Author's Note - Before composing this essay, I put a lot of thought with much trepidation into whether or not it would inflame more passions of those that I usually agree with, on most things. It is a sensitive topic and the gulf between both sides is so far and wide, it is likely that it will never come close to being closed. So without further adieu and at the risk of being condemned to hell by zealots from either side, this is my take on the subject.
America in the 20s, can best be described as a period of time when people didn't drink alcohol, because the federal government had said that it was bad, it caused many social problems, and drinking it was not going to be tolerated. And of course we all know how willing the vast majority of the citizenry was to surrender their booze and sober up. Right?
The truth is, history tells us in no uncertain terms that this was not the case. In fact, the booze flowed every bit as free after the law took effect, as it did before the ban. As a result of this, many of the era's criminal cult figures of that day were booze runners in the black market and got quite rich because of it. (SEE: Al Capone and Joe Kennedy) But what it was designed to do and what it did do, were two totally different things.
You see, prohibition created a new social ill that turned out to be worse than those that had already existed beforehand, aka gangsters. All you had to know was the right people in any given town or city, and you could find liquor. Illegal speak easies cropped up all over.
Prohibition demonstrated to everyone that making something illegal, after it has been legal, is useless. From a supply standpoint, you force the business into the black market. Because as long as the demand is there, someone will be willing to take the risks of arrest and prosecution, to provide the product or the service.
Now let's bring that up to today and attach this very same principle to the ultra-sensitive subject of abortion.
First, let me say that I am not for abortion. I think it is barbaric and murderous (and that goes double for Partial Birth Abortions). Anyone that would choose to kill a unborn child, is not with it, at least in a moral sense. I cannot imagine doing such a thing, no matter what the circumstances entail. But not everyone is like me. Not everyone has the mindset, I have.
In fact, many that choose abortion are in a situation that I have never been in. And I realize that they may not have the ability to think as clearly as me, and probably aren't aware of the resources available that provide alternatives.
With that said, now would be a good point in time to announce that South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed into law a statewide ban on abortion. Mississippi, a state that has one of the strictest abortion laws in the country, is also considering an outright ban. And now, Indiana's state legislature is thinking about taking up this debate, as well.
By outlawing abortion, it is inviting the back-alley butchers to reappear, because law does not ban the demand for them. If the demand remains (such as the case of booze, in Prohibition), the suppliers will go underground. At that point, it cannot be regulated. As a result of no regulation, unsafe and dirty instruments will be used and women will die from sepsis and infections.
No, I am afraid that my friends on the right, are not looking at this particular angle, as they seek to send an immediate challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court, to get Roe vs, Wade overturned. In their zeal to protect the unborn, they are overlooking the potential outcome of this, and as a result, they miss the obvious fact that the return of the black market abortion syndicates will bring more grief than it will prevent.
Even though it is a barbaric act in itself, banning it will not yield the results, intended. It will not stop abortion, it will not reduce the demand, and it will create more deaths. Who will protect the women that find themselves in a mess and opt to terminate a pregnancy, because they feel they have no other option? If they are truly in a crisis, feel isolated, and feel alone in the world, they will seek it anyway. And they will find it.
So, what's the answer?
Reduce the demand through education. Reduce the demand, in anyway you can. Bombing clinics and outlawing suppliers will do nothing. But, if every minister would teach against it, every parent would teach against it, and if organizations like Planned Parenthood would present every possible option other than abortion, it would not have an immediate effect; but over time, you could plant the value of human life in more people, so that when the time comes for this to be a decision, other options will look more preferable. If demand goes down, abortion clinics will close, on their own, without any intervention.
I would ask my readers that feel the way I do concerning the barbaric nature of this practice, if they would only consider this argument I have submitted here today. And before they get on the bandwagon with these lawmakers in SD and the other states that are looking for an outright ban, if they would only consider the potential ramifications, of implementing this drastic measure.
Rest assured that if you could convince me that this would not happen, I would be all for it. As I said earlier, I don't like it, not one iota. But until that time, I am content to regulate it more strictly and keeping it as an option, only after every other option is presented. I do support a complete ban on partial birth abortions, no exceptions allowed. Not rape, not incest, not to save the life of the mother.
And for the feminazis that would love to use this as a basis for their weak and faulty arguments, think about this. The whole basis of the feminists' argument is, it's the woman's body and the fetus is not a viable human being. But the twins carried in Rebekah's (Isaac's wife) womb, were counted as two nations, by God. Two nations, that started with two people, two human beings, while they were yet unborn. Sounds pretty plain to me.
So, now it's your turn to tell me your opinion, if you wish. So I will ask you, my readers: Where am I wrong?