The ending of Roe vs Wade in the United States has brought abortion to the forefront of people’s minds. Despite the rhetoric abortion has not been banned, instead it has merely had the level of government responsible for it change back to what it was before 1973. Instead of the Federal government being responsible, now state governments will be responsible for such matters.
But as I thought over the issue it really showed how Democracy is used and abused, how it claims to solve problems but in the case of abortion it instead kept it alive. Most people don’t want to think about abortion, instead what they want is to be told the correct opinion that they should have. The number of people who actively support abortion is small, as is the number who actively oppose it. By active I mean people who are prepared to protest, organise or donate time or money.
If Democracy ran the way we are told that it runs then it would be a non-issue to most people and the law would be quite similar in most places. Because when asked people give very similar answers, in the first trimester (the first three months) they support abortion. It is still the custom not to tell people that a women is pregnant until the third month as so much can go wrong in a pregnancy at that stage. Within the second trimester (the middle three months of a pregnancy) abortion becomes controversial because there is disagreement on when the cut off date should be. In the third trimester (the last three months) most people are opposed to abortion. Or to put it another way most people move from a pro-choice position to a pro-life position during the course of a pregnancy.
That extends to related issues such as rape, incest, the baby being mentally or physically deformed and the health of the mother. In all of these cases the majority are pro-choice. However when it comes to sex selection or any other ‘choice’ issues, such as eye colour or things of that nature, the majority opinion is that you should not be able to choose such things. In these matters the majority are pro-life.
So if there is a consensus position why are these things controversial?
Because one of Liberalism’s great objectives is to take away consequences, particularly when it comes to sex. The idea is that life should be about making choices and that none of those should be bad choices. Every choice leads to a different door in life but none of these should lead to sadness or consequences. It is the same logic that supports casual sex and divorce.
Now you might be saying but that’s not possible, well you’re right, but that is what they want, the impossible. So they stake out an extreme position and insist that it is reasonable. That it is about supporting women, about supporting choice and that these things are the only moral position to have. But it is of course no such thing. They have highjacked this issue and instead of looking for a compromise they insist that only their extreme position is allowed.
Just like they do with every issue.
Originally published at Upon Hope. You can find Mark’s Subscribestar here.