Abortion, gay marriage, gun control, affirmative action or any other issue that has a support or do not support stance have a common problem. This essay will use the issue of abortion contrasted to the game of Jenga to focus on a destruction that occurs and is overlooked in the passionate fight for what is right or wrong, fair or unfair and yet, sincerely fought with respect to inalienable rights. In a country where people pledge allegiance as "one nation under God, indivisible, with libery and justice for all", unity is at risk of estrangement when definitions change through newly developed interpretations. The destruction, how ever, is a potential result of all the above mentioned issues and is the main focus of this essay, not the issues themselves. Therefore, there will be no argument for or against any issue but an interesting warning pertaining to them all.
For any society to successfully exist it is important to create laws. When implemented, these laws protect citizens from mayhem that would occur if they were not in place. Simple laws that deal with murder,adultery, stealing and lying instill boundaries that protect life, family, possessions, honesty and integrity. A boundary is a designated point that when crossed out of or into constitutes a violation. Action must be taken to protect the purpose for which the boundary was created or it will dissipate and become void. Most of the time the action is one to extend the border to include more area in the name of fairness and tolerance, however, this action should be utilized with caution. There is wisdom in acknowledging that to extend a boundary can sometimes create too wide of an area, and the sheer number of those it is protecting becomes so massive that the protection of all begins to be compromised because of the change.
When laws are first put into place, they can be likened to the tower of individual blocks of wood stacked on top of one another in the game of Jenga. Each layer of blocks alternates their direction from the previous layer in order to create strength, so that when the tower is finished or the law is created it is a firm and sturdy beacon. It is a warning or a guiding ensign that can clearly be seen because of its solidarity and understood because of its simplistic black and white construction. In its infancy because it is black and white, to destroy the law outright would be to reveal a desire to replace right with wrong, good with evil, or justice with injustice. If the sole intention were to destroy the law, a much more subtle plan causing the law, in the end, to destroy itself would be much more effective. It would leave us blindly deceived and wondering what went wrong with society instead of recognizing the slow, deliberate demise of the law. Over a long period of time and without toppling the tower, slowly removing the strength-empowering individual blocks could be a hidden and covert objective leading to the inevitable self-destruction and annihilation of the law.
Let's take the tower or law regarding murder. The black and white perception of this law is that no one has the right to intentionally and maliciously take the life of another. Some may begin to argue that this cannot be a black and white issue and begin to cite situations that would constitute a gray area to consider. For instance, is abortion considered murder? One block might be removed stating abortion is not murder until the third trimester of pregnancy at which point the viability of the fetus is recognized. Another removable block could be that aborting the fetus is not murder because it is a constitutional right to have one. Within the care-taking of this tower or law, appointed judges have the ability to affirm each block that is in the process of being removed by individuals that have lost sight of black and white in the endless pursuit of gray. The judges affirmation creates the redefining of what constitues murder and removes a block that generates a gray area. The boundary is extended to protect the woman while subtly and inconspicuously it eliminates the fetus. This extention of the law weakens the tower when it comes to the original strength of protecting life, which is a black and white area. The black and white fuses into gray as this slow process continues block by block. The law eventually falls in upon itself and we see murder in all its grayness being committed without a single law in place to stop it. The boundary is extended so that its protection of life is non-existent for those it would have protected in the past.
In Jenga, as individual blocks are removed the eventual fall of the tower is inevitable and the person who removes the block that collapses the tower is the loser. The winner has nothing but the claim that they didn't directly cause the fall. Both winner and loser are left to wonder what the purpose in the game was if the result is the destruction of a once strong tower.
This theory can raise the same questions when analytically compared to laws. It promotes awareness that although there are no perfect laws, we must be careful not to remove solid definitions and interpretations that would ultimately lead to the destruction of those laws. Does one support abortion or not? That's not the point here. The point is whether we understand what the law is trying to protect and not lose sight of it as we consider what it does or does not preside over. Are we protecting the supports that maintain strong laws or are we removing supports that will eventually destroy them?
In the news where it is reported daily that murder is not murder, stealing is not stealing and a whole host of other lack of law paradoxes thrive, we better wake up and consider the fact that the destruction of the law could have been the purpose of the game. There is an inherit evil in the world today that has been in existence since the world began. Its sole purpose is to impede our acquiring the knowledge that protection of choice lies within certain boundaries. By extending the boundaries the protection of choice can slowly be eliminated quite simply through too much environ between good and evil, or too much gray between black and white.
Thus, we have the Jenga theory. A theory is considered proven only after facts and results back up the hypothesis for a specified amount of time. If the Jenga theory proves to be right, the scarey outcome is that the tower will fall into a pile of unorganized, grayish hued interpretations that only serve to contradict each other. This scenario promotes no other option except having to sacrifice one to protect another resulting in no solid protection for all. The real objective of destroying the law is either never realized or because of pride purposely ignored. The confusion leaves us to ponder how we got ourselves into the mess and hides from the ignorant players the hidden victory. The anarchy also conceals the strategy of the enemy, thus assuring its use on other towers in the future. Hopefully, amid all the chaos it will not be too late for us to blindly stumble and sift through the gray to find black and white to begin building again. Oh well, while we are waiting, anyone up for a game of Jenga?
