I had time to kill in a hospital. As I looked around the room for something to
read, a Time magazine caught my eye. It
featured an article examining the procedure’s progress and regressions since
1973’s Roe vs. Wade decision. The
controversy is fascinating and compelled me to page to the debate. (Interestingly
though, gun-control seems to be more controversial).
A
sterile environment
The picture was familiar. I’d seen it posted by pro-life advocates many
times on Facebook. On a silver tray, in perfect
alignment, were the instruments necessary to perform an abortion. A friend once called Planned Parenthood
abortion clinics, as if this was the only thing they did. He was adamantly pro-life. I didn’t correct him, realizing, after
years of debate, that some people refuse education. I knew Planned Parenthood offered a lot
more. It offers choices, and that is the operative word. They counsel the young mother; informing her
of the other options available. Now, I,
as an adamantly pro-choice male, admit that it is unfortunate that abortion is
at the end of that line of choices. In the U.S. one
out of three women chooses this by the time they’re forty-five. They always will seek and find them, whether
it is legal or not. It might as well be
done in a sterile environment. So a
clinic was created, perhaps in the back rooms of the Planned Parenthood
building. I doubt anyone’s happy about
this; I doubt they come out smiling. The
doctor, the patient, the woman’s man (if she knows), the woman’s parents (who
now must know when the mother is a minor) all are not proud of such a choice. I’d
hope they aren't. But the choice it’s there. You'd might as well come to terms with it.
Restricting
values
Since January of this year the
following restriction have been placed on obtaining an abortion in Minnesota:
·
The
woman must get state-directed counseling that includes information to discourage her from the procedure. She must then wait twenty-four hours before
having it done.
·
Parents
of a minor must get notified before
an abortion is done
The
caveats sound rational enough to me, but again, I’m only a man. It also sounds somewhat familiar.
The stuffy echelons of the
right-wing want the world like it was, at least before the sixties. Some will pine for a time even earlier than
that when men were men and women, well, had fewer rights than men. They cherish a time when their gun was their
only friend. They’ll fight to the death
(lately dyeing with pretty good success) the right to obtain that firearm with
few, if any, restrictions.
The
Circle of life
I can’t say when life begins. That’s for judges, scientists, and doctors to
ponder feudally. It is not the issue here. We
know a few facts and, in the end, these are all that can direct our moral
compass:
·
Women
will abort their fetuses
·
People
will always want guns; either to kill others or because they feel safer with
them
·
America
was founded as a democracy. Freedoms and
rights are infused it its citizenry
Okay,
so the conservatives want abortion abolished (aren't these the descendants of the people who voted against the 13th Amendment?).
I constantly see schmaltzy Facebook posts overtly claiming how wrong the
“killing” of babies is. Aren’t these
some of the same people who at one point tapped the domino that ultimately made it possible for the gunman to
execute his plan at Sandy Hook Elementary?
I’d point out the hypocrisy in more detail but it would be lost. It would fly over the heads of the gun lovers
like the bullets flew at young children.
Come
Together
One side can’t wait, and sees it as
an infringement on their constitutional right if they are asked to wait. The other side sees it as a hurdle, a block
not originally in the deal, if they have to wait.
Each wants instant access to their promised freedom. You can’t ignore the irony here.
A group of women, one out of three to be exact,
(58% in their 20’s, 61% who are already a parent, 85% unmarried, 69%
economically disadvantaged, 73% with a religious affiliation) seek to eliminate
their fetus.
These
women have chosen to exercise the right Roe vs. Wade, a Supreme Court ruling,
afforded them forty years ago. Yes, they
are killing in a simple sense of the word. Although the fact
is anyone can take out a life or the undetermined suggestion of one.
A group of vigilantes, sovereign by
the Second Amendment, seeks to “protect” themselves and their young children
against the psychotic killer. In 2009
there were 307 million people in the United States. According to data from firearm manufacturers
there were 300 million firearms owned by civilians. 100 million were handguns. These patriotic Americans have chosen to
exercise their Constitutional right afforded to them 222 years ago.
Each seeks to take out a life;
someone else’s, their own, or the debated one of the unborn. They both want to be unfettered and free of
government rule. However one side
valiantly tries to keep the flow of guns alive in America. The other simply wants a choice. All they ask is to be able to choose in the
end whether they want to abort a pregnancy in a sterile environment. Carrying it to term might endanger their
life. There might not be enough money, support,
or education to raise a child; a child that could very well grow up feeling
unloved, uneducated and resentful. This
is the psychopath, the one for whom the gun made accessible was earmarked. It’s a tug-of-war. The relatively smaller group of women’s
actions will possibly prevent the angry young man Elvis mentioned in his song In the Ghetto from being born. The other 300+ million are fighting to put a
gun into his hands. It got there completely
unintentionally, but that is how the speculum bounces.
