BRIDGING THE ABORTION DIVIDE
A Modest Proposal for the Abortion Divide — A Political Colonoscopy
Pro-life absolutists are pinned on the tusks of a dilemma
I have detailed a blueprint for ensuring American males are personally invested in the abortion issue—by putting skin in the game, so to speak. That requires universal vasectomies in states enacting abortion bans.
Conservatism is undermining itself
The prior series of articles have shown that there must be an equitable approach to balancing pro-choice and pro-life interests in jurisdictions enacting abortion bans. If American contra-liberals (i.e., conservatives) fail to do so, they become the patriarchal kissing cousins of the Taliban: What is deemed good for the goose is not required of the ….
So equality under the law poses this critical question: If self-identifying conservatives seem obliged to regulate the sauces simmering within female loins, should they not, with equal clarity of conscience, be willing to control the sauces stewing in male groins?
If not, how does any male gander at his bathroom mirror without being poked by his conscience? How does the polar right avoid being pinned on the horns of a dilemma? Or to acknowledge the elephant in the room —pinned on the tusks of GOP hypocrisy?
Hence, the conservative temperament compels contras to advance the pro-life argument by moving it in reverse — to the earliest determinants of life.
Contras cannot argue that the life in male genitals does not have personhood, simply because it has not joined with a female egg. That position would be as contrived as the distinction between embryonic life worth protecting and that which is a clump to be removed. Thus, the logic requires bans on male masturbation, as well as universal vasectomies.
Speaking metaphorically, we males must walk the post-Roe desert alongside the American women who are subject to abortion bans — jointly pulling the camel’s reins behind us. Or, alternatively, we both can choose to ride the camel’s hump.
Yet chivalry suggests if the weight of both is too burdensome for that quadruped, a gentleman should volunteer to dismount and be the one to walk, while pulling that beast and its passenger across the sands.
So, please do not tell me that chivalry is dead.
What then does it really mean to be a contra-liberal? We should know whether today’s purported conservatives can be considered worthy of the name. They clearly are not liberals. But might other ideologies attempt to hitch a ride on conservatism’s camel?
Pro-life impostors in the robes of contra-liberals might actually be anarchists, communists, or foreign-funded subversives hoping to stoke internal discord within a divided USA. Or are they, perhaps, wild-eyed fundamentalists with visions of a holy conflagration — one that would be the envy of that 17th-century religious war that lasted for thirty years on Europe’s soil?
Or they just may CYNICALLY wear their politics as a mask!
Do they veil an intent to own the sense of pleasure from imposing their personal values on the world? Of holding the flower of womanhood in their hands? Is their façade nothing more than a will to power: deep-rooted drives that think in terms of dominance?
Sound familiar? This obsession is otherwise known as “owning the libs.”
A self-administered colonoscopy of conservatism
I draw again upon my earlier research of the pillars of the conservative ideology. To help explore the true tenor of one’s political intent, I submit this five-part checklist for probing whether pro-life advocates are truly conservative.
In contrast, they simply could be resurrected Puritans from the 17th century (without the Salem witch trials*) and, thus, inconsistent with a secular republic:
*Although Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would likely disagree — about the absence of witch trials.
1) Tradition
Conservatives are slow to break with traditions as they consider them the accumulated wisdom of trials and experiments of the past — legacies which provide continuity of expectations.
Do you unflinchingly support absolute bans on abortion? Do you also wish to ban contraceptives? If so, how do you reconcile this dogmatic rigor with a precedent of individual choice that had existed — as tradition — for nearly fifty years?
2) Transcendent higher authority
Conservatives believe in a transcendent higher authority, which they consider the ultimate source of human morality and Western laws.
Nonetheless, were you bewitched to vote for a twice-impeached politician who is the most corruptible president in American history? If you did, how do you reconcile your moral values with your creator — in the face of his multi-year audition for the role of the Antichrist?
3) Human imperfection
Conservatives believe that humans are imperfect in rationality — morally, psychologically, and intellectually.
Are you willing to impose your own particular judgment of human existence upon the public, thereby appointing yourself with absolute knowledge of the truth? Are you denying even the possibility of your own intellectual imperfection?
4) Authority of the state
Conservatives also embrace the authority of the state as a necessary foundation for law and order.
Are you at all supportive of the invasion of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th? Then how do you justify the assaults on capitol police and the wanton desecration of the nation’s seat of government?
5) Personal responsibility
Lastly, authentic conservatives encourage personal responsibility.
So, if you frown on social programs for low-income households and other features of the welfare state, are you insisting that maidens and wives of meager incomes carry every pregnancy to term — even if it kills them — thereby advancing cycles of entrenched poverty?
If you additionally support abortion bans with no exceptions for incest or rape, including the example of a 10-year-old girl, then answer this: Why empower the rapist and disempower his young victim whose life will be disemboweled?
The results of this examination will reveal the tumorous character of a person’s purported conservatism. And legislators should review this checklist before voting to enact, amend, or repeal abortion bans.
To punctuate this discussion, I express my empathy for any conservatives who now may be suffering identity crises. They obviously cannot become liberals. And they may be afraid of being ostracized by colleagues, party factions, and even friends.
Like Cheney and Kinzinger, they smell the fire burning around the stake.
Nonetheless, there is a fire extinguisher. That notion and the conclusion of this series are presented in the next installment. The previous post (Part 8) can be accessed here.
Thanks for your attention and past claps, and I welcome your response. To follow future posts, you can press the button on the screen. — Geronimo Redstone
