Abortion Rights

I was planning on writing about the right to freedom -- its meaning, its origins, how it applies in the social order of a democracy -- but I found myself dwelling on the topic of abortion, as it inherently involves freedoms and the balancing of it between different parties.

A transfer of rights

At the core of abortion is a transfer of rights, from a woman to an embryo/child. But, the question is, when?

Abortions are medical procedures that are sometimes necessary and at other times a discretionary choice. At a certain point during gestation, there is a living being with a heartbeat and a partially developed brain that controls that heartbeat -- the third trimester. Somewhere during the third trimester, a fully functional baby can be pulled out of the womb and survive on its own before natural birth.

At fetal viability

So, let's think of abortion rights as a proxy for freedom. During gestation, there is a sliding scale of rights. At conception, all rights belong to a woman. At (fetal) viability, the rights of child and mother are equal. We can see this concept in practice by how children lack full rights and how that changes at age 16-18. That's how I conceptualize abortion rights.

At conception

However, Christianity believes life begins at conception, that a bunch of rapidly dividing cells is gifted a soul. Under Christianity, at conception, a woman either has equal or less than equal rights with an embryo.

A conflict of other freedoms

But, what if one isn't Christian? To enforce a Christian framework with someone who isn't Christian is to impose religious beliefs onto that person. You've effectively taken away that person's right to freedom of religion. That is, if the State can impose a Christian belief that rights are transferred at conception, then it is explicitly violating the first two freedoms granted under the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

A Christian nation, of Christian values

Notwithstanding the Second Amendment, arguably, the United States was founded by Christians and formed by Christian values. To this, we must look to the key author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to Benjamin Rush, he wrote:

…hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the US. and as every sect believes it’s own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for it’s own: but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any position of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe truly. For I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Jefferson noted that the different Christian denominations had thought the Establishment Clause meant that the State would not interfere in the establishment of "the true one" religion of the United States. But contrary to their hopes, Jefferson promised to fight against "every form of tyranny over the mind of man". To paraphrase Jefferson, all humans have the right to believe and think for themselves. To that end, it cannot be that the framers intended future generations to accept that this nation was founded on Christian values. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is the expression of inalienable rights of individuals. That, alone, is the core foundation of the Constitution, not Christian values. In reality, Democracy usurps or at the very least undermines the Church's power.

A right to privacy

Was Roe initially decided on incorrect constitutional grounds? In overturning Roe, Alito stated that there was no explicit right to privacy under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. That was a rather odd assertion by Alito, given that Katz v US established a "reasonable expectation of privacy" under the Fourteenth Amendment. But let's consider Schrödinger's Cat. The state of the cat is unknowable until the box is opened. Likewise, conception is unknowable unless there are tests performed. So, unless Alito is conceding the power of the State to test women at will for pregnancy, the State cannot establish a vested interest in a pregnancy that is indeterminate. Therefore, a woman cannot be prosecuted for taking a "day-after" pill.

A right to life

In Dobbs, Alito states, "The Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated." Inherently, if states can determine for themselves how abortions should be regulated, then, the right to life is an arbitrary assignment. I think that's the oddest and weakest interpretation of rights, because it grants states to deny any right to life right up until birth.

In conclusion

The fairest means of understanding abortion rights is to view it as a sliding scale, balanced between a woman and a fetus/child. Religion cannot be the basis for establishing the weights on this scale, nor can a State arbitrarily assign its own interpretation based on Christian values. Viability is how the weight of this sliding scale of rights, shifts. Any other interpretation would be arbitrary.