Bright Wings

Because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and with Ah! Bright Wings.

February 13, 2010

Brutal Logic and Bad Law

You can read Mark Hohmeister’s original article in the Tallahassee Democrat arguing against the Personhood Amendment here. I wonder if Mr. Hohmeister is at all aware of the rather brutal utilitarian nature of his article. The logic goes like this, “Sick babies suffer. Mothers and fathers of sick babies suffer. So, it is best to kill sick babies.” Hmmm. This arbitrary moral code might just be applied to any who claim to suffer or cause suffering. According to the logic of Hohmeister and most of the ‘mercy killing’ party we really should cease and desist in all this painful Haiti relief. Just nuke em.

Here’s my Dad’s (Pastor Mike Braun) excellent response to Hohmeister’s arguments against personhood for the unborn humans:

Don’t let extreme cases determine abortion laws
Tallahassee Democrat, January 31, 2010

Mark Hohmeister warned Democrat readers of the dangers he believes would result from a constitutional amendment affirming children in the womb are categorically human beings.  (The Tallahassee Democrat, Section B, p.1, January 23, 2010)  He concludes with a remarkable statement.  If one, he says, would only agree with him that every child in the womb is not a “natural person with full rights” then there would be “a lively little debate.”  But if the point in question were conceded there would be no debate.  It is obvious that Mr. Hohmeister does not believe there is anything to debate.  He is certain that he is right and all who do not agree with him are wrong; worse, they are apparently ignorant, or heartless, or both. 

The proposed personhood amendment to our state’s Constitution holds that children in the womb are entitled to the same rights and protections afforded all other United States citizens.  In a day when such rights are even granted to foreign enemies of our country it is surprising anyone would object to extending such rights to our own unborn.  Mr. Hohmeister objects to the personhood amendment professing concern for individuals faced with extraordinary crisis pregnancies.  He fears protection of the unborn by a personhood amendment would threaten them and cites four specific examples of people facing crisis pregnancies who would, he claims, be placed in jeopardy and even punished by such an amendment.  He gives the impression that such extraordinary crises as those he refers to are commonplace.  They are anything but that.
The four examples cited in Mr. Hohmeister’s article do not hold up under closer examination though they are excellent examples of that principle of jurisprudence which states “hard cases make bad law.”  Two of his illustrations involve young women: a 12 year old victim of incest and a college student who had been raped.  Both found themselves with child as a result of these assaults.  Though these are tragic situations they are extreme occurrences and pregnancies resulting from such things are rare.  It would be unwise to attempt to formulate a law to accommodate them to the detriment of the far greater number of normal, healthy pregnancies.  It would be like removing all speed limits from our highways because though millions travel daily in relative safety at reduced speeds every once in awhile someone in an emergency must exceed the limits of the law to get to a hospital.  The truth is we acknowledge exceptions while insisting on maintaining speed limits in the vast majority of normal situations.  Why?  Because removing just laws would threaten everyone and hard, or exceptional cases make very bad law. 

The statistical reality is that only 1% of women under 15 years of age have abortions.  The chances of conception during rape are over 1 in every 2,000 instances and in cases of incest conception is even more remote.  Is it reasonable to focus on less than 1% of women in crisis and ignore 99% of those who need the protection and support of law? 

Mr. Hohmeister uses two other extreme examples to justify denying constitutional guarantees protecting children in the womb threatened by abortion.  He pleads rare medical cases such as ectopic pregnancies that occur in less than 2% of all pregnancies, and the even rarer cases of extreme genetic aberration effecting perhaps less than another 1%.  He cites these rarities as reason enough to oppose protecting 95% to 98% of all other whole and healthy human beings in the womb. 

Anecdotal tragedies divert the public.  They are rare instances and must be dealt with on an individual basis.  They must never distract us from the fact that an overwhelming number of innocent, healthy children are deprived of the right to life for no other reason than convenience or expedience.  Whatever legal authorities decide to do in exceptional matters it is wrong to justify yearly taking the lives of more than a million normal children in the womb because 1% or 2% of them may be victims of terrible and exceptional circumstances.  There must be another way to guard the personhood of such sufferers without denying the personhood of the vast majority of healthy and whole human beings who are in the process of being born.

The humane laws governing abortion in the state of Texas which were overturned by Roe v. Wade had ample accommodations for such terrible exceptions as raised by Mr. Hohmeister.  If the general truth of the sanctity of life in the womb were upheld in broad terms by our constitution such exceptions would be, as they had always been, dealt with in the compassion and wisdom of our courts, our families and our medical communities. 

Broad statements of constitutional rights do not obviate the sensitive, just application of law in extraordinary and exceptional cases.  It is when you remove the protection of law that you have harsh consequences. 

On January 22, 1973, seven justices of the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the state no longer had a compelling interest in the life of children in the womb.  At that moment many innocent Americans were denied the protection of law and to date nearly 50 million human beings have had their lives ended before birth.  Many who feel the court had no moral or civil right to do this now believe they are left with little or no alternative but to amend our state’s Constitution.  When Roe v. Wade was contested in the past abortion activists raised the argument that it was “settled law”, a sacred right.  Ironically those who favor abortion on demand are to a large part responsible for the necessary if drastic measures to amend our Constitution.  It was outspoken pro-abortion advocates like Mr. Hohmeister who left those who oppose abortion on demand with little choice other than to seek such an amendment.

Roe v. Wade and the broad axe of abortion have crushed the legal and social framework of compassion that was in place.  Proponents of Roe v. Wade continue to disallow any attempts to reestablish compassionate intervention in crisis pregnancies.  They shout down those who seek to protect the staggering number of innocent victims who yearly fall prey to abortion on demand.  An example of such aggressive opposition is seen when pro-abortion activists continue to lobby against parental notification when minors seek abortion.  The result is today 40% of all teenage abortions are carried out without the knowledge of the parent.  Pro-abortionist activists seem intent to oppose all other reasonable efforts to restrain the wholesale access of abortion on demand.  They leave the rest of us with little or no option other than a personhood amendment.

Tags:

posted by Erik Braun