Today marks the 48th anniversary of the terrible Roe v. Wade decision. With that in mind, let’s address whether a common apology for abortion rights is actually logically consistent: If you truly believe the government should not interfere in the relationship between a woman and her doctor, you should oppose government prosecuting “candyman” doctors who knowingly over-prescribe painkillers and cause patients to become addicted to opioids. But you do not believe that, do you?
Our government at both the state and federal level regulates the practice of medicine all the time, on things such as distributing vaccines, controlling prescription drugs, setting malpractice law and regulating hospitals. Aside from the most hard-line libertarians, no one believes in the absolute statement that “government has no standing in the doctor-patient professional relationship.”
So the issue in abortion is not whether government should be regulating the practice of medicine. There is near-universal agreement that such regulations are proper. The question is whether a specific regulation – banning the termination of human life inside the womb – would be an appropriate exercise of state power. But even that question is mostly settled, as criminals who harm a pregnant woman can be charged for the death of a fetus growing inside of her. So we are left with a more specific view: Should a woman be allowed to freely choose to hire a “doctor” to murder her own child?
So then we start to erect smoke screens: “The question of whether a fetus has a soul is a religious question, not one for the law.” But the question is not personhood. The question is humanity. It is a scientific fact that a fetus is a a human being, only at a different stage of development than an adult or a born child. The human DNA is there, and the unborn baby will grow and develop with shelter, nutrition and time.
Anyone who understands human biology knows deep within himself that abortion is a great moral evil, and why it is a great moral evil. Can we please be done with the disingenuous arguments used to support legalized abortion? This is about whether there are enough justifications for abortion to justify allowing the rights of another to be trampled in the most severe way imaginable. Spoiler: There are not.