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?
Wrong.
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?
3 comments:
Brave soul for venturing into this topic.
I am against abortion, but I will admit I truly do not have a clear idea of how to address the problem in the US. I resent the fact that abortion is legal in this country because of a court decision based on something that does not exist in the Constitution. If the voters had voted to legalize, that would have been a different story. I think that Roe vs. Wade should be reversed out of principle. Most states have since voted to legalize, so the reversal would not have an immediate affect.
In the end if abortion is legal in some places and not in others due to the voter's wishes then so be it.
I don't think the back alley abortion argument is valid. I have said in another context that the rightness or wrongness is not determined by the outcome (outcome based morality is the term I used)
I do not understand why there are so many pregnancies when there is quite a number of methods to prevent it. There does not seem to be a lack of education. It is more akin to the AIDS and risky sex mindset. They just don't believe it will happen to them.
So my bottom line is let those areas that wish to have a clean conscience in this area do so. Abortion will never be illegal everywhere in the US.
As for South Dakota, whatever the outcome they now have a clean conscience. I envy them for this. I think, though, a federal court will overturn it and the SCOTUS will refuse to hear it. DOA.
I think the most interesting story of the week last week was Ruth Ginsberg falling asleep during hearing. It was mostly ignored by the media though. I remember how they went on and on about Reagan falling asleep during meetings. A Ginsberg departure from the court is a guaranteed move to the right as you can't get any more left than her.
From D-Man: On the other hand, you can't play that card in a country that bombs other countries because they might pose a threat.
Why not?
From AICS: I don't think the back alley abortion argument is valid. I have said in another context that the rightness or wrongness is not determined by the outcome (outcome based morality is the term I used)
If that's how it came across, I wish to correct that.
I am in no way saying that the outcome determines the right or wrong of it. I am saying that some actions/interventions have unanticipated outcomes. Side effects, if you will.
There were a lot of black market thugs that performed abortions, before abortion was legal. 50s and 60s. I just do not think that it's that far out of a possibility. I could be dead wrong, but it's still something worthy of consideration before everyone goes hogwild trying to ban abortion, because the court is now perceived to be pro-life.
These things have to be thought through. But then again, when did you ever see a politician think much of anything through?
Good points, sir.
LA, I think I was more responding to how the back alley argument has often been used rather than what you said on that point. I thought some might take what you said and leap to the outcome based position so I thought I would point it out.
Headway in significantly stopping abortion is so remote I just find it hard to expend too much energy in that arena. It is a shame, but if people will not take care to keep from getting AIDS and put their life at risk, they will not take care to prevent pregnancy when there is such an "easy solution"
Post a Comment