There seems to be no issue that stirs up people as the issue of abortion. It likely is because the thinking and narrative around the subject have been so distorted over the past 40 years or so. It would appear that the issue will be critical in multiple elections this cycle, including the state of Arizona. If that is so, we need to be clear-headed about what is going on.

In part, the controversy is because abortion is both a moral and a political issue. One can take a moral point of view, and also a political point of view that may differ or may coincide. Is that hypocrisy or just because some things are in the moral realm and some in the political realm?  There has always been tension between complying with the civil government and Biblical law as in Mark 12:17. “Render unto  Ceasar…”

The fundamental purpose of government is to protect life and property, and clearly, a life is not only affected, but terminated in the abortion decision. So, the state and the law do have a role to play, do they not?

The standard thinking of the left has been that it is all about a woman being able to control “her body.” A “right” conjured out of a penumbra of the Constitution relating to privacy. More recent Supreme Court decisions have found otherwise. However, a baby is not part of her body. She is carrying the baby to be sure, she helped create the baby, but the baby is not part of her body.

As an aside, it was striking how easily the left disposed of the “right to control our bodies” when it came to COVID-19 vaccinations.

Now your spleen is part of your body and if it has to be removed, that is a choice a person of either sex should be able to make in consultation with medical experts.

However, a spleen does not have a heart and brain, and it will not grow into an independent human, depart from your body, and then lead a totally separate existence. So, we can dispense with the “it is a woman’s right to control her body argument.” It is not logical and never has been.

Abortion should not be part of the women’s rights movement but has been conflated as such. It is not about being able to vote, own property, or pursue a career. The baby is not part of her body although it obviously can affect her body for about nine months and beyond.

What are “reproductive rights” we hear so much about?  It would seem that would entail the right to not have sex, the right to have sex with whom you choose when you choose, and whether that is within a lasting relationship or not. It would include the right to choose any appropriate device, procedure, or medication to either avoid or enhance pregnancy. You can see there is a lot of freedom there to make decisions about sex and childbearing.

When you think about it, it is odd that such angst is vented on this subject when today women have more choices to determine when and if they will become pregnant than they ever had in history.  And for the most part, they are legal, available, easy to use, and inexpensive.

Planned Parenthood was founded as a birth control movement to reduce the number of those believed inferior before most contraceptives. Margaret Sanger was an outspoken racist and bigot who was part of the broader Progressive goal of eugenics. But technology makes birth control possible without killing babies, regardless of the motivations.

In this sense, abortion is not “birth control” but rather the product of the failure of “birth control”.

But for the period women are fertile, do “reproductive rights” allow for the killing of another being, a human baby for reasons of family planning or convenience? As previously noted, this killing would seem less “necessary” today given technological and pharmacological advances.

It would also appear that once conception has occurred, and a baby is growing, something fundamental has changed. The rights of the baby should have some consideration in the matter. Indeed, the rights of the father, which are often completely ignored, should also be considered.

Today, the argument is made that only the “rights” of the mother should be considered. Generally speaking, outside of war, most advanced societies believe the right to kill another human is moral only in defense of the assaulted person or another innocent human being. The baby is not “assaulting” anyone with the intent to cause harm or injury and is entirely innocent.

Many try to circumvent this obvious truth by contending that abortion is not killing a baby.  Clearly, whether by pharmaceutical means or being dismembered inside the mother by devices, the baby is being killed. The counter argument then is made that is it “not a baby” but rather a “clump of cells.”

What is a “clump of cells”?  Well, a clump of cells could be asparagus growing or toe fungus.  If that were the case, then there is no question that you can destroy this clump of cells.  However, the “clump of cells” in question is quite particular.  It contains the DNA of at least two people, but actually many more people that had created their own clump of cells.  This clump of cells will become only one thing, a new human being. 

To avoid the reality of this logic, the next typical step is to suggest as long as this clump of cells is not developed enough “to be human”, the baby has no rights whatsoever and thus it is OK to kill the clump.

But then there is the tricky issue of determining when precisely is that?  When the baby is “viable” or when the baby can “feel pain”?  How do we know when a baby feels pain?  Modern science seems to be constantly proving that viability is possible at remarkably early ages.  Neither the viability nor the feeling of pain can be precisely calculated.

It is extremely difficult to know exactly at what point a zygote becomes a baby and hence the argument that it is at the point of conception that it becomes human makes logical sense. As noted before, regardless of age or development, the zygote will only become a human baby and not asparagus.

The stage of human development does not obviate your rights.  A two-year-old has few rights, but with growth, he or she will obtain them.  But we would not kill the child even though they have not obtained all legal rights.  The baby in or out of the womb has a right to live, once created.

The right to live is the most fundamental of all rights. Without life, other rights make no sense.  It is rare to hear anyone suggest non-living objects have rights.

Either a woman has an absolute right to kill her baby or she does not.That is the question and your thought exercise for the day. And if it is not an absolute right, when and under what circumstances does she have a limited right? This recent exchange with liberal Bill Maher is revealing.

The compromise that has been sought for years has been if the pregnancy is a physical danger ( as opposed to mental anguish) to the mother’s life, or if the baby is old enough to feel pain (a slippery concept to be sure), there should be some limitations on “abortion rights.”

We never liked the term “reproductive rights” because those rights were exercised before conception while the goal of abortion itself is NOT to be reproductive.  The exercise of “reproductive rights” was exercised prior to the baby coming into existence.  Most reproductive “rights” are exercised without the intention of becoming pregnant. 

Some people suggest that as a man, I have no right to speak on these matters. That’s baloney. It is a contentious political issue and a matter of law and morality.  As such, all citizens have a right to voice an opinion. Don’t be made to cower by this argument.

The abortion movement was born as part of the eugenics movement.  Much like the argument over the stage of development when a baby becomes “human”, this argument can be extended to adults who function at a very low level and do not appear fully aware or competent to enjoy life.  That is a dangerous slope to try to walk.  Not surprisingly, the internal logic of judging the worthiness of life has led to the killing of those with retardation and mental illness in NAZI Germany and the wholesale extermination of those regarded as inferior people. It has also led to a movement in Western countries towards very liberal policies regarding euthanasia.  A general disregard and respect for life is spreading.

Further, we are warning you that your emotions are about to be manipulated cynically for political reasons.  Democrats want to paint all Republicans as unfeeling retrogrades who don’t appreciate the gains women have made in our society. They believe they have found a wedge issue to exploit. They want to push initiatives and legislation that are extreme and only consider the mother’s wishes. Further, beyond abortion, they want to redefine the family unit and the idea of sex itself.

Our moral sense is to protect a woman’s choice up to the point of pregnancy, and then recognize the rights of the baby are now involved. If the mother does not wish to keep the baby, many couples are looking to adopt.

That might cause the mother emotional trauma. Yes, it might, but that is preferred to killing the baby who suffers damage that can never be reversed.  The exercise of all rights involves corresponding responsibilities.

Former President Trump is catching lots of flak because he has taken a position that irritates the purists on both sides of the debate.

As a political question, he has made the correct decision.  This is a question for states to decide. That is what appointing originalists for the bench was all about. Alabama may decide differently from California.  That is the wonder of federalism, which is our system of government.

So, the battle for public opinion will have to be conducted on a state-by-state basis.

As for Arizona, a reasonable compromise would be to limit abortion to very early in the term of pregnancy, before the baby is “viable” and “likely to feel pain.”  We don’t know the exact time that would be and we humans at this juncture can’t really know.  However, it is the best that can be done at this time to try to resolve a contentious issue. It will not be acceptable completely to either side.  That is the very nature of compromise.

There is no unlimited right to abortion and it is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Women have the right to determine their destiny, but not by killing others to achieve it.

On the other hand, our right-to-life friends have not succeeded in convincing a large majority of their position.  Some key states have already passed very expansive abortion legislation. That is the political reality we must contend with.

Politically speaking, it would be unwise to sacrifice all other important issues, just to this single issue.  Our country is going bankrupt, our elections are rigged, the government is imprisoning right to life demonstrators, the 1^st, 2^nd, and 4^th Amendments of the Bill of Rights are under assault, we are being invaded by illegal immigrants, Democrats favor criminals over the innocent, and we are abandoning the rule of law to a giant administrative state.  The next President will likely appoint several more Supreme Court Justices.

If Democrats win big and take the White House and House and Senate, the right-to-life movement will be in even worse shape than it is now.  It is far better for conservatives to win, not just for this issue, but for many of those aforementioned.

Therefore, it would be best to push a moderate line of compromise that avoids Democrat victory.  Make the other side sound extremist and radical while we should sound sensible.

Morally, I can’t support abortion, but politically it is clear the Democrats are going to use this in Arizona and other key states and exploit this difficult moral and personal issue for their own ends.

A reasonable political compromise, and we admit it is an uncomfortable compromise, is to allow abortion under certain limited circumstances that involve the safety of the mother and require that the procedure occur very early in the term of pregnancy.

For our right-to-life friends, compromise may be insufficient.  We appreciate why. If it is human life, killing is not justified at any stage of development, except to save the mother.  Why would the murder of babies be OK in one state and not another? That is logically and morally consistent. But a worse outcome would be an unlimited “right” to taxpayer-funded abortion enshrined, including late-term abortions, in our Constitution or law; plus a Democrat victory that allows them to overturn every aspect of our society and economy.

Politics isn’t bean bag and we must try to advance what we can and get the vote in Arizona of a large contingent of independent voters. This may be the best we can get even if it is not all that we may want.

Compromise in the political realm does not substitute for the need to continue the moral conversation. Abortion is a poor substitute for self-control or contraception.

Ultimately we have to convince suburban women, and many men,  that killing babies should not be part of the “women’s rights movement.”