On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision. Since last week, that has been the hot topic of conversation in the
news and social media, both at home and abroad. Oddly enough, the abortion laws
in the U.S. are still probably the most lenient in the world, yet I don’t hear anyone
screaming or protesting about that.
I find it interesting that the primary rhetoric is something
along the lines of “we will not stand by and allow our nation to go back to the
days of back-alley abortions”[1]
or “Don't forget to set your clock 50 years back before bed tonight!”
The majority of people seem to be of the mindset that the overturning
of Roe v Wade will automatically make all abortions illegal and relegate them to
“back alleys.” I can only wonder if these same people have actually taken the time
to read what Roe v Wade’s decision was really about, or if they are just repeating
the knee-jerk hysteria that is rampant on every platform.
The reality is that abortions have been legal and available in
hospitals, long before Roe v Wade graced the law books in 1973. This I know for
a fact, having had the unfortunate occasion to experience one myself in 1970. Reversing
Roe v Wade returns the regulation back to the state instead of the federal government,
in accordance with the 10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”[2]
One can only wonder if the various rulings made over the intervening
years permitting abortions to be performed later and later in the gestation period
- right up to making it legal to “terminate” a newborn -have fueled the more
conservative public’s outrage over the question of not the “right” to have an
abortion, but “when” it becomes not merely objectionable, but heinous. How does
one justify the incarceration of a mother for smothering her newborn, but let a
doctor or nurse perform the same service in the sterile sanctity of a sanctioned
clinic, then it magically becomes permissible?
A common argument that I find almost comical (if it wasn’t so
preposterous) is “States want to make a woman carry a pregnancy to term, but then
turn their backs to aid the woman in raising that child!” Many forms of birth control
are widely available at low-to-no cost – but somehow the STATE is responsible for
paying for the consequences of having unprotected sex? Don’t even get me started
about how the State “helping” to raise a child has so much potential for something
far beyond Big Brother. I would no more trust the government to properly raise
a child than to bring a bullet train in on-time and under budget.
Another favorite argument put forth is the rape or incest card,
which could certainly give even the most conservative person pause to consider
- while in real time those account for a small percentage of elective abortions.
The reality is that these days, abortion is regarded as virtually just another form
of “birth control.” When a woman’s life is truly threatened by a pregnancy, for
example in the case of an extra-uterine implantation, that is another matter altogether.
No one should be denied the ability to choose medical intervention in order to save
the life of the mother.
Yes, a woman should have the right to make choices concerning
her own body. I am in total agreement with that statement. This includes having
the right to choose birth control or abstinence, or to decline coitus altogether. I am not so obtuse as to deny that there
are and always have been women who are in not just relationships, but situations where they clearly are not given a choice. It is wrong that it should be so– but another matter altogether. But let’s at least be honest about the topic at hand: Abortion is and always has been about terminating
a human life – frequently because it is inconvenient, and only occasionally because
it is medically prudent.
Any society that gets all up in arms about ethnic cleansing,
school shootings, and other forms of mass murder, but advocates for the “right”
to kill another human being because it is inconvenient is the epitome of hypocrisy.
In all the hysteria, many have lost sight of the incontrovertible fact that abortion
ends the life of another human being. Denying this fact doesn’t make it any less
true.
How ironic is it that many who protest U.S. immigration restrictions
sound the battle cry “No Human Being is Illegal!” have no qualms about denying a
pre-born human the right to their future potential.
Roe v Wade is not about what some so charmingly described
as “legislating a vagina”, but about keeping the Federal government’s hand out of
deciding when a potential human being is viable outside of the womb. Protestors
can wave the “legislate your dick!” banners all they want, but they have either
never understood or have lost sight of the reality of the Roe v Wade decision
(which, by the way, some of the very people protesting the current decision were
originally opposed to.)
When you take away someone’s choice, you take away their freedom. If that is true, then it also applies to the “someone” unborn as well as the one holding the sign.
[1]
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/02/statement-by-vice-president-kamala-harris-on-supreme-court-ruling-on-texas-law-sb8/
[2] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say
No comments:
Post a Comment