Arguments Against Roe v. Wade
The only argument for overturning Roe v. Wade is if it’s unconstitutional.
But since most people couldn’t tell you what the law is if you hit them with it, I’ll offer additional reasons against Roe v. Wade.
Even RBG said Roe v. Wade was a bad legal decision.
Our constitution obviously doesn’t give people the “right to an abortion” because the constitution had existed for 185 years before the Supreme Court presumably found it between two pages stuck with gum.
It’s a fantasy to say the U.S. Constitution is “living” (much like it’s a fantasy to say we can “get money out of politics”). Our founding fathers included within the constitution a way to amend it. You don’t amend it via the courts even if you may agree with the outcome because then we’d slide into a nation of tyrants rather than a nation of laws.
If you want a more in-depth understanding of this point I highly recommend reading the court’s majority opinion, which starts on page 9.
Scientifically, life begins at conception, but when does a life become a “person”? This is not a legal question. A judge cannot look at text to find the answer, but must stare off into the distance and ponder what they feel is a “person.”
This is also not a personal question because the government needs to pick a point in a human’s life at which point they’re entitled to protection.
Some people believe you shouldn’t be a person until your 18-years-old and “move out of my god d*mn house, Anthony.” The Romans permitted infanticide. The Democratic Party basically supports unrestricted abortion by supporting NY’s Reproductive Health Act where a non-physician can abort a 9-month-old baby so long as he and the mother feel her “health is at risk.”
The Right is more divided. Most of us believe in drawing a line sometime between the 6th and 24th week with exceptions after-the-fact. We also don’t think taxpayers should be funding it directly or indirectly.
In fact, most leftwingers are against Roe v. Wade in principle because they also believe in drawing a line to protect the unborn sometime before the 24th week (with exceptions after the fact), which Roe v. Wade had banned.
In practice though they support Roe v. Wade because why study something you already “know” and risk coming out on the other side of your friends and corporate overlords? Ignorance is bliss. Books down. Fist up.
Robert Reich suggested overturning the filibuster so Democrats can pass with a 51% vote a new federal law enshrining Roe v. Wade. I think rather than turning such a controversial issue into a political seesaw it should be left up to the states. Keep in mind, by leaving it up to the states this benefits the Left more because it’s never been easier to travel across state lines. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse. But even this compromise is unacceptable to our authoritarian elite who want it 100% their way everywhere, including to an increasingly global degree.
When Lila Rose went to her university’s medical clinic and said she was pregnant they told her point-blank that they couldn’t help her if she wants to keep her child, but they could help her get rid of it. They also put down the idea of keeping it because her growing belly would make her classmates uncomfortable. It then made sense to her why there was no pregnant women on campus. Why does the system pressure young women to abort their babies? Is it because they care so much about women’s career prospects or is it because they don’t want to hurt womanizers’ prospects?
Early abortionists were racists who wanted to decrease the black population.
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae [forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions], the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. — RBG, New York Times Interview
To give RBG the benefit of the doubt she isn’t saying it was her concern, but that population growth was such a concern of the court that she thought they’d permit Medicaid for abortion as a way to reduce the poor. Not only is such a concern abhorrent, I don’t see how population growth should even be a concern of the court in judging the constitutionality of legislation, but nonetheless it was for Roe v. Wade and beyond.
I believe in the theological concept that all men are created equal under God. None of us are equal in capitalism or science, but we are equal at our spiritual essence. We as a country have always recognized this (although not always lived up to it). The future will be a scary place if embryos/fetuses/babies are nothing more than matter used for experimentation and harvesting. Given the MASSIVE existential threat science poses, if there is any side to err on it is on the side of life, especially in America where with great power comes even greater moral responsibility. As Gandhi said, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
Convenience dictates human morality much more than we care to admit. Why did slavery end?
The Industrial Revolution made cheap labor cheaper than slave labor.
Technology makes things more convenient. One day “unwanted pregnancies” will be as rare as polio. How might attitudes change about abortions then, especially when countries will want to grow their populations so as to support their aging population and explore the stars?
Not only will contraception get better, but so will incubation.
I can see a political debate arising in the future where one side will want to only grow babies in “optimized” labs whereas the other side will want the freedom to grow babies “the old fashion way.” But with the ability to grow healthy babies from 21 weeks (youngest premature to survive) to 12 weeks to 8 weeks to conception how might that affect the pro-abortion argument that women should have the right to kill their baby? If the argument is about “body autonomy” then logically doesn’t that restrict them to the right to “evict” the baby? This too highlights the legal googoogaagaa of Roe v. Wade because they codified viability at 28 weeks based on medicine at the time.
I also wonder how much pro-abortion feelings will change about aborting a 5-month-old as we get better visuals and sounds of what’s going on inside the womb whereby “As early as 24 weeks, babies can produce crying sounds and respond to noise in their environment.”
For how long will we as a society ignore their cries?
These are only some arguments against Roe v. Wade. It’s never too late to change your mind about a topic. In fact, it’s a virtue because you prove to yourself and others that you aren’t beholden to “your” first impression, which is often what those who control impressions want you to believe.
Be free, my friend! Let your heart pound, your pulse race, and puuuushhhhhh out into the light of day.
Smile, this is your rebirth.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe to receive my weekly column.