B
Black Fog
Guest
Ever since Roe v. Wade was imperiously inflicted upon the American polity, supporters of that ill-conceived, puerile, badly-argued attempt at constitutional jurisprudence have endeavored to shift the debate from abortion to choice. And even those who otherwise oppose the practice have been slow to discern this red herring swimming about in the murky depths of polite moral discourse. After all, what sort of upright, freedom-loving American can be opposed to "freedom of choice?" I once asked a doctor whether he was "pro-choice." "Pro-choice what?" he replied. He was not much attuned to politics. When I explained that I was alluding to the abortion issue, the spirit of critical inquiry hidden in his question died, and he at once dutifully proferred the officially-scripted reply: "Oh yes, of course I'm pro-choice! Why would anyone not be?" Indeed!
In fact, the abortion controversy has nothing to do with "choice," and never has had anything to do with it. The good doctor's intuition might have informed his answer, had he been ready to apply logic ahead of ideological dogma. The verb "to choose" is not intransitive; nor are its cognates. To speak of "choice" without specifying what it is that one is talking about choosing is to utter nonsense. One who tells me that he or she favors the jurisprudential status quo because he or she favors "freedom of choice" tells me nothing. And an assertion which conveys no meaning cannot be invoked as a justification of anything, nor can it stand as a moral principle.
Let us take a critical look at the abortion debate, and ask just what it is that is being so zealously advocated by those who label themselves "Pro-Choice." What is the discussion all about, anyway? Clearly it's about one thing, and one thing only: whether the state, by legislative or judicial fiat, should create and enforce laws restricting abortion? The short answer can be stated in a single word: "Yes, it should," or "No, it shouldn't." Everything else is an attempt to justify either of these two possible answers. That's it, and that's all of it. But we know that there is not now, nor has there ever been in all of human history any law or diktat with the force of law enacted by a legislature, judiciary, monarch, despot, or president-for-life that has not in some way interfered with free choice, either by mandating conduct which people would otherwise forbear, or by constraining conduct which people would otherwise engage in. It follows that any and every conceivable law is a constraint on "choice." One who offers "freedom of choice" as a justification for his or her "yes" or "no" answer, therefore, is saying nothing more than that there should be no law mandating or restricting the practice of abortion. But this is just the point in issue. The advocate of "choice," therefore, has offered no justification at all --- only a dogmatic reiteration of his or her position.
It follows, then, that whatever the abortion debate is about, it's not about choice. If it were, there would be no discussion at all, since none would be possible. Naturally, the advocates of "choice" would be pleased with this outcome, because it has been their strategy from the beginning to stultify all moral and political discourse which might lead to an overruling or legislative impairment of Roe v. Wade. Meaningful discourse can only increase the risk that things will change to the detriment of the abortion claque. Thus, unless advocates of the unborn radically alter the tenor of debate and hold the feet of the "Pro-choice" zealots to the logical fire, the unborn will continue to die a violent death, while the more lucid among us die a slower, arguably more painful, death of boredom.
Black Fog
In fact, the abortion controversy has nothing to do with "choice," and never has had anything to do with it. The good doctor's intuition might have informed his answer, had he been ready to apply logic ahead of ideological dogma. The verb "to choose" is not intransitive; nor are its cognates. To speak of "choice" without specifying what it is that one is talking about choosing is to utter nonsense. One who tells me that he or she favors the jurisprudential status quo because he or she favors "freedom of choice" tells me nothing. And an assertion which conveys no meaning cannot be invoked as a justification of anything, nor can it stand as a moral principle.
Let us take a critical look at the abortion debate, and ask just what it is that is being so zealously advocated by those who label themselves "Pro-Choice." What is the discussion all about, anyway? Clearly it's about one thing, and one thing only: whether the state, by legislative or judicial fiat, should create and enforce laws restricting abortion? The short answer can be stated in a single word: "Yes, it should," or "No, it shouldn't." Everything else is an attempt to justify either of these two possible answers. That's it, and that's all of it. But we know that there is not now, nor has there ever been in all of human history any law or diktat with the force of law enacted by a legislature, judiciary, monarch, despot, or president-for-life that has not in some way interfered with free choice, either by mandating conduct which people would otherwise forbear, or by constraining conduct which people would otherwise engage in. It follows that any and every conceivable law is a constraint on "choice." One who offers "freedom of choice" as a justification for his or her "yes" or "no" answer, therefore, is saying nothing more than that there should be no law mandating or restricting the practice of abortion. But this is just the point in issue. The advocate of "choice," therefore, has offered no justification at all --- only a dogmatic reiteration of his or her position.
It follows, then, that whatever the abortion debate is about, it's not about choice. If it were, there would be no discussion at all, since none would be possible. Naturally, the advocates of "choice" would be pleased with this outcome, because it has been their strategy from the beginning to stultify all moral and political discourse which might lead to an overruling or legislative impairment of Roe v. Wade. Meaningful discourse can only increase the risk that things will change to the detriment of the abortion claque. Thus, unless advocates of the unborn radically alter the tenor of debate and hold the feet of the "Pro-choice" zealots to the logical fire, the unborn will continue to die a violent death, while the more lucid among us die a slower, arguably more painful, death of boredom.
Black Fog
