People are going nuts on social and mainstream media alike regarding the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Everybody’s talking about abortion, but not many say anything other than letting out an emotional scream or cheer. That’s understandable since there’s nothing objective about how the argument is phrased and its emotional volatility.
“Pro-choice v. pro-life,” as it’s put, is misleading since most people on either side only apply the position to abortion, nothing else.
So-called pro-lifers, mainly from the right side of the flatline model of politics, have little to no qualm about the United States bombing the hell out of countries that have never raised arms against us. And they’re OK with the death penalty.
Those on the pro-choice side, mainly from the left, oppose choice regarding the right to keep and bear arms and, for the last two years, oppose choice regarding masks and vaccinations. So much for being consistent about bodily autonomy.
The argument over abortion should be based on an objective standard of when human life begins. Does it begin at conception as the anti-abortionists claim, or does it start at birth as many pro-abortionists claim? Or does it start at viability, the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb?
Religion has not provided that objective foundation. Nontheistic philosophies haven’t. Politicians? Please, their allegiance is to whoever supports their next campaign. And medical science has yet to be objectively conclusive.
Without an objective standard, all we will ever do is holler at one another, with both sides vilifying the other. Further, even if the conservative view is accurate—that abortion is murder—still doesn’t mean the federal government should have a say in the matter unless the abortion takes place on federal land. Murder is a state issue, not a federal matter. One thing that the federal and state governments should refrain from doing is using taxpayer money to fund abortions.
There are people of good faith and character on either side of the abortion argument. There’s no need for screaming or handwringing or throwing people into cages. And there’s definitely no need for what’s known as back-alley abortions.
Let’s get politics out of this. People are going to have sex, be it voluntarily, via force, or through incest. Sometimes that will result in pregnancy.
Instead of legislation, contraception should be more readily available for those who are voluntarily sexually active, as should “morning after” medication for all, those who have sex willingly, as well as victims of incest or rape. Let’s also streamline the adoption process.
Two women have confided in me that they had abortions. One of whom had to go to another state for the procedure because it was still illegal in Pennsylvania. Both women had the procedure as a matter of convenience, retroactive birth control. In our discussions, I sensed the same reticence to talk that combat veterans have about talking about what they went through. So, regardless of where one stands on the issue, the least you can do is to be civil.
As has been said, “Hate the sin but not the sinner.” But remember, too, that you shouldn’t force others to pay for your mistakes or things they believe are wrong.
About Rich Schwartzman
Rich Schwartzman has been reporting on events in the greater Chadds Ford area since September 2001 when he became the founding editor of The Chadds Ford Post. In April 2009 he became managing editor of ChaddsFordLive. He is also an award-winning photographer.
(6 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...
Comments