Here’s what a REAL “fundamental transformation” looks like, Part One
On Thursday, Korea’s Constitutional Court struck down the country’s long-standing abortion law and handed the responsibility of writing a new law to Moon Jae-in’s Marxist-leaning government. This was merely the latest in a remarkable series of radical changes to Korea’s political and economic norms undertaken since Moon assumed office in May 2017. The socialist juggernaut is running roughshod over every aspect of Korean society, with the intention of creating an essentially and irreversibly new Korea within five years. The Marxists are succeeding.
When Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” America, many conservatives thought this a frightening declaration, foolishly imagining their nation had not already been transformed at the foundational level, through a century of progressive incrementalism. Americans who want to see what a real fundamental transformation in the Marxist style would look like, if undertaken by a single presidential administration, should look at South Korea.
Korea was one of the few remaining advanced nations in which abortion was (barring the usual health/rape/incest exceptions) illegal. On Thursday, the Constitutional Court declared the 66-year-old abortion ban “unconstitutional.” Specifically, the judges determined that the current laws “infringe on the basic rights of pregnant women by essentially forcing pregnancy and childbirth.”
Restricting abortion equals “forcing pregnancy and childbirth”? Yes, that is how far progressive thought has separated mankind from common sense and the most elementary moral reasoning. Choosing a course of action, but then not liking the consequences of that action, now constitutes being “forced” to accept those consequences. The Korean court has basically ruled against adult responsibility regarding the laws of Nature, i.e., rational thought.
If I decide to jump off a cliff because I think flying looks exciting, and then realize halfway down that the other likely consequences of jumping are much less desirable than the flying part, I cannot simply pretend I didn’t jump. A court cannot declare the laws of gravity unconstitutional, on the grounds that the outcome those laws impose, such as being splattered on the rocks below, are tantamount to “forcing a man to die.” No, I forced myself to die by choosing to jump off a cliff, whether I explicitly wished for that particular outcome or not.
Here is the twisted justification that the court tried to pass off as a constitutional argument:
While recognizing the government’s responsibility to protect the right to life of a fetus, the majority said the anti-abortion law “excessively limits [a] pregnant woman’s right to self-determination” and “violates the principle of balance by awarding unilateral and absolute superiority to protection of [a] fetus’s life.”
How can the right to life of a fetus be protected simultaneously with declaring that a woman’s self-determination is violated by a ban on abortion? As for the claim that the law violated “the principle of balance” by “awarding unilateral and absolute superiority to protection of [a] fetus’s life,” what can this possibly mean in practice but that the life of the child is no longer to receive “absolute” protection under Korean law? What would a “balanced” view of the right to life look like? The ruling directly sets pregnant women up against their own babies, as competing rights holders. In any conflict — that is, whenever a woman decides she doesn’t want her baby after all — whose rights are going to be granted override power now? Will the results look anything like “balance”?
In practice, the court simply decided that women have the right to abort a child, plainly and completely overriding the right to life of the fetus, and therefore that any law preventing abortion is inherently a violation of women’s rights. This is about as clear an example of “legislating from the bench” as you will ever get. The judges simply interpreted the “rights” phraseology of the Korean constitution to mean whatever radical feminists claim it should mean.
Click on the link to the article cited above, if you want to see a photo of the “protesters” cheering on this decision outside the court building. Look at them. They are the same type you will see at similar “protests” around the world. Angry, hateful, homely, screaming for their “rights,” by which they mean the right to kill, to destroy, to take charge, to resist everything they identify with men and “the patriarchy”; above all, to resist reality and the responsibilities and social outcomes of the choices they make, which in effect means to resist choice.
And to resist choice (rational decision-making, with every consequence that entails) is to resist human life itself. These “protesters,” like the elected Marxist heroes whose bidding they are doing with their angry radicalism, are overgrown children, throwing temper tantrums against reality, stamping their feet in defiance of life and the soul — which means in defiance of themselves. They are a flock looking for a pen. Moon Jae-in is giving them what they want: Death, slavery, the protection of their childish will-to-irresponsibility.
The above was meant to be the introduction to a broader discussion of what the current Moon government is doing to Korea — my chosen home and the land where I earn my living — and to its people and their future. I have decided to turn this essay into a series, to be continued in the coming days, mainly because the topic is giving me a headache and nausea. I need to take a rest. Progressivism is making me sick.
