Gee, that was fast! All the Supreme Court did was agree to look at a part of 1973’s Roe v.Wade that has been rendered anachronistic by subsequent developments in science and medicine, and the pro-abortion lobby freaked out. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization involves the 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The case raises the obviously relevant ethical, moral and legal question of when human life can be and should be subject to law’s protection. Roe, nearly a half century-old now, based its limits regarding when an abortion was a woman’s constitutional right on when an unborn child was “viable,” a word that requires a conclusion about when human life begins as well. It is not only reasonable but necessary for the court to clarify this. Question 1 in the petition for the writ of certiorari is “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Good question.
So why the freakout? Simple: neither side in the abortion debate has ever been willing to debate the issue fairly, as both ignore the obviously relevant rights and issues of one of the two human beings involved in the abortion equation. As Ethics Alarms has pointed out before and will continue to do until the stars turn cold, this is an ethics conflict, and a difficult one. Two strong ethical principles are opposing each other, both with major societal implications. In ethics conflicts, the ethical process of balancing is required, but neither side is willing to risk balancing regarding abortion. Thus both have conducted their side of the debate by dishonestly denying the existence of the ethical realities opposing the result they want. The anti-abortion advocates refuse to give fair weight to the effect an unwanted pregnancy can have on a woman’s life and future, and women’s legitimate interests in their own autonomy (which still may not be absolute.) Pro-abortion advocates deliberately ignore the fact, and it is a fact, that abortion involves the taking of human life.
This mutual dishonesty is reflected in the euphemisms the sides of the controversy use to obscure the real problem. “Pro Choice” makes it sound like the only issue is a woman’s autonomy ( Life? What life?). “Pro Life” wrongly cuts the interests of the women involved out of the balancing act. This is the reason the abortion debate has made no progress in a hundred years. The two sides are talking about two different things, and have neither the integrity nor the honesty to deal with the balancing problem.
Roe was a badly reasoned and irresponsibly issued ruling, authored by a serial SCOTUS mediocrity, Justice Harry Blackmun. Somehow, the opinion bootstrapped abortion into being a right under the “unenumerated” Constitutional right of privacy by analogizing it to birth control. But the case in which the Court rightly found that the State had no business telling couples that they could not engage in birth control didn’t involve killing anyone. I’d call that a material distinction.
Roe was one of the most breath-taking leaps of law and logic in the history of the Court, and a throbbing example of judicial activism run amuck. Nonetheless, it has been the law of the land long enough to be regarded as stare decisus; for good and practical reasons, over-ruling the entire case would be bad judicial policy. Addressing aspects of the opinion that were based on scientific assumptions no longer valid, however, is common sense, as well as sound legal policy.
Two of the most unprofessional, cognitively challenged and ethically inert of the progressive mainstream media’s talking heads responded to the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization challenge by avoiding all of the legitimate issues and resorting to accusations of sexism and racism. We can expect that this will be the approach of the entire pro abortion lobby, because science is not in their favor. They also have always had the more difficult side of the ethical debate, since they have to justify killing human beings “for the greater good.”
CNN’s Chris Cuomo, once again making Fredo Corleone seem like Stephen Hawking, descended into emotional, self contradictory gibberish in his on-air tantrum:
“You would think that we would have impaneled experts on a special commission by now to see what the science says, right, but we don’t seem to have the intellectual curiosity about this issue. Because it’s not really about science — it has become a culture war. It’s a political lever to use as a distraction from policy and solving problems, to allow people to get up in their religion and their righteousness as a distraction from policy and solving problems. It’s not about science or consensus about dividing lines, legislating to the far-right white-fright vote, flooding the zone with 536 bills that abridge a woman’s right to control her own body, in 46 states. It’s just like voting rights in one way.”
Then he added that modern “medical capabilities may be moving the point of viability well short of what it was assumed to be in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.” Yes, Chris, that’s exactly why that aspect of Roe should be revisited.
What an idiot.
Who is”we”? You don’t settle a question like when an unborn child is viable with a “commission.” The vast majority of scientists believe that life begins at conception: pro abortion advocates don’t want to hear that; their arguments require pretzel-like logic denying that “meaningful” life exists as long as possible, even after birth in some schemes. All decisions about right and wrong are part of the culture, and to the extent that such societal decisions affect lives, they are fought over. That’s how culture works. Saying that abortion is a “culture war” is just misdirection, assuming Cuomo knows what he’s trying to say, which I doubt.
Dealing with abortion is a distraction from solving problems? There are about 750,000 abortions a year right now. That’s 750,000 human beings who are prevented from having a chance at life. I’d call that a problem. For the aborted Americans, I’d call it the biggest problem imaginable. Chris is upset that deciding how many of those 750,000 should be protected by law and allowed to live interferes with debates over the minimum wage, is he? Fascinating.
Why is a man this stupid allowed to “analyze” the news, when he could be a perfectly competent plumber?
Being concerned about killing the unborn is just a matter of religion? Abortion violates the moral strictures of many faiths, but one doesn’t need religion to find abortion wrongful. Kant’s Categorical Imperative holds that it is always unethical to use a human being to advance another human being’s interests. Doesn’t Chris think killing a human being violates that ethical principle? Oh, right: “Human being? What human being?”
And “far-right white-fright”? Refining Roe is racist? That makes sense in only one possible way: anything progressives oppose will be called racist, especially when they have no real arguments…or, as in Cuomo’s case, when they are too dim to devise any.
Just as the younger Cuomo is the bottom of the CNN barrel—yes, a layer lower than even Don Lemon—the rottenest of MSNBC’s many rotten apples is Joy Reid. Here is her rant:
Spring of 2022 will be a seminal moment in America for women’s reproductive rights because it looks like the Supreme Court is primed to diminish the protections afforded under Roe v. Wade. Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear Mississippi’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that struck down a ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. It’s a terrifying prospect eerily reminiscent of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” where far-right wing religious extremists took up arms against their own country, one where women and their bodies were under the complete control of almost extravagantly corrupt and hypocritical men of god, quote, unquote. What’s so scary and frankly traumatizing about that show and the book that inspired it is that it starts off in the very place that we live in right now where women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies until they don’t. And then in what seems like a blink of an eye, those rights were just gone. Naturally abortion opponents are thrilled given the new conservative makeup of the court, especially after the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, under his eye…I reference the ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ a lot because one of the things that happens is this sort of group violently takes over and secedes essentially from the United States and forms their own government. But they are–the hard right desire to control women because I’m sorry, I don’t think this is about children because these same people are not in favor of universal preschool or health care for kids, they don’t care if kids are locked in cages. It’s about women, it’s about controlling women.And so I wonder if Democratic women have not been focused enough on the fact that these people are serious about controlling women’s lives and bodies, and whether people like Susan Collins just got duped by people like Brett Kavanaugh or whether no one is taking it seriously enough!
What does any of that have to do with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization? What does Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization have to do with a science fiction novel about a society where women are forced to become pregnant? Notice that in all of that hysterical word wave, there is no mention of the individuals who are aborted, and when it is fair, rational, human and scientifically sound to consider their rights. Nobody listening to Reid would learn anything about the real issues in the case.
That is because the real issues in the case require balance and facts to competently examine. It’s so much easier to resort to name-calling and hysteria: it keeps the public ignorant and irrational.
You know, like Chris and Joy
Ethics Alarms 
Whoa, whoa, Jack. Most plumbers are much more intelligent than Fredo Cuomo and probably more capable of “analyzing” the news.
Like I said a few posts ago, the left is so invested in Roe v. Wade staying as is that any mention of it being even looked at sideways sets off every possible alarm bell and screeching harridan that side of the presiding officer. It’s the left’s equivalent of a Code 10-60 (in the FDNY this is the code you call in for a major incident, meaning a plane crash, a train derailment, a skyscraper collapse, etc. It brings a major response of man and apparatus and automatically transmits the next higher alarm). It’s the left’s all alert scramble, where the RAF would put every available plane and pilot in the air. It’s the left’s General Quarters, where all hands on the ship man their battle stations.
This is bigger than George Floyd, bigger than 9/11, bigger than the civil rights movement, bigger even than Pearl Harbor. A woman’s/girl’s right to kill her gestating baby, and thereby be able to act like the Fokkens twins on a busy weekend without fear of consequences, is to them more important than free speech, more important than freedom of religion, more important than any other freedom in human history.
It’s that big because the left has been hanging its hat on this for five decades. It’s their Trident missile, the weapon you turn to when all else has failed and you have to take all measures to guarantee victory. You count on this to make all those young women, especially the young, urban, often single ones whose idea of Sunday is yoga at the crack of ten, champagne brunch and Pottery Barn (Church? How quaint.), to turn out in force. You also count on them to tell the husbands and boyfriends to turn out or be banished to the couch, the parents to turn out or they won’t see the grandkids (ever, that includes Christmas), and everyone else to turn out or be banished forever.
It’s kind of pathetic. The left won’t stand up for anyone or anything else like this, but they’d abandon this position in a heartbeat if they thought it would net them more votes.
Tsk Tsk, the new computer used my own name. Well, so be it. If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.
I did that once. I don’t think anyone noticed, or remembered if they did. Mind if I add you on social?
All right. We are on the same page more often than different. I hope you like aircraft.
I’m not certain I could trust Cuomo to set up a kiddie pool, much less install a new sink or repair a leaking wastewater line.
I have observed this debate online for over a quarter of a century.
I have heard phrases like, “You’re a slut! and “You just want to get rid of that baby bump so you’ll look good in a bikini.”
Way to influence fence-sitters.
Gloria Steinem once said, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”
She was right.
Abortion is a sacrament to those who think men could get pregnant.
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”
File that under the heading that captures other inane things leftwingers say like “Oh look, gun ownership among african americans is soaring, now the Republicans will back gun control, because they hate blacks”
They are only slightly wrong.
Black people with guns has always been the impetus for public support of gun control laws.
“You would think that we would have impaneled experts on a special commission by now to see what the science says, right, but we don’t seem to have the intellectual curiosity about this issue. Because it’s not really about science — it has become a culture war. It’s a political lever to use as a distraction from policy and solving problems, to allow people to get up in their religion and their righteousness as a distraction from policy and solving problems. It’s not about science or consensus about dividing lines, legislating to the far-right white-fright vote, flooding the zone with 536 bills that abridge a woman’s right to control her own body, in 46 states. It’s just like voting rights in one way.”
1- “Empaneled Experts”
“We’re going to commission a study” is legislative jargon for “we’re not going to do a damn thing, but we don’t want to say so.” It’s why I breathed a little easier after Joe said that he’d commission a study on court packing, it was a signal that he had no interest in it. Bill DeBlasio has run literally hundreds of studies on various facets of New York City education, and acted on a grand total of none of them. In this case, that’s what Democrats want: they like the status quo. And so “empanel some experts” is a euphemism for “do nothing, and waste money while doing it.”.
2 – “Distraction from Policy”
At the risk of being gauche, which I will always risk, if there could only be a single person in America who wanted desperately to distract from policy issues, it might be Andrew “Kill the Olds” Cuomo. Fredo should expect a call any minute now from the smarter brother to tell him to shut the hell up, because he could really use some cover right now. But aside from the obvious conflict of interest inherent in a governor having their retarded younger brother in a primetime CNN slot, Democrat legislators, governors, and officials should be breathing a collective sigh of relief, because if you haven’t looked outside, they could use a distraction. The fact that Republicans aren’t giving them the time to wallow in their problems is indicative of either an unforced error, or a signal of their prioritization. If it’s the latter, then this isn’t a distraction from the issue, it’s the issue.
3- “Science and Consensus”
Oh… Please… Please, Fredo, do tell me more about science. Explain to me, as only you can do, about science. Spend some time explaining some big words, like “quarantined”, just off the top of my head, because I have this impression in the back of my head, that our definitions might be a little bit off.
The anti-abortion advocates refuse to give fair weight to the effect an unwanted pregnancy can have on a woman’s life and future, and women’s legitimate interests in their own autonomy (which still may not be absolute.)
I would like to tease out some deeper thoughts on this. Not surprisingly, I think the pro-life campaign has given the plenty of consideration, evaluation, and attention to the effects of an unwanted pregnancy. But let’s begin with this:
Is it permissible to kill an innocent human being because that human being is inconvenient?
The answer to this had better be no. Killing an innocent person as a matter of convenience is grossly disproportional. If the unborn are innocent human beings, then killing them because they are inconvenient is highly unethical. So let’s consider the syllogism and deal with its premises:
P1. It is unethical to kill an innocent human being as matter of convenience
P2. An unborn baby at any stage is an innocent human being
P3. An unwanted baby is matter of convenience
C. It is unethical to kill an unborn baby
The conclusion follows from the premises, so are the premises valid? P1 should be solid, but I’m open to hearing arguments. I would defend P2 on the following grounds. First, as a definition, innocence is a matter of not having committed any offense. An unborn baby cannot act in any malicious way and so is innocent. Circumstances around the pregnancy, like ectopic pregnancies, might be difficult or even life-threatening, but that is not the child’s fault. Rape is a terrible crime, but the baby is not the one who committed it. So the baby is innocent. Is the baby a human being? Here then are the arguments about what constitutes a human being. The baby has unique human DNA, and with the proper environment and care, will grow and develop just like any other human being. That suffices for me, but oceans of ink have been spent disputing when a baby is human enough. But I’m not going to follow that any further, because the question is whether or not the life-altering experience of bringing new human life into the world is getting due weight.
That brings us to P3. Is being saddled with an unwanted pregnancy a matter of convenience? First, when is something a matter of convenience? I’m not going to go to the extreme that something is a matter of convenience if it doesn’t kill you or maim you. But what is matter of convenience is broader than we think. If a life event prevents you from getting through school, I would categorize that as a matter of convenience. If a life event prevents you from being able to take care of yourself, that’s not a matter of convenience. If a condition is temporary, I would generally say that’s a matter of convenience. Tearing your Achilles is a matter of convenience, because your Achilles can heal. But what if that ends your basketball career? I would argue that is still a matter of convenience, because while it is devastating to have to retool your life, you can still retool your life. Just because the outcomes aren’t what you were wanting doesn’t mean that this rises above inconvenience. A wise counselor once told me that part of my depression was continually dwelling on what I couldn’t have instead of focusing on what I could have, even if it wasn’t what I was expecting at the time.
Also factoring into the convenience factor is whether or not one has a choice regarding that life-altering event before it happens. If your Achilles is strained and you need to give it a rest, but you choose to keep playing until your Achilles snaps, then you have no grounds to complain about the consequences. That’s the same if you used a compression sleeve, special shoe inserts, iced your heel after every game, and so on to try to keep your Achilles functioning. When what you needed to do to avoid snapping your Achilles was to stay off of it until it healed, by choosing to do otherwise, you brought the consequences on yourself. It was a matter of convenience to choose to engage in the risky behavior that led to the undesirable consequence. Furthermore, the alternatives, while inconvenient, are reasonable, especially in light of the consequences.
The final consideration I’ll give the convenience factor is whether there are alternatives after the life-altering event happens. In general, if you have a easy but unethical action, and a difficult but ethical action to choose from, you are ethically obliged to do the difficult thing.
So what does a woman have to deal with regarding an unwanted pregnancy? She has, generally, the choice not to engage in the activity that is ordered toward pregnancy. Rape is another matter. But it really is a matter of inconvenience to have the self-discipline not to have sex if you really don’t want a baby. Once a woman is pregnant, she does face difficulties, especially if she is not married, poor, in bad health, struggling with drugs, or any number of other issues. It is also quite distressing if her pregnancy is a result of infidelity. And let’s not forget or minimize the stigma still attached to a woman pregnant out of wedlock.
But she has alternatives to abortion. She can place the child up for adoption. There are many wonderful couples out there who would love to adopt the child. She get a great deal of help from religious and governmental agencies. Joy Reid is either ignorant or deceptive when she says the Right doesn’t care about children. The Right supports all kinds of efforts to help struggling mothers. But the Right would prefer that handled at a local level, not a federal level. And the Catholic Church has all kinds of programs to help young mothers. The help is there. It might take some effort to get that help, but that extra effort is a matter of convenience.
I could try to examine each possible issue in turn, but I don’t have much more time, and I’m hoping someone else will chime in with situations for due consideration. But I feel that most of the arguments against my case come back to the questions of proportion and the nature of the unborn child. Can a woman kill her two-year-old because he’s hampering her career? No? Then why would it be okay for her to kill her unborn child, if he’s going to hamper her career? If the unborn child is just as deserving of protection as the two-year-old, then the outcome should be same. Can a woman kill her two-year-old because she’s in economic straits? If she’s hooked on drugs? If she’s tired of being a mom? If she wants to hide a fling? Whether or not the answer is different depends on what the unborn child is. That’s why the Pro-Life groups focus so much on that question, and not very much on the difficulties the mother faces. If those difficulties don’t justifying killing her born children, then whether or not they justify killing her unborn children comes down to determining whether the unborn are human individuals that possess the inviolable right to life.
Ryan, your arguments for why abortion is unethical/immoral/just plain wrong are, I think, mostly indisputable. I do dispute your introduction to them. The pro-life campaign has NOT given sufficient consideration, evaluation, and attention, not to mention respect, to the effects of unwanted pregnancies. The very fact that you use “matter of convenience,” which is pretty typical, proves the point. “Convenience” sounds like its a minor scheduling problem, or just a big hassle. If a couple’s life plans don’t include children, a child entering the equation changes everything (or results in a neglected child). For a single woman, a pregnancy can mean poverty, the end of educational opportunities, a broken relationship, a rift with family and church, and the loss of a job or career. That’s not enough, in Kantian terms (or mine) to justify taking a life, but it’s still a major misfortune and life altering event….not just “convenience.” Carrying a child to term for adoption purposes still involves expense, delay in other plans, and in some jobs, a cessation of a career. It’s pat to say “don’t have sex, then,” but that’s never been a realistic expectation. Sex is recognized today in the majority of the culture as something engaged in for reasons other than procreation, and a key part of human experience. Women are going to have sex; men are going to encourage them, stuff will happen, lives and careers will be put in crisis. The response of “Too bad; you did this to yourself” is not only not compassionate, it’s callous, or certainly is perceived as callous by someone facing these choices. It’s fine to say anti-abortion advocates give “consideration” to their plight, but that’s a bit disingenuous. The anti-abortion position is one of absolutism: the unborn child is a human life, and thus unless the mother’s life is itself in danger, NONE of her concerns, no matter how cataclysmic, justify taking that life, including dealing with the results of rape. That’s good ethical theory, but it is politically and realistically unpalatable.
Jack,
I couch it in terms of “convenience” because I’m thinking in terms of dichotomy. Either something is a matter of necessity, or it is a matter of convenience. Where that line is can be debated. Is having an Internet connection a matter of necessity or convenience? As society has shifted, an Internet connection, even if it is just by borrowing a computer at a public library, has become a necessity. Is child care a necessity? If a single mom needs to work a job, then it is, because working that job is a necessity and lack of child care makes working that job impossible. Is free, government-mandated child care a necessity? No, it is a convenience, even to that single mom, because there are other options, some of which are more difficult than others. So it may sound like trivializing things down to a scheduling conflict, but that’s not how I’m using the term. I thought I gave plenty of discussion to what does or does not constitute to convenience, but I always reserve the right to be horribly, miserably wrong.
It’s pat to say “don’t have sex, then,” but that’s never been a realistic expectation.
Why is that not realistic? Are people incapable of self-control? Is the drive to have sex so overpowering that it must find an outlet? I will agree that it is not right to stigmatize people who don’t meet that ideal, just as it is wrong to teach that sex is dirty or bad. But we have a greater chance at success of meeting that ideal if we don’t actively push “sex anywhere, with anyone, no consequences!” And this is especially true when we understand that self-control in sexual matters helps prevent broken relationships, undesired children, sudden thrust into poverty, the whole nine yards.
Sex is recognized today in the majority of the culture as something engaged in for reasons other than procreation, and a key part of human experience.
The purpose of sex is to bond a man and woman together, and with any children they produce. The biology shows that pretty strongly: oxytocin, for the bonding, the numerous adaptions a woman’s body makes to recognize her partner’s semen, the fact that a child is produced from the union of one egg and one sperm… Society may look at sex as recreational, but that doesn’t change the reality of sex. The fact that sex is ordered towards procreation doesn’t change because society wants it to. But yes, sex is a key part of the human experience. From the Catholic point of view, the sexual union of husband and wife is partaking in the divine life. And I agree that the sexual drive is very strong. Our drive to continue the species, to continue LIFE, should be strong.
The response of “Too bad; you did this to yourself” is not only not compassionate, it’s callous, or certainly is perceived as callous by someone facing these choices
If my response is, “too bad”, then I would be callous. “Too bad” is a callous response. But you can be compassionate and still work to help someone realize their responsibility for their predicament. And that is why I stressed that there is plenty of help out there. There are crisis pregnancy centers. There are people who are willing to go an extra mile to help women who are in dire straits because of their pregnancies. Just because you’ve dug yourself a hole doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get any help to get out. Just because someone is in a predicament of their own making doesn’t mean you shouldn’t help them.
The anti-abortion position is one of absolutism: the unborn child is a human life, and thus unless the mother’s life is itself in danger, NONE of her concerns, no matter how cataclysmic, justify taking that life, including dealing with the results of rape.
Do any of her cataclysmic concerns justifying killing her two-year-old? If the unborn deserve the same rights as the born, then there’s not really any wiggle room here.
That’s good ethical theory, but it is politically and realistically unpalatable.
In terms of the practicality of moving from a society that accepts abortion to a society that bans abortion, making the jump all at once is infeasible. But if the ethical theory is good, then that’s the direction we need to go. And I think if the concern is that the Pro-Life movement is not addressing women’s concerns, then addressing those concerns should go a long way to making the cultural shift more feasible.
This is a thoughtful response that deserves another, but for now: “Either something is a matter of necessity, or it is a matter of convenience.” But the distinction is subjective. A life’s aspiration is a necessity to the person with that life. Is a job, a life timetable, an education at a particular institution, a convenience or a necessity? Is control over one’s fate a necessity, or a convenience?
Why were people continually violating stay-at-home orders starting in the summer of last year?
“So what does a woman have to deal with regarding an unwanted pregnancy? She has, generally, the choice not to engage in the activity that is ordered toward pregnancy. Rape is another matter. But it really is a matter of inconvenience to have the self-discipline not to have sex if you really don’t want a baby.”
Most women, especially most young women, would call that attitude outdated at best, horribly sexist at worst. How dare you, a man, have an opinion on how they should conduct themselves? No uterus, no right to talk about it.
https://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/crazed-abortion-activist-attacks-pro-lifers/84201771/
I’m a white Catholic male conservative. I have no right to comment on anything, I think.
The woke would like nothing better than to exterminate guys like you and me.
Yes indeed. Sadly, once they did so, they’d be like the coyote after he caught the roadrunner. What gives life meaning after that?
None of them men who decided Roe v. Wade had uteri.
What I really want to know is, how might the ruling in this case affect the rules on newborns (well, including ALL land-dwelling primate newborns, what the hell) as far as wearing masks is concerned.
/sarcasm
To me, the philosophical arguments against abortion are rather compelling. When you move into the “you are only human if you can do X” sort of thinking, you can unintentionally end up justifying terrible atrocities. All of the arguments I hear in favor of abortion have a eugenics ring to them. A fertilized egg might feel psychologically different than a fully developed person, but the fertilized egg is still the beginning of human development. It’s one stage in the process.
What exactly is the thing growing inside of a woman? And why does it only become morally relevant if it has grown large enough and sophisticated enough? I just have trouble seeing any good arguments for abortion except in circumstances that would save the life of the mother or maybe in a war zone.
Does true justice mandate that a benefit of doubt be applied to the natural open questions imposed by circumstances?
There are circumstances that impose certain open questions with respect to justice, such as guilt vs. innocence where a crime has been identified – and, life entitled to certain rights (including life itself), vs. no such entitlement, ever, no exceptions, no “carve-outs,” and no limits to the powers of the authority most immediately engaged and empowered to identify and direct the course of action with respect to the “non-entitlement,” where a pregnancy occurs.
It seems to me that in such circumstances, a person external to the “deeply personal” conflict between a person’s status, under the law, of guilt vs. innocence (or, between a pregnant person and the living entity that comprises the pregnancy, over an abort vs. no-abort course of action) must have the ultimate authority and empowerment to resolve the question for all parties involved. That person also must NOT be empowered if he or she presents any appearance of conflict of interest due to the circumstances. Furthermore, the “resolver” must be able to articulate, and document, that resolution has taken into account, and reflects, empowerment of conflicted parties according to granting benefit of doubt for the sake of the status of the person or persons involved, such that guilt (or loss of life) is NEVER a result of the resolver’s actions.
So, if you ask me, do I want EVERY case of pregnancy being considered for abortion to be adjudicated by a person empowered BY LAW to so adjudicate – a person who is empowered out of knowledge and expectation that the empowered person is not conflicted in the specific circumstances being adjudicated – then I am going to say, “Yes.”
I must clarify. The resolver (judge) must have a jury’s recommendation on guilt, and not be empowered unilaterally to impose sentencing of a guilty person. The resolver can be the sole arbiter of a no-abort order, but must be one of a minimum of three non-conflicted resolvers to rule, where a majority rules for abortion.
One judge to stop an abortion; three to direct one.