After a brief debate where a vocal majority was ignored, a new law was passed which forces all pregnancy-capable girls to become expectant mothers.
Shortly after being passed, significant backlash had the law amended to allow a child's parent or guardian to elect for artificial insemination. The Catholic church has since moderated its support for this new law.
The pope was unavailable for comment, but a vocal devotee was quoted as saying
This isn't quite God's will, but it's will have to do for now.
Like other recent laws, this one did not begin at the grass-roots or cultural level. The courts were approached by a series of law firms and "corporations of faith" over a period of three weeks. The public was locked out of the proceedings when an obscure 1863 law was cited. When asked, the public was refused the details of the court case in question, as those details were also protected from public scrutiny by that same law.
Three days after the law passed, although the "blogosphere" was still buzzing, main stream media was largely ignoring its results.
Now, three months afterwards, there is a new upheaval of interest.
Worries about impact on the education and social lives of these expectant mothers are being dismissed as "unimportant". (CNN)
A population increase is obvious, as is its impact on city infrastructure. However, a boon in the workforce and an increase in spending would boost the economy. (Fox News)
The Christian Coalition, lately dubbed "the child-watcher-watchers", claims triumph over cases of child harassment.
In other news, the desperate need for pediatricians has forced the national assessment council to lower its bar for entry, requiring only a general education degree and "a keen interest in children".
Although the law is in place and is being acted upon, albeit slowly, there is still some opposition. Apologists provide an extensive list of supporting reasons for this new law, summarizing with
Being anti-abortion wasn't enough, we needed to be truly pro-life.
An brief interview was conducted with a representative of a local apologist's union.
When asked why life matters so much to force people against their will to bear children, an iron age text (a translation-of-a-translation) was produced and quote-mined extensively. Unrelated things were cited, and the speaker was a passionate fast-talker.
When asked to clarify, the idea of a deity and a soul were produced. No actual explanation of what those things are was given.
When asked for evidence of a deity and a soul, the interviewee insisted that not having evidence was better than having evidence -- that faith was a good thing, and not irrational at all. Somehow.
When told that evidence really is important, the interviewee claimed thousands of years of believers in a mistranslated and misunderstood text was "evidence". Argumentum ad populum was dismissed as "Latin propaganda". The interviewee appears ignorant that their text's most recent translation was from Latin.
When reminded that changes to laws to enforce the lawyer-majority's religious viewpoints could be used in the future to further-encroach on their own freedoms -- for example, becoming more strict or even extreme, or by being abused by another religion -- the interviewee said they weren't concerned about the future. "The world is going to end in my lifetime, honest!"
When reminded about the need for evidence the interviewee started crying and demanded we respect their beliefs. As it's now law to do so, the interview ended.
We hereby apologize. We respect people's freedom to "choose to" hold beliefs contrary to evidence.
I find it curious that people hold their own beliefs sacred and demand the protection of their beliefs, yet fight against the beliefs of others. It's contrary to say that beliefs are sacred while dismissing the beliefs of others. Then again, they hold belief in the face of contrary evidence. Doublethink.
A fertile woman is a possible pregnancy, the pregnancy must be forced? This is the same as saying a fetus is a possible life, and the pregnancy must be forced.
We don't live on possibilities. We don't walk around on sunny days with an umbrella because it's "possible" it could rain. We live based on probabilities backed by evidence, not unsupported belief and certainly not based on the "choosing to doublethink" belief of faith.
Even the faithful base their lives on facts and evidence. They eat the food, wear the clothing and live in the houses laid by the foundations of science. To deny reliance on evidence is dishonest.
If a possible-life has rights to its body, an actual life must also have rights to its body. How can a possible-life have rights in conflict with an actual-life? The actual-life must take precedence. An actual-life has earned and is owed their rights where a possible-life hasn't earned anything. An actual-life is real. A possibility is not.
A non-pregnancy doesn't have the right to manifest into a pregnancy, just a fetus doesn't have the right to manifest into a child.
Hopefully this law will be repealed soon.