Awesomely Emerald

Nik weighs in on abortion. His first sentence sets the tone for the whole piece.

In my view, voluntary abortion is both the most neglected, as well as attended to, subjects by our judicial system.

Aside from making no grammatical sense, it makes no logical sense. His follow-up sentence does nothing to explain how or why Nik holds this, apparently, contradictory view of the subject. He also wisely chooses to focus on "voluntary" abortion, because I think we can all agree enough has been written about involuntary abortion.

For those of you thinking that what the abortion debate really needs is for a college-aged libertarian to finally settle the matter once and for all, you're in luck.

In order to resolve this matter once and for all emotions must be set aside in order to allow for clear philosophical and constitutional reasoning to be applied.

Nik is going to get to the bottom of this much neglected and over-attended subject. With clear philosophy and constitutional reasoning.

I want to create clear legal boundaries concerning the rights of conceived but unborn human beings because current ambiguities in abortion laws are an embarrassment to a country of our intellect.

Not sure where the US ranks among other countries in terms of intellect, but I'm guessing it's pretty freakin' low. I am also guessing that Nik would probably rank the US pretty high. We are, after all the country that invented democracy, Jesus, cars, tv, and microwave popcorn, which goes great with tv.

Now that Nik has established the problem, we move on to paragraph three and the beginnings of a solution.

Any good argument begins with a stated position. Mine: unborn children have the same inalienable rights as a man on his dying bed the moment that child can survive independent of his mother.

If you're anything like me, and you know you are, you need to read that sentence again. I'll make it easy for you.

Any good argument begins with a stated position. Mine: unborn children have the same inalienable rights as a man on his dying bed the moment that child can survive independent of his mother.

Why is the man's bed dying? Nik leaves this question unanswered to press on. Also left unanswered are the questions: what does it mean to live independent of one's mother? Which inalienable rights? Why is this child male? When did it become singular?

Alright, Nik does answer, sort of, the question of what it means for a child to live independently of his or her mother. That he manages to do so without using the word "viable" is a breathtaking feat. Here's the heart of his argument.

Regardless, if a potential mother requests an abortion the medical doctor has a responsibility to determine if the child can be extracted by Cesarean section with a reasonable chance of survival.

"Medical doctor." God bless you Nick Antovich.

Nik now brings in the big gun. The thinking man's thinking man. The beginning and the end. The alpha and the omega. The way. The one. That's right, Aristotle. Ari-fucking-stotle.

As Aristotle said, newly born infants come into existence with the capacity to acquire concepts and dispositions, but in the beginning we suppose that their consciousness of the world is a "blooming, buzzing confusion."

I think this argument is over. Aristotle. Said. I think Nik agrees with me, just as Nik is sure that Aristotle would agree with him.

The capacity of a child to one day realize his rights is what makes human rights inalienable, as opposed to those of an animal, which has no such ability. In short, Aristotle would agree, as soon as a child has the physical and mental independent capability to develop and eventually exercise his God-given rights, then that child must not be denied the right to do so.

I'd like you to note that while you and I might have thoughts that our inalienable rights derived from God, Nik has advanced the startling notion that our rights actually derive their inalienable characteristic from our capacity to realize them. Which really sets up a chicken-and-egg nightmare. Lord, if only Aristotle had put his mind to that one, you know? Not that a chicken has rights, at least not inalienable ones. That's what separates you and me from the chickens. That and a trip to KFC.

Now that the philosophy has been clarified, Nik moves his mind to the constitution.


Induced abortion is not a state issue but a federal one. Most know of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, states have been given unconstitutional rights concerning issues of viability, parental notification when dealing with minors and informed consent. It is the federal government's responsibility, not the states, to protect who we as a country determine to be viably intellectual people. The survival of an unborn child should not be dependent on whether the mother lives in Oregon or Texas.

Nik sites absolutely no court cases, legal doctrine, or even the Constitution in declaring the idea of state-centered abortion law to be unconstitutional. I'd also like to note that Nik seems to be asserting that "we as a country" should be determining who are "viably intellectual people," not, as stated earlier, "medical doctors."

I do note that Nik has used a form of the word "viable," contrary to my earlier statement that he does not. But come on, "viably intellectual people"? I'm supposed to count that? I don't even know what it means. And it might just differ from country to country. What might be viably intellectual in, say, China, might not be up to snuff in a country of our intellect.

As for weighing the rights of the mother to privately seek and get whatever medical treatment available to her against the interests of the state in protecting the potential life of a "child," Nik has a simple answer.

A woman's right to privacy is superseded by that child's right to life.

There you have it. Problem solved.

Timetables for when induced abortions should or should not be legal are irrelevant and irresponsible. A case-by-case basis to determine when the unborn child develops the faculties necessary to qualify as a potential intellectual is an obligation of ours to future generations.

As soon as we have a womb-based IQ test, we can make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. On a federal level. Actually, I am picturing a womb-based Vienna coffeehouse type situation where recognized intellectuals engage in discourse with the fetus to determine the exact moment the fetus shows some promise as an intellectual and becomes off-limits for abortion. Maybe Aristotle could be involved somehow. I'm not sure on the details here.

All-in-all a clear philosophical and constitutional essay. Aristotle was brought out on the philosophy end of it and, while the Constitution was not really cited, I think we can all see that Nik has his arguments really nailed down. Abortion a federal, not state, issue. Woman's right to privacy does not supersede the "child's" right to life.

Done and done.