We are supposedly in the middle of a Republican-driven "War on Women", the outcome of which, like most wars, would be -- well, I don't know, which is part of why I don't subscribe to the idea that there is such a thing -- that and the large amount of fraternizing with the enemy. Subscribing as I do the notion of seeking a steady state rather than fixing the "now" and then going on to something else, I think there's a war going on, but it's against something else.
Relevance.
OK, let's break out the "A-word", because we know the topics in this mythical war are only two -- contraception (minor) and ABORTION. I capitalized in their relative priorities. And, in fact, I'm going to dismiss the issue of contraception quickly, because the only real consternation regarding contraception is who should pay for it. The strange situation of the unmarried Georgetown Law student complaining because the taxpayers weren't paying for her pills aside, no one in his/her right mind would think that asking people to pay for their own responsibility choices constitutes "war."
So back to the A-word. May I be excused for thinking that the number of people for whom abortion is their sine qua non political issue and reason for voting whichever way they do is far, far lower than the noise made by both sides in its regard? I mean, it is not exactly a "who cares" issue, but it's not far behind. The economy, public health, ISIS, tax policy, welfare statism, the Packers, my lawn, oh, I don't know.
The problem is that the screaming on the issue has made it to be far more than it is. There is no "settled law"; there is the case of Roe v. Wade, and a bunch of state laws which vary all over. This is no surprise, and is actually appropriate in the USA, given that moral issues default to the state and local governments, and abortion is surely a moral issue.
Moral issues are those of right and wrong, simple as that. In some cases, these are absolute -- murder is wrong, theft is wrong, and the list goes on. The overwhelming number of faiths, belief systems and societal norms have decided such. Abortion, well, not so much. If you believe that life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. If you believe it begins when the child can live on its own outside the womb, then abortion before that time is not; it is a "choice", although I take issue with the contention that only one of the two authors of the new volume gets to make that choice.
How, then, do we deal with a case where the opinions on which the morality rests divide sufficiently that there is no consensus and isn't going to be one? Well, two things:
(1) Legally, we dump the issue on the states and let the local opinion dominate, as the Constitution suggests we do; if you don't like the way your state deals with it, vote for the other guy or move.
(2) Go worry about something else and stop trying to persuade the other side.
Does it not occur to you that the vast majority of Americans have done exactly that, moved on and started worrying about other things? When, after 50 years of loud argument by a very few, the morality meter has stayed put, the very few need to concede that they're not going to change the American psyche. Move on, as the rest of us surely have.
In my idle thoughts, I sometimes wonder what I would say if I were running for Senator and were asked "What is your opinion on abortion?" The answer is pretty simple. "Regardless of my own personal feelings on abortion", I would say, "of which, for the record, I have none, this is a moral issue on which the populace is split. Where moral issues become the subject of legislative concern, they default to local government. I'm running for U.S. Senator, therefore I will oppose Federal legislation which either subsidizes or prevents abortion. Laws should be written at the appropriate level for the nature of the issue and for the Constitutional direction, and for abortion, the Federal government is not it. The American taxpayer should not pay for someone else's medical treatment thought by half the country to be murder; nor should it proscribe such treatment thought by the other half to be a rightful action to seek out."
Then I would add, "I also challenge the question. This is not an issue which more than 5% of the country feels important enough to base their votes on. It makes more sense to spend valuable time discussing tax reform, the deficit, foreign threats and shrinking government, where we can do some good, than a fringe issue on which no one should rest their vote."
There's a war going on, but it is on common sense and rational priorities.
Copyright 2014 by Robert Sutton
No comments:
Post a Comment