Sunday, May 8, 2022

Roeing vs. Wading

In the preceding week of this article, it was leaked from the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS), in the form of a legal draft, that the highest court in the US would over turn the SCOTUS ruling from 1973 that is commonly known as Roe v. Wade. The social upheaval has been noticeable though in the mind of this author pointless and this article will attempt to explain this position along with a few other items on this subject. 

Abortion is potentially the most controversial topic in the US since the early 1970s when Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973. There is no provision in the US Constitution for abortion, what that formative document does provide for is personal privacy (14th amendment). The problem with the 1973 ruling was that SCOTUS removed the State's rights and moved those rights to the Federal level. The overturning of Roe v. Wade will simply return the decision making on and or about  abortion to the State level. The concerns for this author are the lack of understanding, reasoning and the increase potential for violence that has arose out of this document being leaked.

After fifty years of the population understanding that abortion was a right, which it is not, abortion is an action permitted under law. Not to set an equivalency, think about it as killing in self defense; there is a law against killing, though in the situation here there is an exception to that law. There are of course in the most restrictive of States exceptions to term limits on abortions, one example of this is if something goes wrong and the unborn child posses a risk to an otherwise healthy mother. This is simply not a one way street, there is pro-ported to be a case where the mother refused chemotherapy as it would kill her unborn child. 

Currently the position taken up by most of those on the political Right is 'safe, legal and rare'; in short, the idea of using abortion as a means of contraception is distasteful. The next problem the political Right has how Roe v. Wade is in direct opposition of the 10th amendment of the US Constitution, which basically states, that the actions of the individuals in a State should be left to the State they live in to determine; in other words, fifty different Petri dishes all in the same lab. 

Additionally, the ruling by SCOTUS back in 1973 set law rather than interpret a law against the US Constitution, meaning that back in 1973 when the nine men passed judgment they assumed the role of the Legislative branch, and this is what is behind the current court bringing this ruling up again. The enjoyable part of the current social conversation, for this author, is the number of Left leaning protesters and pundits whom are now demanding that men must not be involved, regardless of the fact that nine men were involved at the start of this mess. Does this mean that fifty some odd years ago the men were better? 

Turning our kaleidoscope of social understanding towards the Left now, the first item of note, is the statement - 'my body my choice' which this author considers to be sexist. The reasoning behind this consideration is that while the woman carries the baby for nine months that man pays for 18 years using his body or parts there of in order to support the child. Additionally, the 'my body my choice' position completely disregards the ideal of 'my body my responsibility'. We will circle back to this point later on. 

Also, where was the idea of 'my body my choice' in the age of COVID-19? Many people followed in lockstep on the ideas of masks and seemingly untried vaccinations as most of the research data was hidden from the conscience of the general public. For this author this presents a duality in choice as the masking up during the COVID-19 era was touted as a way to protect oneself and others, all the while, the idea of insisting the man for the night put on a condom somehow holds no equivalence. 

Another set of words printed out on signs being held up at the mostly peaceful protests reads something along the lines of - 'my body is not your baby factory'. This misplaced statement is flawed on its face because a 'factory' doesn't make choices. The greatly applauded story 'A Handmaids Tale', which is a dystopian fictional story, is the basis for this rhetoric. A factory does not decide what raw materials enter the IN door or what products exit via the OUT door; of course in an environment of constrained resources the IN door and OUT door can share purpose. Once again, baring sexual assault, a woman makes a choice, which resulted in a consequence that was considered to be an inconvenience and the resolution for that inconvenience is handled by public money. We will circle back to this point later on.

Sidebar: How is it that other choices, such as the consequences of combining drinking and driving are not also placed on the receipt of the public purse? 

An additional statement that has risen to prominence via the political Left is 'women need to engage in a sex strike'. The confusion for this author is that; the political Right has long called for abstinence as a means of avoiding the need for abortion and the political Left has now folded their hand as it were. Does the reader understand that those on the Left who adopt this proposition to create a society of abstinence reverses almost 60 years of sexual decadence based on the invention of the birth control pill?  The birth control pill was advertised as a means toward female freedom, while the end result was that it made women taxable and the creation of the dual income household thus raising the price of everything which dragged even more women into the work place, thus dragging their children into the hands of the institution know as government if the parents weren't careful. 

Another statement that has recently come out is one that states-  'Anti-abortion laws are killing us'. This can be seen expressed on a banner out side of an American church , go take a look at  the Fox News Youtube channel for more details. Once again the basic message is me, me, me, and everyone else can shove off including unborn children. The problem with this messaging,once again the laws have not changed as of the time of this writing and abortion is still available in each of the 50 states. There are eight states* which do have in place 'trigger laws' poised to make abortion illegal IF Roe v. Wade is over turned the 'if' was emphasized as the decision has not been handed down yet and yet the messages of woe have already started.   

The supply versus demand equation is never ending and the birth control pill plus an open door to abortion increased the supply thus making the 'product' cheapened in the eyes of the males and yet the females still want to be looked after. For this author there seems to be a pretty consistent messaging from the female side of society that someone else is to pay for the consequences of their choices. This does not mean all women of course have the same point of view; in fact, to those women who stand on their own or who have decided to marry and yet offer little to no complaints are the true feminists for they know their own strengths and limitations and will still navigate a reasonable life as they make their well considered choices. 

Closing the circle, the main stream media and some political commentators have told the general public that the overturning of Roe v. Wade will deprive women of the ability to get an abortion. Would this not force both women and men to consider their own personal responsibility, as the consequences of their activities will need to be considered and yet somehow this is a thing to be opposed - are the members of society now simply that tepid? 



* - Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin


No comments:

Post a Comment