The legislature and governor of South Dakota have decided to test Roe/Wade. Probably, their action to ban abortions in their state is premature because there isn’t an anti-Roe/Wade majority on the Supreme Court at present and, indeed, may never be, since there’s no way to tell how either Chief Roberts or Associate Alioto will come down on the question. The actions of Bush I-appointee Souter are enough to convince anyone that SCOTUS judges can be very unpredictable. Actually, though she was practically declared a judicial icon, Sandra Day O’Connor was quite unpredictable, perhaps a euphemism for simply “being wavering” on deciding what the Constitution says. The recent “Kelo” (New London, Connecticut) eminent domain judgment proved that the court itself is sometimes a mass of confusion, if not outright lunacy, though the decision was 5-4 with O’Connor dissenting strongly.
Notwithstanding the fact that many proponents of Roe/Wade, though despising abortion, insist that the only thing worse than an abortion is the bearing of an unwanted child, the SD action may be helpful. Currently, abortion is engaged by women primarily as a matter of convenience, amounting to little more than the ridding of themselves of something akin to an inflamed appendix. For those women, the much better approach would be the removal of their ability to have children (tied tubes), a simple procedure having no impact whatever on their health. They would then be free from any worry about having sex with any man, whether as between man and wife or with anyone else as an exercise in fornication or adultery. They would also be free then to forgo the need for contraceptive vehicles, except, of course, as a matter relating to STDs.
This, however, is not a study in reality. The fact is that the girls/women and their husbands/studs/boy-friends/whatever, in fits of passion or lust, will continue to engage in unprotected sex and be forced to face the consequences, including, among other things, the bothersome matter of pregnancy. Nature’s laws militate against this circumstance, since human beings, unlike the animals/birds/fish/bugs, possess the power of reason and the natural instinct for circumspection with respect to fidelity, notwithstanding their eschewing of it. Added to that is the pronouncements of the Bible in the New Testament era, in which everyone has lived for a couple thousand years or so, declaring that promiscuity is unacceptable in every set of circumstances.
Since the decision regarding Roe/Wade was made in 1973, perhaps 45 million abortions have been performed. This means that there are that many fewer citizens in the country today than would have been the case, not to mention the potential offspring of those earliest aborted fetuses, which might have added another 5-10 million, maybe more. Who knows? One wonders what might be the employment picture in the nation today if those fetuses had made it out to life…perhaps not as much of a problem with illegal immigrants maybe? Or…suppose the fetuses had been carried to term and the resultant babies given up for adoption. Not all would have been adopted, but millions would have been. Couples are now paying out millions of dollars all over the world, principally in Russia and China, for the privilege of adopting children, and couples have been doing this ever since 1973.
The problem, of course, has to do with the bother of nine months of putting up with morning sickness and all the rest of the inconveniences accruing to that bothersome pouch, including further trysts as time goes by, especially if nothing more will happen than an adoption. Interestingly, 48% of abortions are not first-time procedures for the women involved, so abortion for many is a sort of way of life…or lifelessness. It’s sort of like visiting the dentist on a more-or-less regular basis.
As long as men and women are perfectly willing for the procedure to be legally in place, why should anyone care? This is a valid question. For women and men who came of age in the 60s and 70s, abortion was the logical outgrowth of the pervading philosophy of “if it feels good, do it.” For many of the men and women of the 80s until now, the 60s-70s progeny in other words, the philosophy is, “If it was good enough for them, it’s good enough for us.” Neither group had/has any moral underpinning (or perhaps moral problem) with respect to the matter. But, morality, whether anyone likes to face it or not, is at the crux of the matter. Morality, perhaps more than anything else, drives the effort in maintaining the society. Once the respect for human life, whether inside or outside the womb, is destroyed, the morality of the nation is damaged and, unless reconfigured by a collective attack of conscience, whether driven by natural instinct or spiritual convictions, will eventuate in driving the nation into oblivion. The great empires have gone their ways of destruction through interior rot, manifested most acutely in the disrespect of human life that occurred as an immoral nation resulting from that rot lacked the will to sustain the society.
Since 1973, moral considerations in this nation have deteriorated to the point that its communications and entertainment systems reflect evidence of debauchery that was inconceivable 50 years ago. The Internet is filled with sites no civilized person, not to mention a child, should ever see. Entertainment has lowered itself to the point that breast-baring was okay at a family-centered show such as the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004 and again by the rotten Mick Jagger in 2006. Hollywood has glorified homosexuality and other obscene perversions to the point of nausea. This degradation has taken place in the milieu of “abortion as comfort,” the potential human life being of no more value than a gallstone. Is it any wonder that potential human life is treated so ill?
So…if nothing else, perhaps the banning of abortion will call the nation back to the fact that “FAMILY” is the bedrock of the civilization, and that anything – murder, for instance, the actual classification of abortion – that degrades it is unacceptable. In the bargain, perhaps people will decide that “mind over matter” actually does differentiate the human from the animal, marked as it is by indiscriminate breeding, and simply determine to keep their pants on. Without question, partial-birth abortion IS murder. Will all abortion someday be seen as such, with the proper sentence meted to the doctor for the act and to the potential mother as complicit? Time will tell.