Editor’s Note: This article was first published at Poor Roger’s Almanac on Sept. 08, 2022.

Just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean that it is wrong and, conversely, because something is legal doesn’t mean that it is right. Legality is a question of law. Morality is a question of ethics. Sometimes they mesh, quite often they don’t.

Cue the abortion debate.

Legally speaking, women have never had so much freedom to end their pregnancies as they have right now. Laws have been (and are being) enacted which guarantee women the legal right to choose an abortion to end a pregnancy without interference from anyone else, without fear of prosecution and punishment from the law.

However, this issue has not (and will not) disappear from public view because, for every legal argument in favor of abortion, there is a moral argument against it. Society is split on this issue. Cultures are divided with one side vociferously in favor of the “right to choose” against another which vigorously promotes the “right to life”. One side of the issue sneers at the moral argument, while the other side condemns the legal point of view.

The way things stand now, it is reminiscent of trench warfare in WWI, during which millions of men fought for years without gaining any decisive advantage over the opposing side. This stalemate persisted until a new tactic was introduced (with fresh infusions of troops from the US) to overrun the status quo and end the war. The first half of the war, that is, because the Versailles Treaty only signaled a 20 year intermission between Act 1 and Act 2. WWI became WW2, which was far worse.

One major difference between the trenches in WWI and the battleground of abortion on demand is that millions of soldiers died miserable deaths defending “their” cold, wet, muddy turf. The soldiers were there by their own volition, even though they were ordered to kill or be killed. They had a say in the matter. They could “do” something to change their situation. They could have refused to participate. Today, millions of unborn innocents die miserable deaths without any chance or possibility of defending the warm, wet, natural space which they find themselves in. Unborn children are completely helpless and can do nothing to save themselves. Even the innocent civilians who did not actively participate in the destruction of WW1, but were slaughtered due to the vagaries of the conflict, could, at the very least make an attempt to get out of the line of fire. Unborn children do not have that option. They are completely helpless and can do nothing to save themselves.

What is the solution to this intractable impasse? Is there a solution? Well, of course, that depends on your own moral and political viewpoint. You might want to see unfettered access to abortion without reserve or distinction. You might want to see the complete opposite where women are forced to carry to term even if her life is in danger or the unborn infant is hideously deformed. Is there any middle ground which can be agreed upon even though we might have to hold our nose to stay there?

Maybe we can start by re-humanizing the unborn instead of relegating them to the status of ‘non-persons’. After all, they are unquestionably human.

“There are two aspects of the abortion debate we need to be concerned about in determining the definition of an unborn child: biological and political. Humanity and person-hood are two different things and we must be careful not to confuse them.” — https://make-difference.life/2019/05/19/the-political-scientific-divide-of-abortion/

“From the moment of conception, a human being exists within the womb–zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus—right up to the point of the delivery as a newborn baby. At every stage of development, this is a live human being. Whether he is a person or not doesn’t matter. Whether she has rights or not is irrelevant. He is a human being. She is a human being. Abortion is a procedure which literally kills a human being. Abortion has probably killed hundreds of millions of human beings in the 20th century alone.” — https://make-difference.life/2019/03/03/without-question-the-beginning-of-human-life/

Considering that many, perhaps most, of the abortions done today are in the privacy of a woman’s home via pharmaceutical means, i.e., “morning-after pill, RU486, etc., it is going to be impossible to completely eliminate the practice. Zealous interference in the marketplace to stop the manufacture, distribution, and use of these medications will only result in substantial black market dealings, much like the current situation with already illegal drugs. Besides, passing laws does not eliminate problems, it only changes the focus and the circumstances. Legal prohibition of “morning-after” ingestion will not improve the situation. It will only drive it underground.

What can be done, however, is the route many states are taking in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Health Center Supreme Court ruling which threw the issue back to the states to regulate–partial or complete banning of surgical abortions which involve a third-party who wields the scalpel or the vacuum hose, resulting in the death of the unborn human being. To my way of thinking, this is the preferred direction we should go as a community. Rather than trying to eliminate every single case of abortion (which cannot be done and is a waste of precious time and energy), we should simply shut down the killing centers (Planned Parenthood, et al) into which two people enter but only one comes out alive. Weld the doors shut, if necessary. We should start putting real teeth into laws which prosecute doctors, nurses, technicians, assistants, and associated others who operate (prey?) on the women who avail themselves of the ‘services’. There is probably no way to destroy the pharmaceutical aspect of privately individual abortion, but we certainly can shut down all the butcher shops which are open to the public in plain view of God and Man.

[Editor’s Note: This article was first published on another blog I write to regularly on Oct. 24, 2021, in opposition to the looming Covid mandatory injections. I do not call them vaccines. You can see the original here. ]

Question: How do you instantly turn a beautiful, young woman into an ugly, raging monster?

Answer: Show her this sign.

This is guaranteed to work if she is an ardent believer in “women’s reproductive rights”, a.k.a., abortion on demand. She may be many other things as well, but fervent support of abortion is usually sufficient to turn the trick.

I was with a group of others this morning, Saturday, October 23, 2021, on a street corner in Missoula, MT publicly protesting the Covid regimen being forced upon us by the “powers that be” (whomever that might be all the way from local to international). Some of us have been meeting regularly in Missoula since mid-May sparking conversation with people about this issue, engaging successfully in spirited debates from all sides of the spectrum. We have also been subjected to numerous insults, sneers, vulgar gestures and comments, and even sincere expressed wishes that we would catch Covid and die from it. Usually, these are made as the commenter drives or walks by without bothering to stop and talk with us in a rational manner. We are used to it. It goes with the territory.

But I wander. Back to Saturday.

Soon after we arrived and were set up, a young, good-looking woman rolled up on her bicycle and asked me (I was closest) whether we extended the message of the above slogan to a woman’s “right” to abortion. I responded to her by saying that I firmly supported every woman’s right to become pregnant if she wanted to. At this, Bicycle Girl’s demeanor changed instantly, a scowl appeared on her face, and she shouted, “Go f**k yourself!”, as she peddled furiously away.

This is not an uncommon occurrence.

The slogan (and others like it) simply drive these people into frenzied fits of rage. It would seem logical that someone who had such strong feelings about personal bodily autonomy would also support that autonomy when it comes to forced injections of the Pfizer/Moderna/J&J type, but this does not appear to hold true. Since they refuse to talk logically and explain their rationale, I am forced to conclude that they probably fully support forcing others to get the Covid jab, whether they want it or not.

They want to be able to control their bodies, but they do not want you to claim that same power over yours. They are not willing to extend that “right” to anyone else who promotes a philosophy which they disagree with. They hate it when we co-opt their slogans and statements, using them in ways which are NOT acceptable, and they hate us for doing exactly that. They are filled with hatred, and they let it show. Furiously.

They are also hypocrites who cannot abide having their hypocrisy revealed. At this point, however, there is nothing they can do about it except to vent their spleen, which may make them feel better, but does absolutely nothing at all to correct the situation. If they really wanted to make it right, they would have to admit their wrongs, change the way they think, and change their behavior, which they are not willing to do.

Perhaps, though, we should think about it this way.

• For the abortionist, “My body, my choice” means she can do whatever she wants with her body and no one else has any right or moral authority to say otherwise. There is an easy way to turn this argument against them, though, because all that is necessary is to mention that when a woman is pregnant there are two bodies involved, not one, and one of those bodies is not hers. She has no right to determine what happens to the body of the unborn child. It is not her body.

Abortion, plainly and simply, is an act of violent aggressive behavior toward another unique, living human being.

• For the person resisting the Jab, it is a matter of self-defense. “No, you are not going to stick that needle into my arm nor force me into a situation of which I do not approve. My body, my choice.” It is my choice whether I get The Shot and no one has the right or authority to tell me otherwise. To force me to undergo the injection (I refuse to call it a vaccine) is, in principle, no different than forcing an unborn child to submit to an abortion. Both are done against the will of the weaker party, who bears the full brunt of the pain and suffering.

Aggression vs. self-defense. My body, my choice. It could not be more clear than that.

To Make a Difference has been a good experience for me (hopefully for you, as well), but it is time to call it quits. This will be the last time I post here and, at the present time, I do not intend to pick it up again.

I started posting in March on another blog about the corona virus, the hysterical fear and panic within the general public, and the heavy-handed edicts (lockdowns, face mask mandates, etc.) from various government officials who have taken advantage of it. Since that time, the work has grown and evolved until it is now taking up a very large part of my free time and there doesn’t appear to be any letup in sight. I have to let something go. Sorry to say, To Make a Difference is the victim of circumstance.

Abortion, as we know it, has been with us for a long time and is so pervasive throughout society that we have generally become accustomed to it. This does not mean that we can ignore the practice, but in reality at the present, it is not a threat to our way of life. That it kills millions of unborn babies every year throughout the world is a fact of life which we should continue to oppose and work to eliminate. Yet, if abortion does continue as it has over the last fifty years in America, nothing substantially devastating will change within our society.

The corona virus episode is different. It poses a very real threat to our lives, our liberties, and our relationships. If the virus is as deadly as it is claimed to be, then many of us are in mortal danger and we should be taking all precautions against it. If it is not and we have been fed a pack of lies, then all of us stand to lose the civil rights which we have enjoyed for decades and centuries.

To me, the immediate, existential danger to our society, our health, and our liberty is the Covid crisis. Because of that belief, I am putting down everything which is not “essential” and focusing on that. Once (when, if) the Corona Monster is in the rearview mirror and rapidly receding into the past, I may come back to the abortion issue. I cannot say. I do not know what is going to happen.

Nevertheless, your support has been valuable. I wish you all well and encourage you to keep the faith. As believers in the Gospel and disciples of Jesus the Christ, we have hope that all this will be brought under His control.

If you are interested in reading my thoughts on the Covid-19 matter, then simply click here. Comments are encouraged and will always be answered.

Thank you.

If there still remained any question about the insanity of the Corona Thing, the issue of abortion should resolve that. Our society has gone full-blown mad.

Since the rationale for the heavy-handed lockdown by governments everywhere has been touted and promoted as necessary for our “safety”, a person could be forgiven for thinking that the killing centers known as “abortion facilities” would also be shuttered. After all, how can anyone maintain a “social distance” of at least six feet and still invade the womb of a woman in order to destroy the unborn human being growing with that womb? Or conversely, how can the woman “social distance” if she allows very close, intimate, and physical contact with other persons? The obvious answer is that she can’t. They can’t. And yet, if you were to think that the procedure should be, at the very least, postponed until the virus runs its course, you would be mistaken.

In Texas, a federal judge in Texas with a long history of siding with abortion advocates ruled that Texas abortion centers can defy the governor’s order to stop non-essential medical procedures instead of helping coronavirus patients by conserving medical resources during the pandemic.

Alabama: Alabama stopped abortions under its non-essential order until April 13th but a judge ruled the state can’t infringe on the so-called “right” to abortion. The judge also ruled that killing babies is somehow “essential” if abortion centers think so. Alabama is appealing the decision.

Apparently, even though state governors have shut down virtually all “non-essential” commerce and activity, some judges have decided that abortion centers can be exempt from that. After all, if a woman wants to abort her unborn child, then to postpone that action is to create undue “hardship” on her, since it might cause complications. Complications to the woman, that is, it says nothing at all about the baby.

Let me get this straight. Our economy has been shut down. We have gone into, basically, a system of house arrest for much of the country and the world. All this is done preemptively because some people might die from the corona virus. Supposedly, the focus of the whole exercise is to save lives, regardless as to how much inconvenience it causes to those who have been subjected to it. We’re all in this together, right? Well, not exactly. The killers of unborn children have been given carte blanche to continue as usual.

Work in a restaurant, bar, hair salon, exercise gym, clothing store, gun shop, etc., to support your family? Stop! Right now!! The world needs your sacrifice in order to win this war!!! Work in an abortion facility? Carry on! Abortion is an “essential” part of life and it is necessary that a woman’s “rights” be preserved intact.

Question: If all our other “rights” can be abrogated so easily, then why does the “right” to an abortion have to be maintained? Answer: Because it fits an agenda. It doesn’t have to be logical or correct, but it does have to follow the narrative.

It would seem proper that, since the focus of all the recent events has been to save lives, then the most vulnerable among us would also be included. The fact that they are not simply underscores the depths of our depravity.