Degree = Crayola + opinion + me ;).