The abortion of personal choice

Sam Smith - It is ironic that so many of those opposing any vaccine mandate are also among those favoring laws that restrict or ban abortion. The same contrast could probably be found among those opposing gun restrictions. At the heart of the matter is the notion that freedom of choice largely belongs to me, but not you. 

 When you examine the abortion debate, what you find is not a constitutional, medical, or legal issue, but a religious and moral one, the sort of choice least suitable for a decision by the Supreme Court.  There is also far more judicial effort these days to protect the religious than to protect those whose morality has another base. Our failure to accept this is one more sign of what is dividing our land. The split is between those who believe liberty is what belongs to everyone and those who think they get to decide who gets it.

Here's how I wrote about it a year ago:

Describing David Hackett Fischer’s discussion in ‘Albion’s Seed’ of the difference in the view of freedom within the American colonies, Leonard J. Wilson writes, “Their contrasting concepts of liberty are among the most visible today. The Puritan concept of liberty, ‘ordered liberty’ in Fischer’s terminology, focused on the ‘freedom’ to conform to the policies of the Puritan Church and local government. The Virginia concept of liberty, ‘hegemonic liberty’, was hierarchical in nature, ranging from the great freedom of those in positions of power and wealth down to the total lack of freedom accorded to slaves. The Quaker concept of liberty, ‘reciprocal liberty’, focused on the aspects of freedom that were held equally by all people as opposed to the unequal and asymmetric freedoms of the Puritans and Virginians. Finally, the Scotch-Irish concept of liberty, ‘natural liberty’, focused on the natural rights of the individual and his freedom from government coercion.”

The good thing about the Quaker notion of reciprocal liberty is that you don’t have to approve of the other person’s behavior to accept his or her right to engage in it.

America, at its best, knows that you don’t have to like someone or their beliefs to extend to them the same freedom to be right or wrong. As Walt Kelly said, we have to defend the basic American right of everyone to make damn fools of themselves.

For diversity to work, no one gets to approve its membership. It exists because that’s the way the world is.

The distinction is whether diversity is merely different or if it hurts someone. If it hurts someone – as with ethnic discrimination or the physical mistreatment of women – then society rightfully gets to call a halt to it.

What is clear is that the Supreme Court  is not the institution that decides who wins, at least according to the Constitution. There are no provisions in that document to let a court, or legislature for that matter, decide the moral standing of abortion. If your society depends on lawyers to define morality, it's on its way down. 

Which is among the reasons I like reciprocal liberty: I can't have my freedom if you don't have yours, provided no one is hurt in the process. I became acquainted with it early, growing up as one of six kids. I went to a Quaker school where you learned to debate without anger, and spent considerable time in Maine where your ability to deal with the problem at hand was far more important than your religious or political views. 

So my answer to someone opposed to abortions is "Don't have one." And then look for other things to talk about. 

Further, it is absurd for a largely male court to be deciding whether women should be allowed to make one of the most difficult personal choices. And to declare ourselves a democratic society and yet choose to collectively make such choices for others. 

We must learn what writers discover early in life: everyone is different than you. Don't try to suppress it. Enjoy it.