Post-Roe Era, Chapter One: Earthquake
Post-Roe Era, Chapter One: Earthquake
Where do we go from here?
Roe has been locked in a casket. The right to have the procedure of abortion has been decentralized, leaving the people in each state to decide how to tackle this issue. That said, if you thought the debates before the ruling were heated, this has added gallons of gasoline to the fire—pro-choice groups have already vandalized pro-life buildings and pregnancy centers, and have disrupted church services in retaliation against their stances on the issue. The tension between friends and families will be intensified at future holiday gatherings, as some relationships have been torn apart because of this issue. Abortion is the moral dilemma of our time, in the same manner that slavery was for Americans during the early days of the country’s existence. This tension ultimately led to the Civil War. Do I think this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in this already divided nation? Will this lead to an actual second civil war? Frankly, I don’t know; however, this is what I do know.
There is an objective truth to the issue. This isn’t a matter of being subjective, where both sides are right. Can either side bring valid points? If it’s based on the truth, of course; however, if the foundation of the arguments are built on falsehoods, then there is no conversation to be held. How can anyone have a discussion when the other party has their blinders on to reality?
The voters on both sides of the issue care deeply about their point of view. Pro-choicers (pro-abortionists) have their reasons for the right to an abortion, while pro-lifers (anti-abortionists) have their reasons for outlawing it. Personally, it is no secret where I stand on the issue. I do not apologize for my stance, either. Abortion is a barbaric practice that forces death based on existence. I’m enthusiastic that Roe was overturned, and I hope to see a complete abolishment of this practice nationwide. I have notice many Christians and Conservatives apologizing for their beliefs since this ruling. There is no reason to apologize, nor cower to avoid confrontation. If someone genuinely believes in the right to exist, then the other side needs to know. This is something pro-choicers have succeeded in—there is no confusion as to how they feel about the procedure, without apology. It is this transparency that will allow both sides to have authentic conversations that can work towards achieving *real* peace. That said, the conversations will go nowhere if we lose sight of our humanity.
Voters on both ends are made up of flawed human beings. Their intentions are not out of malice. Granted, there are militants for both the pro-life and pro-choice groups, and I’ve seen some depraved pro-choice advocates; however, most Americans are torn on how to approach this subject. Most Americans understand that there are two human beings to consider: the mother and the child. People have different experiences that have led to their conclusions on the subject. I’ve shared mine, but someone could have the same exact story and have a contrasting conclusion as to how they feel about abortion. It is important to listen to why and how someone came to their position. And it’s okay to be passionate, provoke thought, and challenge ideas while discussing with your dissenter; but it becomes problematic when the passion turns into hostility for the other side because they don’t agree. It’s even worse when the hostility is turned towards someone who may have *not* decided how they feel about abortion yet!
This is a third side to consider: the person who hasn’t reached a conclusion on the subject. There is human flesh involved; thus, it is understandable if you are reading this and do not have an opinion on the matter. And perhaps there are people who have all the information from both pro-choice and pro-life organizations, but still find themselves in the middle or undecided. That’s okay! It is not my place—nor anybody’s, for that matter—to force an opinion. Anyone who attempts to do so has lost sight of their humanity. It’s not worth having a conversation with someone who is truly bigoted. I speak much on this subject, because it is what I am passionate about; but it is your right to disagree, or to not even read what I say at all! If you do so, that is your prerogative.
The likelihood of changing a mind is slim enough as it is, without attacking someone’s character. One can be honest and get their point across while still respecting boundaries. If at any point someone doesn't feel comfortable talking about the subject, it shouldn’t be forced. But if that person is open to dialogue, the best either side can do is plant seeds. I think I am on the right side of the issue; however, there are plenty of pro-choicers who strongly disagree with me. There are even pro-lifers who’d disagree with my stance, as not many advocate for complete abolishment of the practice—that is their right. I’d like for them to change their mind! I won’t hide that. Yet, if we are going to have productive conversations, there must be boundaries: the truth must be presented, humanity must be preserved, perspective must be kept, nuance must be allowed. Americans will be in for a rough transition with this new reality. That is what I know. May God’s hand guide us in this new chapter of the post–Roe era.
Author’s Note: Anything underlined is a link for you to click on if desired. Readers are encouraged to educate themselves and seek other sources for information. Additionally, Taboo Topic will resume sending out newsletters in August effective immediately after the submission of this edition. God bless and enjoy summer.