Looking at Dobbs A Year Later, Part 2

By Rob Meyne

  • July 4, 2023
  • 5-min read

Many critics of the Dobbs decision observe that life is now harder and more emotionally challenging for people who want abortions. Well, yes, it is. See again the article from Vice, here.

The question is this: how much do stories of the unfortunate aspects of this, or any, Supreme Court decision matter, and based on what values structure? If the issues discussed in Vice are all that matters, of course you would oppose Dobbs. If, however, you cared as much or more about ALL human life, at all stages of its development, you would have to support Dobbs.

And, BTW, it IS that simple.

Is ANY sad or painful result of a law a negative? Strictly speaking, sure. Every law has plusses and minuses. No exceptions. But telling only one aspect of a story, or looking only at one perspective, is comparable to a jury only hearing from the prosecution. It is interesting but hardly conclusive.

How persuasive such arguments are depends entirely on the standards, the foundational values against which you evaluate them. IF the happiness and emotional health of women who have already been born is the only thing that matters of course you would oppose Dobbs. IF, however, you value life in all forms, and at all stages of development, you could easily feel empathy for the women described in Vice but STILL support Dobbs, because you value the lives of 60-plus million dead babies more. The arguments of the pro-abortion crowd are persuasive if, and only if, you value the lives of these women more than those of the more than one million innocent lives murdered in the womb every year in America.

In a Constitutional Republic, it is seldom, if ever true, that only the opinions of a select group matter, and it certainly makes no sense now.

Nevertheless, some people believe the dispositive issue is what effect abortion law has on pro-abortion women (those who have been born). That value structure quite literally requires you to believe that the lives of those who “won the lottery,” so to speak, meaning they weren’t killed in the womb, are more valuable than the lives of those not allowed to be born.

And, let’s be clear about this. Babies/pre-born people/whatever you want to call them are living humans. Period. There is no serious debate about that. The argument that they are not human would be, well, what? Unborn humans are humans just like unborn dogs are still dogs. It is so clear, and logical, that people are embarrassed to even defend an alternative viewpoint.

To make the point even clearer: Democratic leadership in Washington DC, including the president, favors unlimited abortion, at any point. (Biden was asked in 2022 if there should be any restrictions on abortion, and said no.) They support policies like in Minnesota, where you can walk in during the ninth month of pregnancy and say, “get rid of it,” kill it.

What possible argument could be made that a baby in the 9th month isn’t a human? If you just remove it, the child will likely grow up to live a normal life. It is inarguably human, yet the leadership of the political party in power thinks killing them is ok. The key issue for our time on this subject is NOT rather the baby is human and alive – indisputably, it is – but why abortion supporters would think killing them is fine.

There is no logical argument that babies aren’t people. None. What would it be? How would you prove a baby isn’t human? Of course, you can’t. To be fair, we generally can’t prove a negative. (You can’t prove you’ve never been to Australia.) But the question remains: If they aren’t human, what are they? Iguanas? Sloths? Hummingbirds? Lesser pandas?

A human life is human from conception, just as a bald eagle is an eagle from conception. Of course, destroying an eagle’s egg is a federal crime. Eagles are loved and protected. Humans are not. Horrifically, destroying a person at an early point is legal and celebrated by about half our population. An eagle in the early stages of its life gets protection your children do not.

If you can tell me a logical, values-based argument for why it ought to be legal to kill a human but not a Bald Eagle, the national symbol of the United States, please do. You would be the first.

A second inarguable point is that in almost all abortions the baby is already developed to the point where they feel pain. It is not a clean, simple, happy procedure. Especially in later months, babies are routinely torn to pieces in the womb, with the legs, head, etc., separated, ripped off and removed. The pieces are then assembled to make sure they haven’t missed a piece.

If you can think about that for five seconds and not realize it is an abomination, then you don’t much care about life or suffering. At least, do the rest of us a favor. Keep promoting abortion, if you want, but quit claiming you are motivated by compassion, love, or decency. That would be a lie that is intended to make you feel better about your own endorsement of a cruel procedure that ends innocent lives. It is insulting and makes you look hypocritical.

A third point is that the current legal landscape does not result from an aberration in our system, or an out-of-control renegade court. This court isn’t off the rails any more than were previous courts who legalized abortion and made other leftist rulings.

It is fascinating how many people trash the Supreme Court as if it were some radical, fringe group, rather than a Constitutionally proscribed branch of government. When SCOTUS rules, it isn’t “democracy” going off course, it is the process working exactly as is intended. If you don’t like a court ‘s ruling, it doesn’t make it radical. It hopefully, however, makes sure it conforms to the law. If you don’t like the laws, change them. But don’t waste our time pretending laws you don’t like are aberrations.

Finally, for now, there is this: when people post things like “Men want to control what women do with their bodies,” you know they’re out of intellectually honest comments. I am pro-life and have absolutely no problem with women doing what they want with their own bodies. None. But abortion isn’t about what women do with their own bodies. It is about what is done with a separate body, and life.

The whole point of an abortion is to kill a separate human being. Not “her body,” but a totally separate one, with different DNA and even a different sex. The reason a person gets an abortion is to kill that separate living thing. If someone wants to say, “Yes, it kills a separate human life, but I want the right to do so,” I can at least respect their honesty. But it is unquestionably human.

It is so ironic how far from love and respect for life we have come. Many of the people who cry over abused animals and the eroding of a coral reef fight hard for the continued torture of our youngest and most indefensible humans.

If any issue in America is emotional and likely not to be resolved soon, this is probably it. We believe we should treat those with opinions different from our own with respect, love, and compassion. We believe we should engage with them with logical, factual discourse. That should be our ongoing commitment. That said, good decisions, policy, and laws do not arise out of emotional, illogical or nonfactual arguments. If you want to discuss abortion with “people like us,” bring your brain and have your facts straight. We pledge to do the same.

Our own view? Leaving abortion in the hands of the states is a step in the right direction. It does not mean abortion nationally will be uncontroversial or unemotional or pleasant. It will not. That’s just one of the realities of our system of government. National constitutions last an average of 17 years. Ours has been in effect longer than any constitution extant. There is a reason for that. Warts and all, America’s constitution remains the gold standard for the world.

Please share!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *