an unexpected gift
I was almost seventeen when I learned Santa was a fraud, a myth, make-believe. I’d written my once-a-year wish list, but since I was a new driver with my own car, I mailed it myself, instead of giving it to mom. When Christmas Day arrived, lo and behold, what I wanted, I didn’t receive, and what I received, I didn’t want. I questioned my parents as to what happened, and in their disbelief that I still believed, they explained the process of what I didn’t understand. Santa wasn’t real, which I stood in disbelief, as they negated everything I believed about the red suited man. In the process, they also covered biology, assuming if I was absent of one, possibly the other as well. I awakened to the greatest gift they’d received and given me, but I’d never asked for, being life. Their sacrifice I couldn’t understand until, when the greatest gift I never wanted, I received, and today, wouldn’t trade for anything.
Although, years later, the day my wife told me she was pregnant, fear boiled to the surface, exploding: YOU’RE WHAT? Adult life was complicated enough, and I’d been down some rough roads, so why on earth would I want to bring somebody else into this mess called life. My bright spot: the knot we’d tied between us. Yet, from the day our son was born, and the nurse put him in my hands, I understood what my parents attempted to express. Two creating one, each of us entwined in one tiny person, knowing for a while he’d be completely dependent on us for everything.
As the child years flew by, the joy watching him grow, incomprehensible. He’s now twenty, and still with us while in university. At night, when we hear his laughter, my heart swells with joy in the gift I was given, but at one time feared, able to witness the beauty of his life in him. I’m now “old man,” and when I go back to the day Barbara informed me she was pregnant, embarrassed, I’m able to grasp the newest political mantra: MY BODY, MY CHOICE, but:
What’s now the current battle cry and hymn of individuals fighting for their personal rights, including the right for taxpayers to foot an abortions cost, is correctly, a half-part understanding of a constitutional right ensconced in the Constitution. Add the confusion of Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court decision that Senator Susan Collins of Maine claimed to be “settled law,” and truth becomes an abstract of a lie. Especially when no law was written, enacted, or executed, only a ruling, or opinion, as the Supreme Court cannot make law. Per the Constitution:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. (Article I/Section 1 of the Constitution)
So, depending on one’s agenda, when Susan Collins proclaimed “settled law,” issues can be intentionally obfuscated for a reason, or purpose. Congress and its legislative ability to control are defined in the Constitution (Article I/Sections 8/9). And in that power, missing words are important, and all should be aware. Conversely, the Supreme Court in its function has one overriding responsibility; determine if law passed is constitutional or not. Except, with no power to enforce its decisions, “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments.” (Federalist 78)
To add a perceived complication - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment 10).
Yet, a battle rages to decide who controls unborn life, and depending on one’s party affiliation, lines are now hard, dividing the nation further apart. Two sides, two perspectives, with three branches caught up in the complicity and complexity of deciding the outcome of those with no voice, or weight, in whether they live, or are used as political pawns for party to gain political power, while being disposed of.
But in all the vitriol espoused, the threats of violence, and even legislators themselves advocating the upheaval of society to create a means to an end, is there a constitutional perspective absent from any of the conversations taking place? Shouldn’t the one being carried, unable to postulate or partake in the decision process in an outcome that will have a permanent effect have representation? Or is it only: MY BODY, MY CHOICE, and the one’s being carried have - no voice, no choice.
In the heated debates, those desirous of power issue political cries for votes to support the rights of those pro-choice, but never the unborn, being worthless, having no ability to vote. In politics, apparently the winds of change have affected legislators to adjust their old views now wrong, and conform them to the new ways, now right, and pontificate the direction they believe will carry them to absolute power. A vicious cycle of deception to achieve their end, of which, being total control. Those buying in, possibly like me, fools on a fool’s errand:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. (Federalist 78)
We know when someone dies, life is over. The heart stops beating, one no longer breathes, or brain activity stops (electroencephalography). Any one of these can constitute death as they do not all happen at the same moment. And as painful as death is to those affected, it is currently illegal, but quickly evolving to legal for anyone to assist in another ending one’s own life, including doctors. A personal right not currently allowed under law.
Conversely, the magic and beauty of life anew, but. Does it begin at conception (zygote), or during development (fetus), or birth (human)? Or possibly, only after one has taken their first breath? Or a pre-determined age when one is more self-reliant? Better still, when should one even be considered a person? Maybe not viable, but a person. As one who is on life support is still considered a person. Even those who have passed are persons we remember.
During pregnancy, forty weeks is considered full-term, but within five days of conceiving, stems cells are forming. By week four or five, the heart starts beating, questioning, when can a fetus feel pain? And then brain function? The thalamus, the brains relay center, is fully developed by week twenty, and week twenty-five starts the electroencephalography process. Prompting, when can a fetus survive outside of the womb? Doctors say as early as twenty weeks, but a better chance of survival would be at the twenty-six-week mark, a little more than halfway through pregnancy. Pretty amazing thing, a person is, a design of Godly proportions.
But abortion, Congress, the Constitution, and the courts, including an individual’s unalienable right to life, appear at odds with each other. Especially when it involves two lives contained in one body, and the ultimate decision of control over both by one. The Framer’s, in the desire to keep from having the past repeat, limited the power of Congress and its ability to legislate through the Constitution (Federalist 84) for a multitude of reasons. And with that limitation, words exempt being key, the act of abortion becomes a constitutionally protected right. Although, setting the 10th aside, Congress does have the power to decide what constitutes a person, thus transferring rights:
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (pre-amble)
Welfare: Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)
As such, two questions present: what should drive American politics, and what deems a person? First, the driver: should the nation have a moral compass, or legislate based on an ability to obtain votes? If compass driven; then whose? If vote driven; to what limit? Then, at what stage becomes a person: zygote, fetus, birth, or a pre-determined value point after delivery? And based on the argument for unlimited access, when does one individual’s power end: If a full-term after birth delivery abortion is included, to what degree of age can one decide another’s fate?
Considering the ongoing finger pointing and subterfuge from all sides, Congress does have the ability to establish a “person,” based on the Constitution. Once established, then the constitutional right for abortions end, and the rights of the person needing protection under the Constitution begin. And if the representatives of the people in Congress can’t find the courage or moral compass to decide, put the vote to the people, keeping the power where it was intended to be. Abortion versus Person: a decision with far reaching philosophical implications.
I once read a meme by a sitting senator – Men should not be making decisions about women’s bodies. Yet, Chuck Schumer, a senator from New York, plans to introduce legislation enshrining the right for abortion into law. For both senators, an intentional intent to further divide the country. And if citizens believe Congress to be Santa Claus, evident by the state of American politics today, remember, he’s a fraud, a myth, make-believe. In America today, if ignorance is bliss, the country must be the most blissful nation in the history of the world.