row vs wade

As a long-term libertarian, I have heard some wonderfully articulate, thoughtful, rational, compelling and passionate arguments on both sides of this.

I do not know the answer.

And I’m a thoughtful, caring. loving, considerate man.

What does our society do with this question?

They turn it over to the politicians. They turn it over to the political process. They entrust the least trusted people in our society to make the proper determination.

You have read it elsewhere. The approval rate of our political class is around 17%. Wow! These slimeballs are the ones to make ultimate moral decisions for THE ENTIRE CULTURE. Gosh, I hate to even put the word culture in the same sentence as I put a reference to the political prostitutes.

Oh no, Ted, we will leave it to the courts to decide.

Oh! The appointees of the political class? The guys who swore an oath to the corporate bar association? Those who abandoned their USA citizenship to belong to a higher authority? Those members of the Skull and Bones society? Those Bohemian Club members? The politically protected pedophiles? The sociopaths who share the bottom ratings with the politicians?…. oh my, but I could go on here

You do not get to take the easy way out here. YOU have to embrace your community. You have to get involved. You have to actually talk with people of both persuasions. I actually mean more LISTEN than talk. You have probably done more than enough of the former. Listening openly and thinking freely are probably key ingredients here.

You have to personally decide if you can use force, that is lethal force, to MAKE someone obey one side or the other of this disagreement.

That is, after all, what you are asking these paragons-of-virtue we ship to the Potomac swamps to decide for us.

While on the subject, I question the motives of people who are passionately dedicated to having the government supervise female reproductivity. In the bad old days, the number one cause of emergency room visits among women of reproductive ages was botched abortions. While I don’t know THE RIGHT answer, I certainly know the wrong one when I see it.

The Pareto Principle (the 80-20 rule) is quite applicable here. Less than 20% of the effort would easily solve 80% of the problem. If the government didn’t make adoption in this country so ridiculous, pregnant women would see easy alternatives to abortion. People truly dedicated to saving the unborn would work to ensure adopting American babies was easy and attractive.

Those who completely ignore the kinder, gentler, easy solution and skip directly to guns and goons as the only answer do not earn my respect, to say the least. Even if crude, brute force was applied by law, nobody believes they would stop abortions. No, when cornered even the staunchest advocates of government bans will admit that 20% or more will get done with coat hangers and other dangerous, barbaric means.

So what’s the real game here? Is it just like the gun control debate: all about control, not about the stated purpose at all? Someone keeps fanning the flames. Smells a lot like the globalists’ work to me.