If I Wanted To Protect Abortion

If liberals were not stupid, they would not be liberals. So whenever they lose a court case, I wonder if a person who is not stupid and crazy could have won using the right arguments. It is important, because there are many things Republicans are wrong about, but liberals are too dumb to provide effective opposition.

I don’t think a right to abortion can be found in the US Constitution, for the standard reasons that the word abortion is not in there, and abortion was illegal when the Constitution was written. But I still wonder if there are some better arguments you could make than the ones liberals come up with. I have more pressing matters to fill my brain with, than to read all the background material supporting court decisions on abortion. But I will still brainstorm a few abortion rights arguments just as an exercise.

The first is a religious argument. It could be argued that laws against abortion were based on religious beliefs about when life begins. Everyone who lived under a law against abortion, lived under a similar religion. Because the religions of Americans were fairly homogeneous at the time the Constitution was written, there was nobody who did not think life began when a baby could move. But if there had been a community of people who did not believe life began until birth, then the government could not take any interest in their pregnant bodies.

The second is an agency argument. It may be that all early prohibitions against abortion, were against abortions done by or somehow managed by or caused under the direction of men. Since everyone with an external interest in abortion such as a doctor or father was a man, then a practical prohibition on abortion was a prohibition on men forcing abortions on women. Men either were involved in doing all the abortions, or the government interest began at the moment men became involved. Or maybe when it became a visible act involving the community.

The fact that no record is written that women were allowed to secretly abort themselves, does not prove it was not a strong tradition. It may have been assumed that women who were interested in invisibly causing their own abortions could not be stopped, and the government had no practical means or interest in trying to stop them. It would not even be worth writing down that women who secretly injure themselves – after they miss a period but before a child can be detected by anyone else – are allowed to do so. Just like we do not charge people for lying or silence in defense of their own privacy. The government could not pass a law that people are not allowed to keep secrets.

It is widely understood that laws depend on who is taking the action. If I drink a beer out of my fridge, that is private property. If you drink a beer out of my fridge that is stealing. Of course we are all allowed to go home and lock our doors. But no man is allowed to take us home and lock the door to lock us in, without due process. So maybe women are allowed to abort themselves which is not even a practical concern for the law or government, but nobody can externally choose it for them, or participate in it should it become visible. Kind of like those countries where hooking is allowed but not pimping.

After this point it would become like the Second Amendment. Sure, women were always allowed to secretly abort themselves, just like men were always allowed to carry knives or muskets or something. But when does a weapon of war fall outside this right? And what type of assistance, such as abortion pills, become an external participation? So now we are up to a woman can take a pill in the privacy of her home, but she cannot go to a doctor, unless she shares with the doctor a religious belief that life begins at birth.

The third argument is a change in what liberty and pursuit of happiness is. When the Constitution was written, most production was farming. Most women worked at home. There were not many avenues of happiness for them to pursue, other than motherhood and household work. So a woman who was pregnant, was able to pursue the standard median pursuits of happiness while doing it. Nowadays, it is considered very important that girls do things like win swimming races. So a person who is forced to remain pregnant, is deprived of this ordinary right to a happy life. A woman on a swim team can get an abortion from a doctor whose religion says life begins at birth.

Remember, marriage was something that was traditionally forced on men, to force them to take care of a woman. And a woman could use a pregnancy to secure a relatively favorable lifestyle, at the expense of a man. So the desire for abortions historically came more from the father, who had a motive to force abortions on women. Since marriage was her standard career pursuit, men aborting her child would be depriving her of the pursuit of happiness. Men conspiring to kill children against the interest of the woman and the community, would definitely have been a crime.

There is even a public interest. Soldiers used to require physical strength. But if wars at the time the Constitution was written were fought electronically, the public might have had an interest in aborting female soldiers. If they can send a soldier to die, can they not send a soldier’s child to die? So maybe a woman is allowed an abortion to participate in security forces. It does not really seem necessary for a well regulated militia, but only if there is some individual right to participate in the militia. Maybe a pregnant woman is physically impaired from self defense, and people have a right to self defense, which is a novel need for single professional women who work outside the home in new lifestyles. Nah.

Like I said, I don’t think any of these arguments would hold up in a real Supreme Court debate. But they might be better than whatever garbage liberals actually used.