menu

For Abortion “Rights” Advocates – a Compromise

For Abortion “Rights” Advocates – a Compromise December 5, 2021

For pro-life conservatives, it’s like a dream come true. For pro-choice feminazis and their squishy male foot soldiers, it’s every radical fear realized.

Roe v. Wade, and the right to unfettered abortion may be coming to an end. That, at least, is the hot topic among Supreme Court watchers, currently. And while it has been a long-debated, hotly contentious issue since the 1973 SCOTUS decision – put in place by a majority Republican court, I might add – this is likely the closest it has come to being toppled.

The activating factor in this case is a Mississippi law that restricts abortions to 15 weeks (that’s early into the 2nd trimester), maximum, into the pregnancy. This particular law makes no exceptions for rape or incest and was passed in 2018. Two federal courts, however, blocked the law, stating that it was contrary to the so-called “settled law” of Roe v. Wade.

I’ve seen some liberal politicians latch on to this case, mish-mash it with other major news stories, and try to make the correlation between abortion rights and the 2nd Amendment. They’ve made the argument that if the 2nd Amendment is “settled law,” not to be tampered with, then so is abortion.

Nice try, but the 2nd Amendment is just that – an amendment, a right, as enumerated in our nation’s Constitution. Abortion was a court case, poorly laid out, because nowhere in our Constitution are citizens given the right to end a developing life. A distorted stretch on the 14th Amendment, focusing on the right to privacy was used to decide the case, and for close to 50 years, politics has kept this unjust, horrific “law” on the books.

Truthfully, the case never should have made it to the Supreme Court. Having made it that far, however, true Constitutionalists would have pointed out that it is not specifically laid out in our Constitution, making it a states rights issue, per the 10th Amendment, and kicked it back to the states to decide. We are, unfortunately, in a time where the people have abdicated their powers to an overreaching government, and the federal powers that be are all too willing to allow us to forget.

So back to Mississippi and the current case before SCOTUS.

The makeup of the Supreme Court leans in favor of “conservative” justices, but that doesn’t mean conservative voters or pro-life advocates are in a win-win situation. As I pointed out earlier, we have Roe v Wade because of a majority conservative SCOTUS in 1973.

Brett Kavanaugh, a favored target of liberal howler monkeys across social and mainstream media, has made some interesting comments in the opening of the case.

Kavanaugh brought up the stare decisis principle on Wednesday, in a question that implied that precedents are overturned quite frequently and often in some of the most “important” and “consequential” cases.

“As I’ve looked at it, and the history of how the court applied stare decisis, and when you really dig into it, history tells somewhat a different story, I think, than what is sometimes assumed,” he said. “If you think about some of the most important cases, some of the most consequential cases in this court’s history, there’s a string of them where the cases overruled precedent.”

Citing a litany of topics, from business regulation to same-sex marriage, he touched the nerve center of liberal hysteria.

“That’s a list, and I can go on — and those are some of the most consequential and important in the court’s history — the court overruled precedent,” Kavanaugh said, noting that in those cases the court had been presented with arguments that it should adhere to the prior precedent.

“If the court had done that in those cases, you know, the country would be a much different place.” Kavanaugh said. He asked the attorney for the abortion providers that if the court has concluded now that Roe was decided wrongly, “why then doesn’t the history of the court’s practice with regards to those cases tell us that the right answer is actually a return to a position of neutrality — and not stick with those precedents in the same way that all those other cases didn’t?”

Does any of this mean that the right to abortion for hungover barflies is in true jeopardy, or is this another instance of judicial showmanship, which will leave right to life advocates disappointed, once again?

We likely won’t know until the summer of 2022, as this looks to be a lengthy process. It’s just one more battle in a long and hard-fought culture war. Even when the decision comes down, it is guaranteed the fight will rage on.

With that in mind, I have several thoughts to offer, and a compromise.

I begin by stating my personal position, if there were any who had any doubts. As a Christian first, conservative second, I am personally pro-life. I believe, as Scripture tells us, life is given by Creator God. He formed us, breathed life into our lungs, and we are fearfully, wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are made in His image, and no matter our beginnings, we all have value and purpose. Who is man to take that away, for any reason? It is not up to the courts to determine our worth. God has already made us precious beyond measure.

With that in mind, I must state that this world will not be saved. It has already been judged by God. For pro-life advocates, our cause is just, but we will not legislate morality. We can’t hope that ending abortion, or even limiting its scope, will somehow make the rest of the world jump on board with us. They won’t honor God with their bodies, if they don’t first honor Him with their hearts.

For the “My body, my choice” cult, fine, but can you at least stop with the rape or incest nonsense? Research has shown that the overwhelming majority of abortions are for convenience. Rape cases make up approximately 1% of abortions in the nation. Incest cases are less than 0.5%. With numbers so insignificant, why mention them, in hopes of guilting the other side or attempting to make your opponents seem heartless? It’s disingenuous, at best.

My compromise is simple, and while no compromise is perfect, you have to start, somewhere.

I propose a 1-woman, 1-abortion rule. It works like this: If a woman becomes pregnant and determines that she doesn’t want the child, nor does she want to consider adoption, then she can have her precious abortion – ONCE.

Before the procedure, she must present a picture ID and birth certificate, and register on a national database. Should she come back for a second abortion, she has the option of signing away rights to the child and turning it over to an adoption agency at birth, or having the procedure and being sterilized before leaving the facility, in order to prevent further need to return to the abortion mill.

The way I see it, anyone can slip up, once. If you didn’t learn your lesson the first time, and you’re too irresponsible (or too dumb) to figure out how to avoid unwanted pregnancy a second time, then you’re too irresponsible and too dumb to be entrusted with the care of a child, at any time. Sterilization is one more option.

Your body, your choice, right?

And before the feminazis start calling me “sexist,” again, I don’t leave the men out of the equation.

Fathers are to be named, upon registration. Ideally, the man should come in and register, himself. If he brings more than one woman in, or the same man is named as father for more than one woman, it’s state-ordered vasectomy, or chemical castration. His body, his choice.

Likewise, any man that gets more than a set amount behind on child support, for multiple children is subject to the same order.

I mean, is this a fantastical, far-out solution to a pressing societal problem? Do I go too far?

Maybe.

Then again, what we’ve been doing hasn’t been working. It may be time to try something outrageous and fantastical.

 

*EDIT*

It seems my very tongue-in-cheek solution to the abortion cult went right over the heads of some of my staunch, fellow pro-life adherents. Let me state, unequivocally, that I am pro-life, with NO exceptions, and NO compromises. Life is life, from conception to the grave. Had I actually thought anyone would take this as a legitimate attempt at a solution, I would have worded things very differently, or, as has been suggested, indicated that this was parody, from the beginning. 

My sincerest apologies to anyone who actually took this seriously. 

 

 

 

 

 


Browse Our Archives