Filed Under Doug Powers | Leave a Comment
Susan Page of the USA Today has done an analysis of what would happen if the U.S. Supreme Court ever overturned the Roe v. Wade law.
So, whatÃ‚Â would happen? Judging by the reactions of the pro-choice folks, if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, there will be famine, disease, pestilence, dogs humping cats, mice mounting cheese, and so many liberal feministÃ‚Â heads exploding that it’ll look like a BerkeleyÃ‚Â fireworks show in tie-dye.
In reality, according to Page, not to mentionÃ‚Â common sense, for the most part, it’ll fall to the states, and many of them will keep abortion legal. Panic not, pro-choicers, there will still be plenty of places to go and kill babies.
But there’s the rub. As a pro-lifer (or anti-abortion, or whatever you want to call it), the goal is to see fewer abortions. So much energy is being spent on the legality of Roe v. Wade that we’re losing our focus, which is to drastically reduce the number of dead babies. A baby killed when Roe v. Wade is overturned won’t feel any better than one killed now, when it’s intact.
As for me, there was a time when I didn’t really care much one way of the other, but that probably applies to many of us. It wasn’t necessarily anything pertaining to abortion specifically, but rather a general lackadaisical approach to things in general. Perfectly happy to “la-de-da” my way through this existence, unaffected by any seriousness, and rarely taking sides, I was the Sweden of teenagers Ã¢â‚¬â€œ minus ABBA and the ability to stand up on skis.
Like any average 18-year-old in the early ’80s, I thought that if it didn’t happen right in front of my face or in Rolling Stone Magazine, it didn’t matter. Cold War threats, the 10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and supply-side economics all took a back seat to making girls invent creative ways to turn me down, and serious roundtable discussions with friends over whether or not David Lee Roth would ever rejoin Van Halen. I was a senior fellow in the world’s un-thinkiest think tank.
A couple of decades and four kids later, I’ve become a staunch pro-lifer. In part thanks to witnessing endless streams of illogic and just plain inhumanity poorly disguised under the thin veil of a “right”, along withÃ‚Â exposure toÃ‚Â pro-choice rallies– the nature of the get-togethersÃ‚Â usually coming across like anÃ‚Â angry tailgate party precedingÃ‚Â game where the losers are predetermined and killed before they get a chance to take the field.
Correcting the moral course has little to do with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. ThisÃ‚Â will first require teaching our kids toÃ‚Â recognize completeÃ‚Â bunk. Start them off slowly by taking them to a used car lot, then maybe work their way up to the next Bill Moyers special on PBS, followed perhaps by a Ted Kennedy speech. By the time this training is complete, the illogic ensconced in the rhetoric of theÃ‚Â pro-choice movement will be easy to spot.
That said, this USA Today article offers a good reminder that Roe v. Wade isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the be all and end all that many may think it is. Besides, if abortion is legal or illegal, the point is to get people not to have them, and that will require perserverence, supportÃ‚Â and alternatives.
If the success of the pro-life movementÃ‚Â continues, perhaps Roe v. Wade could lose its sting, regardless if it’s overturned or not. After all, people who had a proper moral upbringing don’t refuse to, for example, rob a bank just because doing so is illegal. They refuse to rob a bank because it’s wrong.
There’s got to be a way to make babies at least as important as banks (I thought conservatives were the “greedy” ones?).
Even if the nation takes a hard conservative swing, for people who still thinkÃ‚Â there’s a “right” to murder a baby, there will always be California.
Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.