As everyone has likely come to realize by now, there are only a few kitchen table issues more polarizing and divisive than the issue of abortion. This is hardly a new challenge, though, as cases like Roe v. Wade, which occurred as far back as 1973, show without a glimmer of doubt that the country has struggled to take a definitive and decisive stance on this matter. It’s not shocking that, as a result of the different reactions talk of abortion is almost always guaranteed to trigger, it has become a heavily politicized affair in recent times. And, with elections just around the corner, it’s hardly any surprise that discussions on this matter have once again reached a feverish pitch.
On the one hand, we have incumbent vice president Kamala Harris, who is promising to support abortion protection. This is one of the few issues that the Biden/Harris administration hasn’t flip-flopped aggressively on, and they went as far as signing an executive order to ensure that women can always get access to abortions, even after the Supreme Court took the position that it did in 2022. On the other hand, is former president Donald Trump, who is vying for a second, non-consecutive term in office. At the core of Trump’s clamor is one simple message; leave the decision of what to do about abortions to each individual state.
Needless to say, whoever makes it into office will push for their ideology and the rest of us will likely have to live with that decision, no matter what it might be. This makes it all the more imperative that we ensure that we vote in someone whose manner of thinking tallies with our best interests. For us to do that though, we need to establish who has the right idea here and who’s slightly off the mark.
To put it simply, while Biden’s move to protect women’s right to an abortion is noble on several levels, it is ultimately quite misguided. This is because it takes a standalone approach to addressing the issue of abortion protection. Biden is choosing to ignore (or simply not account for the fact that), like all social issues, whatever decisions we make and pull for with abortion can have pretty far-reaching effects on society.
Naturally, Trump’s position on this issue isn’t without its potential shortcomings. However, the one thing that it’s got going for it is that it puts the people – those who are directly and indirectly going to bear the brunt of this decision – first. Trump undisputedly has the right idea here because the man understands something that many people in the country aren’t yet alive to. Trump knows that while the 50 states in America may be bound by one flag, room simply must be made for the idiosyncrasies that make up each individual region.
Trump understands succinctly that we must embrace our differences so we can be truly united. This is why it is so vital, so crucial, that a decision as significant as abortion protection shouldn’t be forced on the entire country. Instead, it should be something that is decided at a state level. This isn’t to say that there won’t be a huge difference of opinion regardless. However, when the decision is made closer to home, it’ll be able to properly reflect the wishes of the vast majority of that region.
Let’s consider a couple of things along those lines so we can get a better picture of why Trump’s method of approach simply works here.
Now, if we are going to categorize any federal law on abortion, we can say that it’ll fall under malum prohibitum (a statutory wrong), not malum in se (an inherent wrong). This means that how the issue of abortion itself is addressed is a function of how it is perceived, not a function of it being a crime or an established wrong.
With this in mind, it needs to be said that religion is undoubtedly one of the biggest lenses through which the act of abortion is viewed. And, as you would expect with a nation that is as big and as diverse as the United States of America, there are many religions and many teachings that people may choose to or not to follow. This means that how people perceive abortion morally can vary greatly.
Case in point, the religious profile of New York is considerably different from that of Texas. While the former does in fact, have a fair number of believers, those figures pale in comparison to that of the latter. So, if, for example, the president were to force no-abortion policies on the country, more people in Texas would most likely find this much more acceptable when compared to those in New York. The reverse applies if it’s abortion protection that was being forced down everyone's throats.
In light of this, why not let New Yorkers pick, practice and enforce the abortion protection policies that work for them while Texans do things their way? This manner of approach is hardly novel as it’s been used to address several other issues currently. America is big enough to accommodate these divergent stances without one conflicting directly with the other.
Trump’s approach to this situation perfectly espouses the true spirit of democracy – letting the people decide what is best for them, not assuming that you are in the right and nearly half of the country doesn’t know what they are saying.
Trump very likely doesn’t have it all figured out. However, on the issue of abortion, his solution is perhaps the only way that most Americans can reach any peaceful resolution.
