Abortion: Truth and Emotionalism

 During this election year, there is one topic that seems to lead the headlines for the Democratic party- that of abortion.  Every single day; TV, Radio, websites, social media: all are inundated with the doom and gloom prophecies of the liberal party, proclaiming that women's very existence and freedom are at stake if we do not vote for someone who will "enshrine Roe v. Wade".   

Access to abortion was granted under the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, in which the supreme court interpreted that the US Constitution granted an imagined "right to privacy" as part of the first amendment right to freedom of speech.  The ruling was always fraught with controversy from the beginning, not only because of the outcome; but also because the notion that Freedom of Speech grants you freedom of privacy, is found nowhere in any of the foundational documents of the United States, and is not mentioned in any book of law with regard to the constitution (pre-Roe, of course).   Contrary to emotional outbursts in recent years and those who bemoan it; Roe v. Wade did NOT impose law which granted access to abortion.  It only gave ruling that states could not ban abortion entirely, given the significant limitations on medical science at the time.  Even that ruling itself did not permit or enable abortion up until birth; which is championed by those who claim to support said ruling.  At any rate, what was established by the Supreme Court was not state or federal law, but case law; which grants a basis for future rulings on the same subject matter, as well as for arguments in such cases.  

Contrary to the liberal party's divine aspirations for it, Roe v. Wade was never intended to be part of federal law; and has never been codified into law either.  To codify Roe or to "enshrine it as constitutional", would require an amendment to the constitution; which would require not only the vote of congress (2/3 in favor), but also the ratification of the amendment by 3/4 of the states in the union.  Now while you may find some people and states who would whole-heartedly approve, we are FAR off from having 3/4 of the country agree to make it law.  Since the process would be time-consuming and ultimately fruitless, the liberals did what they have done best for some time: proclaim that it simply was part of the law that they had achieved for "the people", and happily allowed people to believe that this lie was true, until the ruling was rescinded.  Perhaps what was most triggering for Democrats in Congress was not the actual overruling of Roe, but the fact that it was finally exposed that there was never any law which gave access to abortion, and that individual states could now determine for themselves what they would do with it.  The funny thing about case law is this: as much as case law is made, it is also constantly being revisited, reworked, revamped, and often overruled or rescinded.  

Most activists for abortion "rights" wish us to believe that abortion is a fundamental human right for women, and that it's only really used in cases of rape or incest.  I sincerely believe that there are women who have suffered those, who feel that abortion is their only option; largely due to the fact that the liberals have constantly told women that.  What is most insidious about the situation (beyond the murder of innocent children), is that if abortion was truly only about women who were victims of rape or incest: why do abortion providers refuse to submit police reports for these heinous crimes?   Should not a better course of action be that we seek to eliminate rape and incest, rather than submitting the victims to horrific and traumatizing medical procedures that are voluntary? 

Yet to acknowledge that rape and incest are crimes which should be reported and purged from society, would be to acknowledge a universal, moral truth: which the liberals will never accept.  Because once you acknowledge that there is a universal moral truth, then you no longer have the self-given "right" to act according to your passing fancies, without regard to consequence.  Our liberal friends tell us we need to work towards a world where every woman has access to abortion, but I say this: let us rather work towards a world where rape and incest are no longer a fact.  Perhaps this is a utopian dream, but it is what we should work towards: a future where we don't just tell women to 'put up' with crimes against their persons because they have an out in abortion, a future where any crime against a woman's person is unthinkable. 

 In short, yes: those who are pro-life hold a higher view of women than those who are pro-choice.  We view the woman as a unique individual who should be cherished, treated with respect, dignity, and allowed to live in peace and safety.  They view her as an object of physical abuse, allowing her only abortion as an answer to crimes against her humanity and dignity.  

We pray for an end to violence against women, both in rape and incest; as well as the horrors of abortion.