(Note: This entry was originally posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006)
...is this a trick question?
It's already old news to all of you---and to me too, since I listen to NPR---but the great state of Sout Dakota has, in its infinite wisdom, passed a law that bans virtually all abortions. According to at least some informed sources, the text of the law is specifically designed to generate a challenge to Roe v Wade. Many of these same informed sources suggest that this move was orchestrated by the pro-life movement to force the new Supreme Court to declare itself in regards to the Roe v Wade precedent.
That all makes sense to me...if you are a pro-life activist.
OK, tangent here...
[Begin Tangent] I actually write for living (I don't really write that well, hence it is not such a good living), so word selection matters to me. I think one of my primary motives for starting this blog was to express my dismay and disgust with the way our politicians (and the special interest groups to which they prostitute themselves) create appealing names for their causes. This is especially true for those names that are intentionally misleading. It is the ultimate spin, and with no apologies whatsoever to a certain moronic windbag, this zone is not about spin.
Anyway, as misleading names go, "pro-life" is a masterpiece. In favor of life? Hooray! I'm in favor of life too...for just about everyone. I'm not going to weep over the chicken I plan to eat tonight, and there are certainly some scoundrels and blackguards in the world who wouldn't be missed if their lives were cut short. Still, I am essentially in favor of all life. Of course, our "pro-life" crowd isn't really in favor of life in general...they just use the name to market themselves. They chose the name specifically to counter the perceived negativity of the label they had worn for many years: "anti-abortion." Unfortunately, while "anti-abortion" is an excellent description of these activists, "pro-life" isn't. The term is too ambiguous, and implies that those who oppose them are anti-life. Since I can honestly say that I am in favor of life, and at the same time oppose the actions, aims, and propaganda of the pro-life movement, I feel philologically obliged to reject that name. Henceforth, the thought police heretofore identified as pro-life shall be known as anti-abortion. [End Tangent]
OK, back to the great state of South Dakota...
What were you people thinking? I honestly don't know if the majority of the South Dakota electorate is actually in favor of this law, nor can I even imagine how the state elected a legislature that would pass the law. Regardless, though, South Dakota has truly opened Pandora's political box. You see, this is a theological law.
Yes, I am very pleased to hear that the vast majority of South Dakotans are people of faith. Me too, by the way. Even so, having travelled far beyond not only my home state of Florida, but even outside the boundaries of our great nation, I can tell you with great certainty that basing a law on anyone's theology is a bad idea. You see, the thing about theologies is that, like anuses, just about everyone has one...and no two theologies truly agree. This is especially true across cultures. It is for this reason that our country's founding fathers intentionally created a division---a separation, in fact---between our government and our many different faiths.
By enacting this law, the government of South Dakota has crossed a far more dangerous line than it realizes: they have made a bold statement that the government can tell the people which theologies should be believed, and worse, that the government can force the populace to abide by the tenets of a specific theology. Scary stuff, people.
You may be surprised to hear that I don't much care for abortion myself. I think it is sad, even tragic that people sometimes decide to end a pregnancy. Pregnancy should be a time for joy and anticipation. Indeed, there is a good reason why we sometimes describe a pregnant woman as "expecting." She is expecting, and the event she is expecting is a supremely joyful one. But there's the rub. If pregnancy should be a joyful experience, what can a woman for whom the experience is far from joyful do? Can anyone explain to me why a woman experiencing the overwhelming joy of pregnancy would choose to end it? The truth is that an unwanted pregnancy is never joyful, and an unwanted child is the greatest tragedy humankind can produce. Small wonder that a great many people choose to end unwanted pregnancies every year.
In the end, whether or not to carry a child to term is a decision that only the mother can make. regardless of my opinion---equivocal at best---I am in no position to tell a woman what to do in that case. It is the most personal and private of decisions, and no government has any business intruding.
What has me really concerned, though, is the motivation behind the law. As far as the South Dakota legislature is concerned, any pregnancy is God's will...even a pregnancy engendered by rape or incest. The reasoning is obvious...if God hadn't wanted her to be pregnant, she wouldn't have been raped or molested, and she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. She was raped, though, and she is pregnant. Therefore, God wants this child to be born. Of course, one has to assume that the legislature---who never mentioned or discussed any deity in its deliberations---would be able to agree amongst themselves what God's will truly is. Make no mistake, though, in spite of the legal language and the spin they put on the debate, the reason all of these distinguished solons oppose abortion is because they believe it is God's will. Even if they are correct, however, they have no right to impose their beliefs on even a single woman in South Dakota.
If they will do this, though, what comes next? I mean, we're talking the will of God, here. Have we figured out a way to recreate brimstone in the laboratory yet? There are thousands of homosexuals in South Dakota, and God surely showed His will in regards to gays when He smote Sodom and Gemorrah, right? We can pack them in a stadium, and shower them with state-sponsored brimstone. That fits in well with a pro-life agenda, right?
The fundamental concept upon which religious observance in this country was founded is that no one can tell you what to believe. You can express your opinion as loudly as you like, and you can join the church or organization of your choosing. No matter what, though, you do not have the right to tell anyone else what to believe, nor may you force others to abide by the precepts of your beliefs. When a government---state or federal---enacts a law that compels obedience to a specific religious belief, it shreds one of the most fundamental rights of this country. Any that do have much for which to answer.
South Dakota, you're on the clock...what in the world do you think you're doing?
No comments:
Post a Comment