The Real Issue: Roe v. Wade

Feminist SJWs are such profoundly stupid people they think there is such a thing as a right to an abortion in the US. There isn’t. The landmark Roe v. Wade ruling says that a woman’s constitutional right to privacy must be balanced with society’s interest in protecting human life, that until a fetus is viable outside the uterus the decision to have an abortion is a private one and therefore protected.

I agree that the compromise Roe represents is a great model for thinking of the issue, but it clearly has its flaws for absolutists on both sides. The pro-life side says that even a non-viable fetus is sacred human life and abortion at any point after conception is murder. The pro-choice side thinks viability is irrelevant and abortion on demand must be a “right” up to the moment of birth.

But there are at least two major forces at work in our society that will undo Roe v. Wade and render it moot regardless of who is on the court—one on each side of the compromise.

Continued advances in medical technology make fetuses viable at ever earlier stages of pregnancy, shortening the window during which abortions can be performed under the Roe standard. It is possible to think that eventually gestation in an artificial uterus from conception may be possible. It is certainly reasonable to think that at some point, viability will come too close to the time a woman finds out she is pregnant to let her consider her choice, let alone accomplish an abortion procedure in time. Women rarely take a test before they miss a period, so the earliest detection seems fairly fixed.

Similarly, on the other side, the continued erosion of privacy rights brings that whole concept into question. Privacy is constantly threatened by technology, social media and big business, and it is not certain which will win in the end. Pro-choice feminists have shot themselves in the foot it seems during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation circus by turning the notion of privacy itself into a joke. That is exactly what they were doing when they analyzed his high school yearbooks for evidence of beer drinking and mocked his 10 year-old children in editorial cartoons.

It would be ironic and sad karma if Roe was overturned because privacy in 2020 just doesn’t mean what it used to in 1973, according to Justice Kavanaugh.

Since both of these trends work against choice, pro-choicers need another plan if the court overturns Roe. If Roe is challenged, it may be there is no legitimate argument left to save it regardless of the Court’s leanings. And even if the Court’s balance should change again in the future, a reinstatement of Roe may not be reasonable. Keeping Kavanaugh off the Court would have been a temporary reprieve at best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *