The Dobbs ruling was an immense blow to the pro-choice movement, and like the way that Roe invigorated the pro-life movement, injected new motivation to return to the argument about reproductive health. Abortion is an issue based on societal morals, as such access is determined by the morals that a society has. There is no way to find a solution to the argument in three episodes. Instead, all that can be done is to examine both sides of the argument and put forth a proposition that will spur a conversation to bridge the divide in the hopes of finding common ground upon which the morals of both sides can be respected.
[00:00:09] Hello and welcome back to Crayon Box Politics. A project devoted to coloring outside the
[00:00:16] normal political spectrum in order to create a new political landscape for those of us left behind by two color politics.
[00:00:25] This episode will be the final installment in our three part series on reproductive rights with a focus on abortion.
[00:00:34] In the first episode, I opened with a discussion about abortion in early America.
[00:00:39] That discussion centered around the fact that abortion was a largely accepted and practiced
[00:00:45] procedure by wealthy white women. I need to take a quick pause and go down a quick rabbit hole here because
[00:00:53] some readers have responded to that episode by stating that the only reason that wealthy white women
[00:01:01] or any women in general during the early American era sought abortions was because of the fact that
[00:01:08] they viewed that as the least worst option in the event that they had in extra marital affair.
[00:01:15] No one wanted to be forced to bear the burden of having to wear the scarlet letter, so to speak,
[00:01:23] of being an adultress. And while this is true for the most part,
[00:01:29] another major reason that women sought abortion was because of their concern for their own lives.
[00:01:38] You see back then, the death rate, the maternal death rate during labor and during pregnancy,
[00:01:46] was much higher than the death rate that was caused by botched abortions.
[00:01:51] That being said, the point of this series is not to sus out and validate the reasonings for
[00:02:00] getting an abortion. The point of this series is to discuss the origins and the legality
[00:02:09] of abortion care in this nation. The reasoning for why a woman would want to get an abortion
[00:02:18] while being important to the overall discussion is not a central piece of the discussion that we are
[00:02:25] having in this series. The American health care system as a whole was largely unregulated
[00:02:35] at the birth of our nation. Even remedies meant to induce abortions were built as something
[00:02:49] other than they were. Some were called the agents intended to remove blockages,
[00:02:57] while others were remedies intended to restore the natural flow of a woman. Now, we'll get into
[00:03:06] the American health care system in our next series. But the reason that I brought up
[00:03:14] how the American health care system appeared during the early days of our nation is because I
[00:03:19] wanted to emphasize that there was no formal process by which health care was administered. And
[00:03:27] women, for the most part, managed the reproductive health care of other women in their community.
[00:03:34] These practitioners were called midwives. Now, if you'll remember back to the first episode,
[00:03:42] the establishment of the American Medical Association and the advent of the second
[00:03:48] creator Awakening resulted in laws that restricted the ability for midwives to do their jobs.
[00:03:54] These laws and restrictions came to a head with changing social understandings as well as
[00:04:04] the understanding that the maternal death rate, the maternal mortality rate was steadily increasing
[00:04:13] because one women were dying as they were giving birth. But more importantly, women were dying
[00:04:21] as a result of black market unregulated unsupervised abortion care outside of the law. In our second
[00:04:32] episode, I reviewed the ruling in Roe versus Wade, which was a case brought before the Supreme Court
[00:04:38] after access to abortion had largely been criminalized nationwide. In that episode, I talked about
[00:04:45] how the ruling in Roe versus Wade resulted in a political fire being lit that polarized our nation
[00:04:56] into two camps, pro-life and pro-choice. In this episode, I will review how the polarization
[00:05:06] of our nation came to a head and resulted in the case of Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health
[00:05:14] Organization or what I will call Dobbs. We're going to examine the ruling and the case
[00:05:21] and then break apart the arguments both for and against abortion. Disclaimer,
[00:05:27] this installment will end with the opinions and assessments of myself, Carl Abel,
[00:05:33] based entirely on the research conducted over the last few months, and tied to my own personal beliefs.
[00:05:40] The reason for the preface about opinion is that I want to be clear that while I am striving
[00:05:46] to color outside the political line, it is important to paint opinions as opinions and not as facts.
[00:05:54] I know that I am not the foremost expert on the issue of reproductive health care.
[00:06:02] I know that I will not be the expert or the authority on most of the topics that we will
[00:06:11] discuss throughout the duration of this project. And while I may form my own opinions and beliefs
[00:06:19] based on the research that I do, I am open to debate and discussion about the points that I
[00:06:25] make here on this platform. That being said, if you wish to raise a concern or want to shine
[00:06:31] light on facts that may sway my opinion, then please send me a message using the contact form
[00:06:38] on the website or even drop a comment on your favorite podcasting app. All right,
[00:06:47] so what was the case of dobs all about? What caused the Supreme Court to override 50 years of legal
[00:06:54] precedent? Let's go ahead and start by reviewing row and till row if you were called to find
[00:07:00] a fetus as potential life but not a human being. And also said a standard for abortion access
[00:07:07] at a defined point, not to be limited prior to the end of the first trimester. Do, went further
[00:07:15] to determine that the state could not justifyably limit abortions if the procedure was sought
[00:07:21] based on maternal health. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Southeast
[00:07:27] or Pennsylvania versus Casey that the protections afforded under the Constitution did not limit
[00:07:34] bands to the first trimester. Instead, it allowed for a new standard by which abortion bands
[00:07:40] could be established called the Undo burden rule. Now, while Casey upheld the Supreme Court ruling
[00:07:51] that the Constitution protected the right to abortion, it opened the door to laws that would
[00:07:59] pursue loopholes within its own undue burden clause and allow for the restriction of abortion
[00:08:08] almost to the point of eliminating abortion completely in some states. In 2019,
[00:08:18] the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Jackson Women's Health
[00:08:23] Organization. This lawsuit is what we now know as dobs versus the Jackson Women's Health Organization.
[00:08:33] In the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights alleged that the Mississippi law
[00:08:40] violated the rights of pregnant women established by the president set by the ruling in
[00:08:46] row in Casey when it created a ban on abortions past the 15-week period. The case reached
[00:08:56] the Supreme Court after a district court ruled in favor of the Jackson Women's Health Organization
[00:09:03] and placed a pause on the enforcement of the Mississippi abortion ban. In its challenge
[00:09:09] to be district court ruling, the State of Mississippi initially intended that the law was consistent
[00:09:15] with the row decision. But quickly changed its contention seeking to overturn the row decision
[00:09:23] completely following the confirmation of conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme
[00:09:29] Court. And in the spring of 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the decisions in both row and Casey
[00:09:41] were incorrect in that the interpretation of the Constitution by the justices who ruled on row
[00:09:47] in Casey was invalid based on faulty historical analysis. So overturning a Supreme Court ruling
[00:09:57] is not something to take lightly. Similar to the way that Congress doesn't take lightly, it's
[00:10:03] a job of providing the check of impeachment on the president. The Supreme Court,
[00:10:12] similarly, does not take lightly its ability to overturn rulings from previous courts.
[00:10:21] In deciding to overturn a ruling, the Supreme Court has to look at five factors.
[00:10:28] Those factors are the nature of the court's error, the quality of the reasoning in the previous
[00:10:35] ruling. The workability of the ruling, the effect on other areas of law should the ruling be overturned
[00:10:45] and reliance interests on the previous ruling that would be affected in the event that
[00:10:52] the ruling was overturned. In the case of Dubs, the Supreme Court ruled that the justices who
[00:10:59] passed the ruling in row misinterpreted the historical references of our nation.
[00:11:04] The Supreme Court ruled that the justices in row ignored the historical context of the rise
[00:11:12] of legislation that restricted abortion access and identified abortion as deeply rooted in American
[00:11:20] history and traditions. So that is what the Supreme Court justices decided was the nature of
[00:11:28] the court's error in the ruling under row. In Jecchi and my opinion here, based on my own research,
[00:11:36] which we have discussed thoroughly in the first two episodes of this series,
[00:11:42] I would have to disagree with the court's point of view that abortion does not have a deep
[00:11:50] root in American history and traditions given the fact that abortion at the very onset of our
[00:11:58] nation was legal and commonplace. I contend that the rise of the laws against abortion
[00:12:06] did not come around until 40 years after the birth of our nation. And even then, those laws
[00:12:14] did not attack abortion as a total ban. Instead, those laws banned abortion after
[00:12:23] what we know as the quickening, which based on science occurred around 21 weeks. I would argue here
[00:12:34] that the nature of the court's error is that our current Supreme Court failed to take into account
[00:12:42] the historical references in its decision in dobs. In the second factor,
[00:12:49] the Supreme Court found that the decision in row established a set of rules that appeared
[00:12:56] to be similar to those of statutes or regulations that would normally be passed by a legislative
[00:13:04] body. The Supreme Court also found that that row ignored the state consensus of laws
[00:13:09] that banned abortion in 1868. They also determined that row failed to justify its
[00:13:17] distinctions between pre and post-fibility abortions, injecting my opinion again. I would have to
[00:13:25] concur with this understanding of the quality of reasoning that was put forth by the Supreme
[00:13:32] Court in the case of dobs. The argument that the justices that ruled in the case of row
[00:13:42] established a set of laws that would normally be passed by a Congress or a state legislative body
[00:13:53] is accurate. I don't agree that the justices who passed the ruling in row
[00:14:00] ignored the state consensus of laws banning abortion in 1868. Given the fact that they
[00:14:06] concurred and understood what those laws set forth as far as bans, and established a specific time
[00:14:14] period by which bans could not be enforced. Lastly I would agree that the justices in row
[00:14:23] did failed to justify the distinction between pre and post-fibility abortions. That by establishing
[00:14:31] an arbitrary date by which an abortion could no longer be conducted, they didn't account for
[00:14:39] advances in science and they did not allow for changes in the way that we preserve life. This
[00:14:49] sets a dangerous situation in which a morality issue arises and that morality issue deals with
[00:14:57] the preservation of life. In the third factor, the Supreme Court, interviewing both Casey and
[00:15:05] Row, determined that modification of the standard from trimester base under Row to the Undo
[00:15:12] burden test under Casey resulted in a vague interpretability of the Undoom burden test and was
[00:15:20] not capable of drawing a solid line between permissible and unconstitutional. Here too I concur with
[00:15:28] the justices that ruled in dobs. The Undoom burden test, while a good attempt at trying to take
[00:15:36] into account, the scientific advancements that had occurred since Row to win Casey was ruled.
[00:15:46] Field to establish a solid understanding of what the law actually meant and while Casey upheld
[00:15:54] the rights to privacy and the rights to abortion being protected under the constitution,
[00:16:01] it failed to establish left and right lateral limits in order to provide legislative bodies
[00:16:09] with the knowledge that they were passing laws that were within the realms of the constitution.
[00:16:15] It opened up the ability for legislative bodies to pass laws and put them to the test through
[00:16:26] the judicial process in order to determine whether or not those laws were constitutional.
[00:16:33] Essentially, the ruling in Casey resulted in the removal of abortion laws from the political realm
[00:16:44] and placed those laws into the realm of the judiciary branch, forcing the judiciary branch
[00:16:52] to establish enforceability of laws, which is not constitutionally the responsibility
[00:17:00] of the judicial branch. In the fourth factor, the Supreme Court ruled that
[00:17:07] the decisions of Row and Casey affected other areas of law, specifically distorting
[00:17:17] many unrelated but very important legal doctrines. Now, I don't know if distorting is the right
[00:17:23] word to use here, but what I will say is that I agree in a sense and my agreement goes back
[00:17:33] to the previous comments about how the ruling in Casey specifically took abortion legislation,
[00:17:45] took abortion bands, took abortion laws, took the politics of abortion and removed it from
[00:17:52] the legislative bodies. And instead handed it to the Supreme Court and the justice system in order
[00:17:59] for them to hammer out what the law actually was and what the enforceability of the laws
[00:18:06] were under the constitution. In the fifth and final factor, the Supreme Court ruled that
[00:18:13] overturning Row and Casey would not impact any interest that relied on the ruling of Row and Casey.
[00:18:22] You see, the Supreme Court ruled that based on Casey returning the ability for the states to
[00:18:30] regulate access to abortion would not impair or cause detriment to reproductive health care
[00:18:35] because abortions were not spontaneous and as such, any affected parties that had to deal with
[00:18:42] bands in their state would have time to adjust their plans to account for changes in restrictions.
[00:18:48] The Supreme Court also emphasized that while Row and Casey influence other decisions,
[00:18:55] a ruling to overturn both would apply strictly to those cases and would not affect any other
[00:19:02] decisions. More of my opinions here I would have to disagree. You see, overturning Row and Casey on the fact
[00:19:11] that the Constitution does not protect abortion because it does not state abortion anywhere within
[00:19:18] the Constitution is a problem. And that problem is that it opens the door for challenges to
[00:19:26] other constitutional protections that were determined to be the case under Rowlands by the Supreme
[00:19:34] Court. Those include Rowlands on contraceptives, Rowlands on same-sex marriages,
[00:19:45] Rowlands on interracial marriages, all of which have been established as being protected by the
[00:19:54] implicit right to privacy that is given to us under the Constitution. However, because the arguments
[00:20:02] for those cases are the exact same arguments that were used in order to ensure that Row resulted
[00:20:10] in the ruling that it resulted in means that now those rights, those constitutional rights
[00:20:19] are open to challenge. As we all know in history being what it is, based on its findings
[00:20:28] in the review of those five factors, the Supreme Court determined that it had a clear mandate
[00:20:34] to overturn Row and return the debate to the individual states. As suspected,
[00:20:40] the dobs ruling was an immense blow to the pro-choice movement and similar to the way that
[00:20:46] the decision in Row invigorated the pro-life movement, the ruling and dobs injected new motivation
[00:20:53] to return to the argument about reproductive health. Abortion is an issue based on societal
[00:20:59] morals, as such accesses determined by the morals that a society has. There's no way to find
[00:21:06] a solution to the argument in three blog posts and they didn't set out to create or identify
[00:21:12] what that solution is. The only intent is to establish a dialogue now by which we can find
[00:21:20] that middle ground together. The way that we do that is by examining both sides of the argument
[00:21:28] and then put forth a proposition that spurs that conversation and hopefully result in our ability
[00:21:37] to bridge the divide and allow us to find common ground upon which the morals of both sides
[00:21:44] can be respected. When it comes to the pro-life argument, the base is centered on a
[00:21:50] contention that abortion is akin to murder. You see, the pro-life movement uses a logic
[00:22:00] that a fetus is a human being and because human beings have a fundamental right to life
[00:22:08] that fetus also has the fundamental right to life. The logic continues that if it is wrong
[00:22:15] to kill a human being, who possesses the right to life, then it is also wrong to kill a fetus
[00:22:22] because it too possesses the right to life. This logical line of argumentation is based in the
[00:22:29] fetal personhood argument. Specifically that the fetuses potential to become a human person and
[00:22:36] enjoy the valuable life common to human persons entails that its destruction is primafasia
[00:22:42] morally impermissible. One argument used to justify this logic is that the fetus has the capability
[00:22:50] to feel pain. However, scientifically has been determined that the neuroanatomical apparatus required
[00:22:58] for pain and sensation is not complete until about 26 weeks. Now in my research I've gone through
[00:23:06] and there's a lot of medical jargon that talks to the sensors and the receivers and the pain
[00:23:14] receptacles being around and located in the fetus at specific stages of development. However,
[00:23:23] scientists have deemed that the process by which those pain receptors can fire and be received
[00:23:31] and interpreted by the brain does not occur until that 26 weeks. Therefore, based on the fact
[00:23:39] that the upper limit worldwide for termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks and most pregnancies are
[00:23:47] terminated well before this. The argument on the ability of the fetus to feel pain doesn't apply
[00:23:54] because at the time of the abortion, the fetus scientifically cannot feel pain.
[00:24:01] Finally, the logic used to justify personhood is itself flawed. Specifically that when you break
[00:24:10] it down, the logic in an algebraic formula sounds something like this. If x has the potential to become
[00:24:18] y, then x is y and should be treated as such. The problem here is that we don't apply that
[00:24:26] logic to other areas where x has the potential to become y. One example is that children
[00:24:35] have the potential to become adults and yet we treat them as children because their maturity
[00:24:41] and growth levels don't put them in a spot where they can be treated and trusted the way that
[00:24:47] adults can be treated and trusted. Another example that I found in my research is that
[00:24:55] the prints of whales has the potential to become the king and yet the prints of whales
[00:25:01] is not treated to the same benefits and pomp and circumstance as the king of England. Therefore,
[00:25:10] when it comes to the logic formula of if x has the potential to become y, then x is y
[00:25:17] and should be treated as such is flawed because we don't apply that same logic across the board equally.
[00:25:24] Also, during my research I discovered the origin of that abortion is murder argument and that
[00:25:33] origin is that it was invented, perpetuated and executed by male doctors in the mid-19th century.
[00:25:42] Sometime around the establishment of the American Medical Association and the rise of the
[00:25:50] second-grade awakening. In their initial arguments against abortion, those male doctors painted
[00:25:59] women seeking abortions as murderers' devoid of morals punishing babies for their own failings.
[00:26:08] On the other side of the coin, the pro-choice argument revolves around two key arguments.
[00:26:14] Personal autonomy and maternal health. According to the pro-choice camp,
[00:26:21] abortion bans preclude patient moral decision making by implicitly forcing one individual's morals
[00:26:27] in views of what is right and wrong onto another person. Who may or may not share the same views?
[00:26:35] The movement goes on to argue that there is no single definition of fetal personhood
[00:26:42] that medical professionals rally around. Instead they lean on the moral argument
[00:26:50] that the only person who can determine fetal personhood is the person in which the fetus lives.
[00:26:57] Now, that argument is based in the old process by which a woman determined when the
[00:27:05] quickening occurred because it was only the woman who could decide that she had felt the baby
[00:27:11] move. The pro-choice movement employs two different and distinct logic flows.
[00:27:18] The first is that only human beings have the right to life. A fetus is not a human being,
[00:27:24] and therefore a fetus does not have the right to life. And if a being has no right to life,
[00:27:31] it is not wrong to kill it. Therefore, it is not wrong to kill a fetus. So essentially
[00:27:38] what they are saying is that x is not y and because x is not y, x should not be treated as y,
[00:27:47] therefore x should be treated as x. The alternative logic flow takes into account that
[00:27:59] perhaps a fetus is a person. In this logic flow, it is determined that in certain circumstances,
[00:28:07] the right to life afforded a person may be overridden by other factors given hypothetically
[00:28:13] that a fetus is a human with the right to life. It's right to life may be overridden by other factors.
[00:28:21] And if a being's right to life is overridden, it is not wrong to kill the being.
[00:28:27] Therefore, it is not wrong to kill the fetus if certain factors occur.
[00:28:31] No, I know that's a lot. So what I'll say is to break it down just a little bit more.
[00:28:37] The pro-life camp has two different viewpoints. The first viewpoint is that a fetus is not a person
[00:28:44] and is not a human being, and therefore cannot be afforded the same rights and privileges that a human
[00:28:50] being would be afforded and that to kill a fetus is not akin to murder because the fetus
[00:28:57] is not a human being. Alternatively, the pro-choice camp also has people who fundamentally believe
[00:29:08] that the fetus does have the potential to become a human being and is a human being in and of itself.
[00:29:16] However, the intention is that because it is living within the mother, it is subject
[00:29:25] to the forfeiture of its right to life in the event that certain circumstances occur.
[00:29:32] And in these certain circumstances you will see that they arise out of circumstances surrounding
[00:29:40] pregnancies as a result of rape or pregnancies as a result of incest or pregnancies that result
[00:29:49] in the mother's health deteriorating possibly even death in during labor. More recently, we saw
[00:29:55] an instance where a young girl had become and pregnant by a member of her own family after being molested.
[00:30:05] Yet, because of the ban in her state was not able to receive or undergo an abortion procedure
[00:30:14] that would save her life. When it comes to maternal health, the United States is the only
[00:30:20] developed country with a rising maternal mortality rate that disproportionately affects black women.
[00:30:27] The rates are significantly lower in states with protected access to abortion and those rates
[00:30:34] being reduced also includes in the black community. So essentially, based on the numbers
[00:30:43] access to abortion care is directly connected to maternal mortality. A study of maternal
[00:30:51] death rates between the year 1998 and 2004 revealed that during that time frame, the risk of death
[00:30:59] from childbirth was 14% higher than that of death from abortion. That study also found that the
[00:31:08] risk of physical and physiological harm was greatly reduced when women were able to gain access
[00:31:15] to their desired form of abortion. Pro-life proponents point to health risk associated with
[00:31:21] abortions as a means by which to claim that abortion is unsafe and harms the mother. There are
[00:31:27] three main points that they look to. The first is a condition called post-abortion syndrome or
[00:31:34] pass. Passes a physiological condition that pro-life proponents point to in which women who undergo
[00:31:42] the abortion process suffer from depression and anxiety. Now, so my listeners are brought this up
[00:31:50] and I looked into it and what I found is that an Norwegian study in order to determine if pass
[00:31:57] is a certifiable condition found that the rate of psychiatric contact is similar both before and
[00:32:06] after a first trimester abortion because of the lack of evidence supporting the validity of
[00:32:12] the condition doesn't even appear in the DSMV. Also known as the handbook for mental health.
[00:32:20] And the link between abortion and mental health problems is dismissed by organizations
[00:32:24] tasked with mental health protection. Studies have also determined that while women don't
[00:32:30] generally suffer long-term mental health effects related to the abortion, short-term guilt
[00:32:36] and sadness was far more likely if the women came from a background where abortion was viewed
[00:32:42] negatively or their decisions were decried. Essentially what they found is that for a women who
[00:32:50] grew up and who were raised to believe that abortion was wrong suffered from short-term regret
[00:32:59] for the actions that they had done. However, in the longer run, they didn't suffer from any
[00:33:07] depression associated to abortion or post-abortion. The second health risk that pro-life proponents
[00:33:16] point to is called the abortion breast cancer conjecture or ABC. You see during the political
[00:33:24] debate that followed the ruling in Rome, the pro-life movement pointed to a rise in breast cancer
[00:33:30] as being associated with the rise in access and conduct of a board of procedures. These arguments
[00:33:37] employed studies that found direct links to breast cancer and abortion. Those studies were conducted
[00:33:45] using something called the case-controlled method which has been deemed to be a method
[00:33:51] logically unsound method because of its inherent risk to recall bias. The example used in the
[00:33:57] research is that someone who already has cancer has less to lose than someone who was healthy
[00:34:05] in admitting that they had undergone an abortion. Therefore, in those controlled studies, the bias
[00:34:12] was the ability for the individual who was taking part in the study to be honest about whether or
[00:34:19] not they had undergone an abortion procedure. Contrasting that procedure, another method is known
[00:34:28] as the historical cohort study. It's a longer term study but it's been deemed to be more
[00:34:36] methodologically sound. There have been two studies utilizing historical cohorts in order to determine
[00:34:45] the risk of breast cancer has been associated with a board of procedures. Neither of those two
[00:34:56] studies found an increased risk of breast cancer associated with first trimester abortion.
[00:35:04] Based on those two studies, organizations like the WHO, the National Cancer Institute,
[00:35:11] the American College for obstetricians and gynecologists, and the royal college of obstetricians
[00:35:18] and gynecologists, supported a position that claims that the risk of cancer
[00:35:26] based on a board of procedures just isn't there. Therefore, any claim to the contrary is not credible.
[00:35:37] The third condition is that abortion reduces fertility. Now, this one actually has a little bit
[00:35:44] of scientific fact underneath it and that scientific fact rises out of a study that linked
[00:35:53] an out of date surgical procedure, specifically the dilation and curateage method or DNC method,
[00:36:01] which had an inherent but small risk of scarring that could potentially lead to complications
[00:36:09] resulting in a reduced fertility rate. However, that technique has become obsolete and has
[00:36:17] been replaced with the much safer and more effective suction method that came around in the 1970s.
[00:36:26] That method is today recommended by the WHO for all surgical abortions.
[00:36:33] So, those are the arguments. Now the question is what do we do with all that information?
[00:36:39] It's quite a bit and my opinion is that at first glance it seems like the pro-life argument
[00:36:47] really has no legs to stand on from a scientific point of view. Whereas the pro-choice movement
[00:36:53] holds a little bit more water under it scientifically and connects to personal autonomy as their primary
[00:37:00] stance. However, morality plays a part in both arguments. The problem with this is that morality
[00:37:12] often trump science. If a person has a moral objection to something, it is nearly impossible
[00:37:18] to overcome that objection with science. Morals are learned, morals are emotional, morals are
[00:37:26] a founding principle of how people live their lives. That fact alone is what leads to the
[00:37:34] difficulty that lies in the argument about abortion access. Discussion about abortion often
[00:37:41] trigger an emotional response that caused both sides to completely shut down and stop listening
[00:37:47] to one another. Personally, I ascribed to the belief that abortion is wrong. Now before you stop
[00:37:56] the podcast and completely dismiss everything that I have said thus far, let me explain.
[00:38:04] You see, I don't ascribe to the belief that abortion is wrong because I don't believe
[00:38:10] what science tells me. You see, my belief is that every fetus has the potential to be the next
[00:38:18] Einstein or Thomas Edison and that an abortion ends up potential. I don't believe that we need
[00:38:27] to treat that fetus which has the potential to be the next Einstein or Thomas Edison as the
[00:38:33] next Einstein or Thomas Edison. What I do believe is that we should give that fetus as much
[00:38:41] chance and opportunity to become the next Einstein or Thomas Edison as we possibly can.
[00:38:52] However, I also ascribed to the belief that a woman has the right to determine what she wants to do
[00:38:58] with her body. And just as every individual makes daily choices, those choices are made with the knowledge
[00:39:05] that the choices have consequences. And I firmly believe that abortion should be held in the same
[00:39:12] regard and that we should allow individuals to make choices while understanding the consequences
[00:39:18] of the choices that they have made. My recommended solution is that we recognize the fundamental
[00:39:24] right to personal autonomy. However, recognizing potential as well, we need to evaluate that when
[00:39:32] that right infringes upon the right of another person. In the case of abortion, I argued that we
[00:39:37] set the line at which a board of procedure can no longer be conducted. At the point in which a
[00:39:42] fetus is viable outside of the home, respecting personal autonomy again, we should establish that
[00:39:50] post-vibility all procedures should be conducted in a manner in which the doctors seek to
[00:39:59] preserve the lives of both the mother and the child. If the mother does not want to carry her child
[00:40:06] to term, then she should be allowed to have an early induced labor delivering the child so that
[00:40:12] it has the chance to live. While also respecting the autonomous choice of the mother. Now how do
[00:40:19] you enforce this? Well, it's pretty simple. In accordance with our laws, the burden of proof
[00:40:25] would lie on the accuser, meaning that the state or whoever is accusing the doctor of wrongdoing
[00:40:36] would have to demonstrate and provide proof that any instance in which a child dies after
[00:40:45] viability occurred with the intent to harm. Finally, I want to pivot real quick. You see,
[00:40:55] the debate about abortion generally focuses on the rights of the mother. Justifiably so,
[00:41:01] because she has a child growing inside of her body and it is her body and she should be allowed
[00:41:07] to choose what she wants to deal with her body. But we rarely ever talk about the father and what
[00:41:14] the father wants and what the fathers rights are in situations where the mother wants to have an
[00:41:21] abortion. So what I'll say is that during that first period before viability in which some mother
[00:41:30] has the ability to choose an abortion, the father has no say. If the mom wants to have the abortion,
[00:41:36] the mom has the abortion and the father doesn't get a say so. However, which he give the father the
[00:41:43] ability to have an out as well. So my recommendation to that is that if the father doesn't want
[00:41:52] to be a parent, either because he doesn't feel prepared or does not believe that he would be a good
[00:41:58] parent, we should give him the ability to back out. Now that back out ability would be restricted
[00:42:05] to 21 weeks after the 21 weeks the father would be hell responsible for the care of the child.
[00:42:14] Now understanding that the mother can choose to deliver early after viability, this paternal option
[00:42:21] would provide time for the mother to determine if she wants to carry her child to turn,
[00:42:26] knowing that she would be the sole parent or if she wants to deliver early in wave her
[00:42:33] responsibilities as well. My proposal is not all encompassing and that proposal about the
[00:42:39] paternal option is probably going to be met with a lot of strife, but it's there and it's there
[00:42:45] because I want to start a conversation about it. As of this time that is my stance and those
[00:42:51] are my recommendations in order to bridge the gap between the pro life and pro choice, Agendas.
[00:42:56] I'm open to debate. I'm open to discussion. You can find me on Facebook, you can find me on Twitter,
[00:43:03] you can find me on Snapchat and if you're not a social media person you can find me on my website.
[00:43:11] Shoot me a message. Let's have a conversation. Let's find a way to color outside those lines.
[00:43:17] This closes out the final installment on our opening series. There is far more to discuss
[00:43:23] on this topic, far more progress to be made, but for now this is the end of the Kranbox politics
[00:43:29] analysis of abortion. Coming up we're going to delve into our national health care system.
[00:43:36] The research has begun and I'm going to try a different approach to the blog
[00:43:42] writing process. Starting next week I'll post a weekly blog with my thoughts on my research from
[00:43:48] the previous week. This podcast will be published on a monthly basis, as it means my wish to bring
[00:43:54] all of that research together. Don't forget to listen to this podcast and like, comment and share
[00:44:02] from your favorite podcast platform. Oh, and don't forget to subscribe as well.
[00:44:09] You can share the blog too. Just go on to the website and share it on your favorite social media platform.
[00:44:18] The more people know about Kranbox politics, the more we will be able to initiate a conversation
[00:44:24] and truly find a way to bridge the gap and color outside the political lines.
[00:44:30] Until next time, I'm your host Carl Ape.