Pro Choice and National Security

For a moment table the ethical, religious, and moral debates surrounding the pro-life / pro-choice debate. For a moment, try and take a look at the issue as a pure legality, an event that is either lawful or not. If you can take a pause and do that, consider an oddity I've recently come across.

In the 1960's a handler by the name of Clarridge obtained and handed off abortion pills to a Polish trade official named Adamski. The motivation behind the Adamski's choice was based on a forced repatriation back to Poland to have their child, something neither wanted to do. Because of the legalities involved, a handler was able to enlist a spy.

In the 1950's a GRU officer named Pyotr Popov was a walk in (or perhaps drop in, as the contact was via planted envelope) for the CIA. Though his motivations may have been complex Frederick Hitz cites in "The Great Game" that Popov's immediate need was money for an abortion.

There are a great many cases of recruitment that do not involve such a charged topic. However, it seemed interesting that if one were so inclined, they could make the argument that legal, affordable abortion is a matter of national security.

Someone might stand up in Congress and say something like, "There is documented case evidence that this particular activity, above the current social stigma, if made illegal would provide leverage to the enemies of this State for the purpose of recruiting otherwise trusted citizens."

If you find that a reasonable statement, take pause. Conspiracy theories aside, the idea that something regarding life, religion, and choice could be rolled up into National Security conversations with a reasonable statement should cause you to look at other rhetoric.

What would be the true increase or decrease to national security if Roe v. Wade were overturned? How about any other arguments that are made working backwards from the method. And that's the key.

As long as you buy arguments formed cause -> method -> effect therefor !method -> !effect, then you will by definition always be reactive and myopic. An attacking force will always look for the lowest cost method to achieve their goals. There may have been many other ways to achieve the same result for a determined attacker.

From liquids on a plane, to having your phone calls recorded, to having your web surfing proxied by your company, or your ISP. Just because the arguments given are reasonably phrased, ask yourself if they rational and proactive? Or is someone trying to put together an argument based on limited data points that you shouldn't buy.

It's every citizen's responsibility to look at these arguments of security critically. Furthermore, it would be irresponsible and Machiavellian to allow a false argument to carry your cause to victory. How you win is just as important as winning itself. Why? Maybe tomorrow the argument you set precedent for is used against, rather than for you.