Blue or Brown? One hell of a question!

Today's sermon is not meant to be preachy.  I, at my peril, will touch on the abortion issue in Canada.  I do not want to take a side on the issue but rather to talk about the process and the possible relevance of the Rule of Unintended Consequences to the issue.

Allow me to start with a story.  Two men had erectile dysfunction.  One overcame the problem with Viagra and the other thought that he was being punished by God so he chose not to take the little blue pill.  The first man was happy and the second suffered through his pain.  This is a story of choice.  The first man had a choice and chose the pill.  The second had a choice and chose no pill.  With me so far?

An overzealous politician did not like the idea of the little blue pill so he passed a law banning it.  Now let's look at the forgoing scenario with this new law.

Two men had erectile dysfunction.  One was frustrated when he found out that he could not get a medication to cure the problem,  He was not happy. The other didn't want the pill so he was no worse off.  The result?  Both men suffered through their pain and neither was happy.

When you have no law, no one can be accused of being wrong.  Having no law that blue is brown means that you have a choice as to whether, in your mind, blue is blue or blue is brown.  But when you have a law that states that blue is brown - you have no choice other than to break the law if you wish to say that blue is blue.

So what does this mean with respect to abortion?  With no law in place, women have a choice to have an abortion or not.  With a law against abortion, no one has a choice.

Sermon finished.