Grappling in vain with Biden’s moral logic

During last night’s “debate” (a word I use reservedly), the topic of abortion was brought up by the “moderator” (a word I also use reservedly).  While I don’t share the RTL position for reasons I have discussed many times over the years, I don’t think this is a major federal issue, nor should it loom large as the major election issue that some activists want to make it. The president has only indirect influence over the abortion question, because he can appoint Supreme Court justices, who in theory might overrule Roe v. Wade. Assuming for the sake of argument that Romney got to appoint two justices, I don’t think that would provide any guarantee the Supreme Court would reverse itself. Courts do not like doing 180s because it leads to a loss of credibility, and they want to be respected. But even if they did overrule Roe, that would not outlaw abortion; it would de-federalize it by freeing states to pass or repeal abortion laws within the normal political process. The likely result would be that abortion laws would vary regionally. Abortion in various forms would still be available in many states. As to whether and where abortifacient drugs or morning after pills could be sold, who knows? The result of repealing Roe would probably be a lot of chaotic politicking and litigation.

While I just don’t think such things are first and foremost in most voters’ minds, I would like to look at one particular comment Biden made:

“I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that, women, that they can’t control their body,”

OK, we have all heard that line. As a libertarian who tries to be logical, I would like to ask whether Biden means what he says. Do people have a right to control their body? If there is such a right, why would it begin and end with abortion? If a woman has a right to pay a doctor to cut out her fetus, if she has a right to ingest a substance which would kill her fetus, and such a right is grounded in privacy (which the Supreme Court said it was), then by what logic does she (or any other citizens, male of female) not have a right to ingest whatever other substances they want? Is the rule, like, “you have a right to take a drug to kill your fetus, but never to ease your emotional pain or get high”?

What sort of logic is that? And what sort of morality? And how can it be squared with the increasingly popular idea that women should be prosecuted for taking drugs (or drinking or even smoking) during pregnancy because by doing so they are harming their fetuses?

I realize that this issue is an old one at this blog, but I am still grappling without success to understand the morality of the privacy issue.

Killing fetuses is OK, but getting high is immoral?

Is that it?

I’d ask Biden to explain, but I doubt he could, much less would.