|
|
|||
|
No one in his right mind can possibly look at this horribly-overcrowded world and conclude, “Oh yes, we need more population. We need more-crowded rush-hour, more pollution, more crime, and most especially, more unwanted children.” And make no mistake, unwanted children know that they are unwanted; they figure it out at an amazingly early age, and statistically have a much higher chance of growing up to be bitter, criminally-inclined blights on society. As a result of this simple fact, I’m not just pro-choice; I am staunchly pro-abortion. If the population keeps growing at this out-of-control rate, the day will come when the world will have to outlaw unwanted children; and the more flagrant disregard that we have for that inevitable eventuality now, the sooner we bring that time upon ourselves. The planet simply cannot support all of this burgeoning mass of humanity. Thus, I favor a law that says that no one should be allowed to bring another unwanted, unloved child into this beleaguered world. How would we enforce it? Easily: simply ask any potential mother if she wants the baby that she is carrying; in most cases, she would more likely shout the truth to you, than try to conceal it. When I had my fence-fight, a local political candidate for county commissioner called me to praise my stand for American private property rights, and the following conversation took place between him and me: He requested, “Do you mind if I ask your political affiliation?” I wryly replied, “I don’t mind the question, but you might mind the answer.” “Try me,” he invited. “I’m an ex-Republican who will never be a Democrat.” He chuckled heartily. “Well, first let me say that I’m delighted that you’ll never be a Democrat. Now may I ask why the ‘ex’ before Republican?” “I added the ‘ex’ ever since the party took its unconscionable stand against a woman’s right to govern her own body.” He sighed heavily. “I knew that that was what you were going to say. Anyone who’s ever left the party in the last umpteen years: that’s been the reason.” I declared, “The party should never have climbed into bed with the religious right-wing extremists, in direct violation of the separation of church and state, let alone to then have the effrontery to pretend that separation of church and state never even existed yet. Whom do they think that they can fool with that flimsy fabrication?” He admitted, “I know, I know. We’ve lost so many formerly-loyal Republicans over this. And believe me: we know that we made a big mistake, and that we’ve alienated some of our most influential people; we know it at the very highest levels.” I was aghast. “Well, then change it! Renounce it! Fix it! Believe me, people of all possible party affiliations will respect you much better if you come clean and say, ‘We’re human. We made a mistake. We’re correcting it right now.’ That’s an admirable stance for anyone: to admit that we all make mistakes. So, reverse this mess!” “That’s not so easy to do,” he told me. I retorted, “I never said that it would be. But if it’s the right thing to do, then it must be done, regardless of the difficulty. The Republican party has always stood for commonsense realism and anti-“Big Brother”; the Democrat party* has always been the ivory-tower, pie-in-the-sky, no-concept-of-reality, liberal-media-propaganda-believing, idealistic-dreamer, pro-“Big Brother.” Republicans need to show that we still stand for rationality and rugged individualism. For decades, my parents and I reassured each other that one day the political pendulum would swing back, and that sanity would return to this country. But my poor parents certainly never anticipated that, by the time that these hopes were realized, the Republican party would have gone off of the “nanny-state”-deep-end even worse than the Democrats had throughout the sixties and seventies! Maybe it’s best that my dear parents didn’t live to see this sad day. I feel so betrayed, and so would they!” Actually, I see an interesting parallel between my fence-fight and this shouldn’t-be-an-issue issue. My body is even more “my property” than my property. I own this five-feet-five-inch piece of fleshy real estate, and I will make any and all determinations as to its disposition, case-closed. I decided at age eleven that I would never under any circumstances shove a watermelon through my keyhole. People trying to tell me what I can and can’t do with my own body is even worse than those primadonna-neighbors trying to tell me what I can and can’t do with my own land. Now, factually, I’ve never had an abortion. But that’s only because I’ve never needed one. I was lucky: the Pill always worked for me. But there’re a statistically-small percentage of women for whom the science of the Pill fails, and other birth-control methods have higher statistical-failure-risk. If science had failed me, I would’ve demanded that science provide me the answer. I would not have permitted my life’s course to be determined by a blind, random-chance, statistical roll of the dice. If I had ever needed an abortion, I would’ve run, not walked, to the nearest gynecologist. It’s a false sense of security, a farce actually, for the anti-abortionists to pretend to be so “magnanimous” in their willingness to “allow” abortion “if the woman’s life is in danger.” Guess what, folks: it’s seldom that clear-cut. Frequently, we won’t know whether or not her life is in danger until it is way, way too late to abort. Even when not in danger of immediately dying, there’re plenty of women who have their health damaged by pregnancy or birth, therefore women should only take that risk if they really and truly want that child. And only that woman can determine whether that risk is warranted for her. Whether or not to have a child is the most deeply, intensely, personal decision that any woman can ever make. Our bodies are not the property of society or of anyone but our own selves. A gynecologist once told me that she had a very simple, straightforward reason for being willing to perform abortions. She said, “More women die during live births than during abortions, period.” It was cut-and-dried for her. And she sensibly recognized that the woman, not the fetus, was her patient. It’s easy to prove that she was correct. Try sending the doctor’s bill to the fetus. See if you get paid. For many, many years after Roe-versus-Wade, the “abortion issue” was settled. It was a dead non-issue. One never even heard about it anymore. We had moved on, as a society. So, why is it then, just in recent years, suddenly in our faces again? Why has this monster once more reared its ugly head? Why must we rehash this? Who’s fueling this fire? And how in the world can anti-abortionists, who fear to kill a blob of non-sentient, unaware cells, possibly commit the ultimate hypocrisy of murdering abortion doctors?? And how do they pretend to justify that with a straight face??? I saw a bumper-sticker that summed it up eloquently. It said, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.” Guess what folks, it’s really that simple. No one will force you to have an abortion against your will. At least, not yet. But keep on overgrowing this teeming mass of humanity, and that day may yet come. And you anti-abortionists will have brought it on all the faster with your unrealistic, overly-sentimental, stubborn, presumptuous pie-in-the-sky-idealism. *In addition to being a staunch realistic conservative, I’m also a language-stickler: the current trend of changing “Democrat party” to “Democratic party” sounds ignorant, uneducated, and just plain abysmal. “Democratic” is a form of government. “Democrat” is a political party. Think: if the word “Republican” can be both noun and adjective, then the word “Democrat” must also be able to be both noun and adjective, because the words “Democrat” and “Republican” are the same part of speech. Therefore, if one somehow feels the need, for some mysterious reason, to change “Democrat” to “Democratic” whenever one needs the adjectival form, then one must (to be consistent) also change “Republican” to “Republicanic” under those same circumstances. In either case, adding “ic” sounds just plain “icky” to me. (In fact, in my dry sarcasm, I’ve often been known to say, “Democrat. Ick.”)
<Return to the Commentary page> |
|
||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
The Abortion Falderal 
