prophets and bald heads

Netflix documentary “Reversing Roe” provides an overview of the political history surrounding abortion in the US. While trying to capture the views of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates, it is clear the documentary is made with a bias against pro-life views. While abortion is commonly thought of as a medical issue in other countries, it has become an issue of politics, religion, and women’s rights in the US. 

What’s most interest to me is the choice of words regarding the terminology of “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. In my opinion, more fitting terms for “pro-life” would be “anti abortion”, “pro birth”, or even “pro forced birth”. I think the Republican party could care less about the child after it is born. Ironically, The Trump administration was asking Congress to approve a $7 billion reduction to the Children's Health Insurance Program as part of a package to cut a range of previously agreed upon federal spending. Mentioned in “Reversing Roe”, what’s also ironic is the fact that the Republican party used to be pro choice up until Ronald Reagan’s presidency. 

The conversion of the Republican party from pro life to pro choice happened during Reagan’s presidency as part of his political strategy to establish a link between religion and the pro life movement. I think it is interesting to examine the differences between the way China and the US view abortion.In the US, abortion is often an issue of religion and human rights, more specifically, women’s rights. But in China, it’s not an issue of rights but an issue of law and order. China only ever thought of abortion as a measure to control population and productivity. After the Communist Party rose to power in 1949, the government was initially against abortion because it thought it needed more people to boost the country’s productivity. However, they quickly changed course and reversed its restrictions on abortion, believing that productivity was not able to keep up with the rapidly growing population. In the US, vocal opponents of abortion have been from religious associations. But in China, ruled by an atheist party, arguments against abortion on the basis of faith have never played a big role in the public discourse. I believe religion is a psychological phenomenon and people project onto their abstract deity whatever they feel is right. Religious texts are riddled with contradictions and absurdities that do not hold true in reality, yet individuals like politicians conveniently select pieces of information they can strategically use to brainwash the public. It is absurd to me that people use religion as justification for the creation of certain laws. People select content from religious texts that only benefit themselves, because fundamentally, people are driven by self interest. If all religious text was taken literally, then if you made fun of a prophet’s bald head, you’d get mauled to death by a bear! Maybe there should be a law against making fun of prophets’ bald heads. Maybe that’s the bigger issue here.