The new abortion legislation in Alabama is making worldwide headlines as this controversial means of contraception is one of the most touchy subjects within America and beyond. However what we are seeing in this hysteria is not some sort of everyday wedge-issue bantering, but actually a crisis of Liberalism itself, which could be extremely dangerous for the future of American civilization.

In order to discuss this we need to step back from our emotions and opinions about abortion and think about what has happened systemically to lead us to this point. The crux of the current status of abortion in the US goes all the way back to the Supreme Court decision ending the Roe v. Wade case in 1973, which Wikipedia actually summarizes very well. Their article also bullet points just how insane this ruling is, revealing huge cracks in Liberalism’s facade.

“Roe v. Wade… was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

Whether you agree with abortion or not the above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How could abortion be an issue of “privacy”? When the Left and Right throw memes at each other over the internet no one is arguing this issue from the standpoint of privacy. One side says things about the right to control their body then the other screams about the rights of the unborn. There is no “privacy” debate driving pro and anti abortion activists. Reading the 14^th Amendment itself doesn’t exactly shed much light onto this either as citizens’ right to their personal affairs being kept to themselves doesn’t seem to be mentioned. This ruling has a very insider judicial (not practical or rational) mentality to it.

The official logic is that because of previous interpretations of laws in court rulings, which also seem skewed, the Supreme Court was allowed to make a ruling about abortion in terms of privacy. Common Law is an odd phenomenon indeed. Yes, this issue which is fundamental part of Human Rights to both sides of the argument is legally interpreted the way it is because of some long string of “if-then” statements from other rulings not 100% not necessarily directly related to abortion.

When you stop and take a breath you realize that this is insane. Going further…

“However, it (The Supreme Court) ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and protecting prenatal life.”

It is a shame that a Liberal system can only contain constitutions filled with legalese and not any fundamental philosophical documents because the Declaration of Independence tells us that the rights of Americans are sacred and “endowed by their Creator” which are also “inalienable”. In this context how can a court say you have a partial right to something? No matter your stance on abortion how can human rights be “iffy”, and why does the government’s interests weigh against this right? In a Liberal system the rights of the Individual are supposed to be sacred, how can the government’s desire to “help out” be a factor?

And in conclusion they wrote…

“The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: the Court ruled that during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely…”

If abortion is a right then why does timing matter? Should freedom of speech go away at night? Should the army be allowed to quarter troops in your home so long as it is during working hours? From a logical standpoint, this is nuts.

Our view on abortion is one of the most core political beliefs of any individual. Our stance on abortion makes a bold statement about how we see the nature and meaning of life and the priorities of society. That is why this is and always will be a hot-button/wedge issue, but the cold bureaucratic nature of Liberalism, cannot provide an answer to this question.

Liberalism can’t make a bold declaration about the meaning of life other than we are all equal individuals with equal rights. But when applied to this case that puts the rights of the individual woman against the unborn and like a broken computer game the system locks up when faced with this contradiction of whose rights are more equal.

This is potentially very dangerous to American society as the very meaning or value of life is in debate within a system that forbids philosophical and ideological concepts to become a part of it (other than Individualism). The issue of slavery fell into this sort of intellectual quagmire for decades until it was settled by violence that severely wounded but thankfully did not kill off American civilization.

The Liberal approach of purely technocratic laws and rulings being stacked one atop another while any sort of philosophy, sacredness or spirit is proving with time to be a massive flaw. The fact that the fundamental issue of abortion remains a mess, based on legal bizarre reasoning derived from a long list of if-then statements from rulings in the past should be a call to put Liberalism itself on trail.

In the women’s rights vs. unborn’s rights there is no way out of the feedback loop, but what would be a better for the future of the nation? Which of these options seems more “American”? Which one would the founding fathers have chosen? These are all legitimate ways of looking at law from a philosophical standpoint but as of now they cannot be used because the system does not allow it.

Having a deep national divide about one of the most fundamental issues in human society is not good for America’s stability. Having different flavors of a vision for the nation is fine but this philosophical divide is too deep to be ignored but cannot be addressed by the current nature of the system.