Abortion politics, Roe vs. Wade and a new chance for a conversation

The left is reaping what they sowed in abortion politics with the recent overruling of Roe vs. Wade by the Supreme Court. By pushing their position to the extreme they made conversation all but impossible. Not only that, but they made people shudder including those who were either neutral on the matter or even mildly pro-choice. Take the average pro-choice person anywhere in the world and tell him/her that you want to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months and that person immediate reaction would be:” wait a minute!”. 

Folks who can’t be bothered to crack open a book might not realize it now, but the most important damage done by Roe vs. Wade onto society was NOT in whether it made it harder on women to obtain abortions. Rather, with a stroke of the pen, it made it useless to have deep and important conversations on such an existential matter. Such as how we recognize life in order to respect the right to life. You know, the word that precedes “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness”. Roe vs. Wade essentially told people to go home and suck it up rather than engaging   in a very difficult topic. And the first capital sin of the extreme left is that it never acknowledged even the basic fact that the topic MUST be difficult. Regardless of whether someone was pro-choice or pro-life, the real ugliness lied on how the left brushed over the ethical aspects. Sometimes making even pro-choice people cringe. As I will show with a couple of examples, one can see that there are deep problems to solve before even beginning to decide on what type of legislation on abortion we should have. And, again, the tragedy of the past 50 years was that Roe vs. Wade made a mockery of these necessary introspections. One could have those discussions but what was the point? Roe vs. Wade essentially told everybody engaged in the conversation to go home and suck it up.  

1. The discussion can never start (as with any debate) without establishing clear definitions. As a mathematician, I can tell you, a definition cannot mean one thing in a context and a different thing in another. What is there in the womb? It can’t be BOTH a baby if it is wanted and a clump of cells if it is not. Surgery in the womb to correct birth defects is possible now (see the article below).


What did the surgeon operate on? The article says “baby” several times. In the meantime, we have this picture from a recent pro-abortion protest:


Funny thing is, “not-yet-human” might turn out to be correct but NOT in reference to what is inside but what is outside. So what is it inside there? 

2. Assuming that the answer to the previous point is that what is inside there is a tad more important than an object then we come to another fundamental problem that must be solved first before even starting a discussion.  Pro-life vs. pro-choice are NOT two equally weighted positions in a debate. Again, regardless of one’s position, the human ethical instinct should tell you that much, much more is required in terms of argumentation from the pro-choice side because it is their position that entails the voluntary termination of a life (a.k.a. killing). If my position is on preservation of life, I don’t think I am required to come up with tons of arguments. It should be the default position. In a court of law, the accuser has the burden of proof. In the abortion debate, the pro-choice has the burden of the argument. Between an extreme pro-life and an extreme (nine months including) pro-choice person, I sleep more peacefully with the pro-life extremist by my side. 

3. The left spoke for decades that a constitutional right of abortion is needed because no contraceptive method is 100% effective, and some women don’t have access to it because of poverty or other reasons. Rather than eliciting empathy, this argument makes the pro-choice position even more grotesque. First, plenty of contraceptive methods are cheap, especially if they are viewed (as they should) to prevent an unwanted new life.  Again, assuming that what’s in the womb is a tad more significant than a clump of cells, it should be expected that some cost or some responsibility comes with the act of sex. I can be the best driver in the world and yet there is no 100% assurance that I won’t cause an accident. And every day I go behind the wheel doing my best to avoid it but also with the implicit understanding that, if it happens, I will assume the cost and the responsibility that comes from an unfortunate accident. The point is, sex, as an act that can “cause” babies, better have some cost and some “inconvenient” responsibility. And one should not engage in it if the cost and inconvenience is not acceptable. To say ” I need abortion codified in the constitution because I may not be able to afford a buck for a condom” can cause disgust even to some pro-choice people. And before someone accuses me of anti-sex puritanism, let me state something from the point of view of sexual liberation. You know, as the Internet without parental control shows, there are plenty, and I mean PLENTY, sexual activities that do not involve penetration and, by consequence, no pregnancy and no need for abortion. There you go: sex with a 100% effective contraception. I find it strange that the pro-choice side that often mocks the pro-life religious side does not mention this. 

With the examples above, we can see that Roe vs. Wade horrified many people REGARDLESS of their position on the matter.   There is such a thing of immorality in HOW one addresses the topic. Now that this ruling is not in the books anymore, people are free to engage in meaningful debate. If they are still free…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.