Actual topicality!

Of all the various pro- and con-Alito information out there, this piece by William Saletan seems to me to be the most in-depth examination, despite its, well, cheekiness, of potential trouble, re reproductive rights.

Now, here's my question, Judge. Do you really think an undue burden for a grown woman is the same as an undue burden for a teenager? Do you think a woman deserves no more deference than a girl?

Of course, the real issue here is: how ought we divide up reproductive rights between all interested parties? The article talks about fathers, in the case of adult women, but genetically speaking the (potential) grandparents each have a one-fourth stake in the matter. Then there are the siblings, if any, of the parents, as well as any other children they have; clearly this is unworkable.

And yet, the idea that, for instance, a man's brother has some interest in his family, and therefore a set of legal rights and responsibilities, can be found in some, more ancient, cultures. And while we in the West don't have such mores codified into such strict laws any longer, less strict obligations, legal and otherwise, remain.

At any rate, the problem as I see it is this: human law works, more or less, when it is applied to the artifacts of human reason. But reproductive issues are pre-rational and, indeed, pre-human.

I'm running out of steam now, but I also wanted to mention something about how, for most of our history, we've been able to ignore questions about the nature of life because of our almost complete lack of any power to do anything about it. As that changes, our moral standards, developed as they were in a situation of powerlessness, are going to grind uncomfortably against this newfound power. I would imagine that the abortion debates are going to be looked back on as quaint and gentlemanly affairs compared to what came after.