Abortion: Thoughts on both sides of the volatile issue

Share this article:

Abortion is back in the news again. It had been biding its time until the right moment. The right moment arrived with the appearance of two news items:

• The first item is that the U.S. Supreme Court will be reviewing the State of Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy (the current standard is 22 weeks). The plaintiffs fought tooth and nail to get this case to the High Court, because they want the justices to overturn Roe vs. Wade once and for all. They have been encouraged by the recent shifting of the Court’s make-up, with six conservative justices.

• The second item is more ominous by half. The State of Texas recently passed a law which will ban an abortion after six weeks, or a heartbeat, whichever comes first. Most women aren’t aware that they are pregnant until they miss a menstruation period which can take up to eight weeks. The ominous part of this law is that Texas will not enforce the law; instead, they will allow private citizens to sue any woman who has an abortion, or anyone who provides an abortion and to collect $10,000 from the defendant if they win the suit.

Can you fathom it, dear reader? The State of Texas has created an army of bounty hunters looking to make a quick 10 grand. Those creeps will stalk women and doctors they suspect are so-called criminals day and night waiting for the right moment to pounce. And what happens to those who don’t have $10,000 lying about? They may have to pay incrementally for the rest of their lives.

On the bright side, there’s been a run on the purchase of contraceptive devices by women who can afford them. Otherwise, women who can’t afford any may have to deny their husbands/boyfriends any conjugal privileges. There is an historical precedent in this regard. In ancient Athens, women refused to sleep with their menfolk if they chose to go off to war against Sparta. Happily, there was no war. Texas’ men might want to put a word in the ears of their local representatives.

The pro-life crowd believes that by outlawing abortion, the procedure will be halted. Their minds are bent, and they fool themselves abundantly. History shows that human behavior cannot be legislated away. A century ago, the manufacture, sale, and possession, of alcoholic beverages was outlawed. The result was that the industry went underground and gave rise to organized crime. Customers merrily bought and consumed their favorite beer, wine, or whiskey and thumbed their noses at the Feds. Prohibition was eventually repealed. Roe vs. Wade did the same for abortion.

By the way, the expression pro-life is a misnomer when describing those people. What they are, are pro-pregnancy, pregnancy at any cost. If they were truly pro-life, they’d stop eating animals for food, ban capital punishment, and “beat their swords into ploughshares” (Isaiah 2:4). But, don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen, dear reader.

But I digress.

The Chas considers himself as both pro-life and pro-choice. If you think that is a contradiction, then you haven’t examined the topic thoroughly enough. Your mind remains bent.

Abortion does serve a useful purpose in select cases: Rape/incest, endangerment to the life/health of the mother, and the discovery of a mentally/physically malformed fetus. In these instances, the child brought to term will suffer unduly and not be able to lead a normal life. On the other hand, The Chas cannot condone abortion when the pregnancy is seen as an inconvenience; it is where he is pro-life. In these cases, the woman must make a choice. And the choice is hers and hers alone; no else may make it for her; not the politicians, not the blue-nosed busybodies.

You can outlaw abortion, but you won’t be able to halt it. It will just go underground and be highly risky in many instances. Is that what the busybodies want, women and girls ending up in a jail or a morgue? How compassionate, how Christian, is that?

In a compassionate society, abortion may not be necessary at all, except in the aforementioned circumstances. Instruction in human sexuality at an age when children are able to grasp the concept is the front line of action. Contraceptive literature and devices can be offered, free of charge on a voluntary basis, to every post-pubescent child in every middle/high school; that is the second line of action.

Amazingly, even contraception is frowned upon by the pro-pregnancy crowd. They will say that it promotes promiscuity. With the onset of puberty, promiscuity follows automatically, because the sex hormones run freely. They are what Mother Nature intended in order to propagate the species, and there is no stopping them. Therefore, contraception is a necessary control until such time as a baby is desired. Just saying no won’t work, never has, never will.

What will the choice be then? Hardheartedness or compassion? Bent minds, or enlightened ones?

Just a thought.

Leave a Reply