Dear Rev. Schenck,
I appreciate your reconsideration of your moral attitude towards the intentional premature termination of a pregnancy. My attitudes are somewhat unorthodox:
1) abortion is a natural spontaneous response to the fertilization of a human egg that occurs in 50% of the result before or soon after implantation;
2) natural processes are not appropriately subject to legislation, even though the USA has a history of trying to legislate ingestion, extretion and association, etc.
3) professional medical or surgical involvement in the reproductive process is something else. If it is referred to as a premature termination or parturition (which it is), that cannot be considered criminal because this is what the efforts to insure a live birth via chemical assistane or surgery are called;
4) the inaccuracy of the terminology long led me to assume that the effort was not serious;
5) the SCOTUS invalidation of legislation that purported to promote a right to reproduce without legal interference has caused me to re-evaluate my position;
6) the U.S.Constitution, which provides the framework for our legal system, aims to protect public and private property and the generation of income from its use. Although the “natural person” is mentioned in the main body and unenumerated rights are referenced in the Amendments, the Constitution assigns no duty to either recognize or enforce them. The rights of the person are not addressed, doubtless because to do so would have been inconsistent with the ownership of persons as property.
7) whether legislating the natural rights of persons would be beneficial is questionable, given that any right so granted can be taken away;
8) the designation of persons as property is not an historical oddity. In fact, all humans born in the USA are legally the property of their parents–i.e. chattel. While it is unclear at what point fetal tissue becomes property and subject to state “protection” is unclear; nor has it been fully ascertained at what point the interest of the male contibutor of sperm is entitled to protection by the state. Apparently, a Florida judge has come down on the side of the male interest in ruling that a teenage female lacks the maturity to decide that the fetus should be removed;
9) coerced reproduction, whether the coercion is effected before or after impregnation, is a moral wrong, but U.S. law has been immoral for a long time. Indeed, the vector of that immorality may well be the christian religion introduced into the Americas by European merchants. If one reads the gospels, it almost seems like the flawed behaviors identified by the founder were incorporated into the religion that bears his name.
10) USA is a corporation organized to promote male interests in property ownership and trade. Female interests were left out. Which may not be a negative. What is negative is being treated like property and that cannot be corrected with an ERA. If we manr effective change we might look to a human rights amendment. In the mean time, getting the Senate to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because USA children would natural born persons from the minute of parturition, instead of coming into the world as slaves.