Justice Kavanaugh Just Boiled the Abortion Debate Down to Its Most Fundamental Core

Larry O’Connor|Posted: Dec 01, 2021 1:05 PM

On the one hand, a woman has a right to body autonomy and the right to make medical decisions without government interference. On the other, if exercising that right results in the violent death of another life, whose rights then prevail?

“You can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick.”

Justice Kavanaugh

No, and nope. By definition, natural rights can never be in conflict and interests are irrelevant. If Kavanaugh means in a political sense there is no middle or common ground, then yes. This case in not about competing rights because natural rights can never be in conflict. There is no common ground possible because this is about a woman, or more precisely, a mother murdering her baby. Terminating a pregnancy is no more a medical procedure than what an axe murderer does to his victims. In principle, abortionists (in the name of the mothers) and axe murderers perform the same act. Mothers, that is parents, have authority over their children because they have sole responsibility for raising them. This responsibility is one that can be delegated to a degree but not abrogated. This authority over children does include dismembering them in they are still the womb.