There is an enormous difference between vaccination and premeditated murder. To compare the two and call it a "terrible ideological inconsistency" is abhorrent. The key point you miss here, and every other pro-choice individual is missing is that the choice regarding bodily autonomy in pregnancy is made well before conception. That choice is made when the decision to procreate is made; it's why pregnancies resulting from incest and rape are almost universally excluded from bans.
Bottom line, bodily autonomy is well and good. You do not, however, get a say when it is not your body. And quite frankly, that notion is incredibly consistent when it comes to opposition towards vaccine mandates and abortion.
And an offspring's (child's body) is not your body. At any time, obviously. They have there own with a completely different set of genetics ( genotype ) and phenotype.
If one is not educated in Science, one may not be capable of understanding despite it being a rather simple, easy to grasp premise. When it is an inconvenient truth is when the spinning starts for those children ( who never grew up ) who want what they want.
I disagree that abortion and fetal death from vaccines are qualitatively different for the fetus. In the first case, there was intent to kill a fetus; in the 2nd there was reckless and lethal endangerment. 100,000's of people are dead in the US due to the COVID vaccines alone, a figure that does not typically include the very high rate of miscarriages, 87% as Daily Clout calculated, caused by the COVID vaccines.
Good point. I suppose it is the degree of intent to kill another human being other then yourself. With abortion it is willful and informed murder for all above an IQ of 75.
With the Emergency! Experimental Permanent Gene Editing Bioweapon ( DOD Contracted ) Injection ( not a vaccine, this is exactly what it is ) the IQ number may nudge up a small bit. After all, most people do have a computer and research tool in their hands most of the day...
This is called Darwinism, however unpleasant it is on a humanitarian level, it is a force on earth since the beginning of time. Obviously there to promote evolution.
Although both the deliberately aborting and the recklessly vaccinating have killed their fetuses, the latter outnumbered the former in 2021-22. And more babies died at their hands. So if as Alex says, regarding political strategy, Republicans choose to be single issue on abortion, and lose an election over it, then the fascist democrats with their mandatory toxic injections will make sure that abortion is not only permissible but indirectly mandatory. Ob-gyns are still firing pregnant patients for refusing the clotshot, then denying their role in fetal death. This is why , if you're going to be a single-issue voter, fetuses are better served by us steadfastly anti-vax voters.
I’m a conservative independent and I’ll admit to struggling with the issue. As a former SJW lawyer I used to be pro-choice for all of the reasons that pro-choicers spout such as “it’s the woman’s body” and so on. My view changed immediately when I saw my first son in utero and the concept was no longer an intellectual abstraction.
That said, I agree with Alex that there is something deeply inconsistent between abortion absolutism and medical freedom. (Admittedly, so-called “progressives” who rail about choice yet support mandated vaccines have the same problem). In the end, it’s about gauging the pulse of the electorate.
A case in point is Michigan. Gretchen Whitmer’s totalitarian COVID policies were seemingly overlooked by Michigan voters who felt more threatened by the popular misreading of the constitutionally correct Dobbs decision advanced by state-controlled media.
Whitmer and her cabal were solidly re-elected (along with the democrats now controlling the legislative and judicial branches of government) and Michigan is now irrevocably in the blue state category because voters seemingly placed more value on their abstract right to abort unborn children than the very real destruction caused by Whitmer’s COVID policies. The value choice makes no sense to me intellectually yet, as Alex correctly points out, it’s a problem the GOP must solve if they hope to re-take power in this country.
A slight correction, "Michigan is now irrevocably in the blue state category because" the Democrats have perfected the art of the election steal. Full stop.
Hannah the point on "seeing" your son in utero" is a point and aspect EVERY woman carrying a child should be made to see and the man involved IF a man of honor-integrity. Profound, surreal and miraculous are words that come to mind and a game changer for certain. The whole point about actually SEEING what you are choosing to terminate is something every man and woman should see prior to ending a life. I remember being in cadaver labs in my med trainings, with people who had donated bodies to science for study. All of us students at the time were told just how these people had died. Some of obesity, some of chronic smoking or alcohol etc. To see the organ systems which took the brunt of bodily insult thru dissection was profound and I always said all people should be able to see these things because it changes you to the core in how you choose to live a life. My point here is to SEE often times makes all the difference in a choice made as it did for you...
Exactly. This is why mothers who are considering abortion change their minds when they see an ultrasound of their baby, and why the abortionists refuse to let them look at it. Once you see a live baby on the scan, you know the truth; it’s not just a “clump of cells”.
Great comment and exactly why I personally struggle with the issue.
I personally believe in life at conception. I believe that the unborn child is a legal “person” to which legal and moral duties apply. Sadly, there are those cases of the mother’s life, rape, and incest where difficult ethical choices must be made.
Yet remarkably, a majority of Americans apparently believe this point to be arguable. As a consequence, they would re-elect an authoritarian like Gretchen Whitmer than face the prospect of the state legislative process placing restrictions on abortion rights which is the thrust of Dobbs.
Conservatives need to solve this intellectual, legal, and moral problem. It has become existential at this point.
Hannah your comment was food for my soul. I lit up when you wrote, "My view changed immediately when I saw my first son in utero and the concept was no longer an intellectual abstraction." Absolutely the best thing I've read in a long time.
And you used to be a SJW attorney? And now you describe yourself as a conservative independent? Whaaat?! What a wonderful testimony.
But in regard to the rest of what you wrote, I'd like to encourage you to speak out about your experience more. It holds great power to help others.
Because it helped you to change your mind and we can't simply concede right and wrong because it isn't currently popular. I've studied this topic for years and much of the sway in public opinion really turned in the 60's under the headship of people like Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was a cofounder of NARAL. He later repented of his involvement in the abortion movement after the ultrasound was invented and he could see the babies moving away from the instruments as he was poking them during an abortion. He wrote a book and admitted that they constantly lied to the media because they knew the media was in their pocket. They would offer up false statistics on back alley deaths and the public bought it because the media peddled their lies.
And what squashes a lie? The truth. Just as you saw it on that ultrasound. So keep spreading your truth and it will hold great power to sway others.
We can't allow evil to win. Even if it costs us politically. May I ask you if you're a Christian now too by chance?
Thank you, Wayne. I’ve continued to argue this point since my awakening and I’ve lost a few friends as a result (but made better ones, as well). The larger problem is western culture’s continued march towards a society where there is no such thing as personal accountability.
Don’t teach people about contraception, abstinence, and personal responsibility. Simply abort the child so some abortion factory in Michigan can profit. Use the fetal tissue for vaccines and other medical experiments.
Gifted programs are eliminated from schools because they discriminate against un-gifted kids. Losing teams are given participation trophies. Obesity and unhealthy lifestyles are normalized. A basic biological concept like one’s gender is now a choice to normalize gender dysphoria. We end one war to start a new one and no one flinches.
Our political choices have been reduced to Biden and Trump. Where is the outrage? Who benefits from this?
It’s like the COVID shots (and why I’m eternally grateful to Mr. Berenson for his consistency and bravery on this point). It wasn’t until the side effects started to manifest that even the most diehard proponents were forced to admit that they may have been wrong. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back on abortion when the majority feel outrage at abortion factories and the societal damage caused when life no longer has value. We are living in an Orwellian time.
Yes, it's really interesting that both parties have conflicted positions on bodily autonomy. Overall, the Supreme Court supports bodily autonomy, but deviated somewhat in the Jacobson case, fining him $5.
But even Jacobson was limited to its facts. Interestingly, Jacobson was repeatedly and incorrectly relied upon by those arguing in favor of state-imposed vaccine mandates.
Parenthetically, to quote The Big Lebowski, “I dig your style”, doctor. Thank you for your bravery and leadership.
I have told many of my Republican friends if they want to win they are going to have to compromise a few seem to finally be realizing that hopefully more will also.
I am now a center left Independent that up until the covid debacle had been a 50 + year dyed in the wool Dem.serving as head of a large Dem group and precinct delegate. I was certain Gretchen would be out especially since she was caught violating her own insane mandates which was rumored she had been doing from the beginning. I would have worked hard to get her out and the rest of the Dems out,several who I know and am disgusted with, ie Debbie Dingell, Haley Stevens, and in particular Dana Nessel as well as state representatives and county commisioners. But then the Supreme Court overturned Roe.
I ended up voting for her. I hated doing that !! I and many others also felt the ballot proposal went to far because many of us who are pro choice are willing to compromise but the right like Tudor Dixon will not compromise so we were left with 2 extreme options and the right to choose won and will continue to win as Alex, yourself and others have pointed out and the recent Wisconsin election proved.
Since the advancement of early over the counter pregnancy detection and the morning after pill ,other than medical issues based on a Drs. recommendation (not laws) , rape and incest most of us would agree on a ban after the 1st trimester. So compromise could be achieved.
......And I would like to point out to all that say they are here because they were adopted not aborted... I am here as is my sister and our families because my mother had a nightmare illegal abortion in the 1940's .
She was in college and would have had to go home to her small farm town marry her boyfriend who was being sent overseas to fight in the final stages of the war. She would have never met or married our father. So that argument goes both ways....
Tudor Dixon was a train wreck. Coupled with the signature fiasco it's almost as though the MI GOP wanted to lose.
The timing of the Dobbs leak and the fact that no one will ever be punished for it makes the timing of the opinion's release dubious. It was calculated to achieve the very result you discussed.
I used to be semi pro choice for early term, rapes, and incest. That said, I would have never gotten an abortion had I gotten pregnant even as a teen. It wasn't ever anything I would have considered, though I have no doubt someone would have recommended it. That being said, I was put on birth control at the age of 14 just un case. My mom wasn't taking any chances despite my inactivity. I know I'm being a little personal here, but it's real. And the distinction made about real vs ideological choices is a very integral and important point. I think the government has had a significant influence on latter generations where adolescents and young adults are far more likely to choose abortion. I know of two young women who have had 3 abortions each because they can't get their shit together. I think that lack of responsibility and, insight and education, contribute to the high numbers of abortions that happen now in comparison to when I was growing up in the 70s. Abortion has become an industry. And in Canada 🇨🇦 Trudeau has made sure there are no term limits on abortion, no limits of any kind. And he funds abortion in other countries with taxpayers dollars. It's disgusting. I am still on the verge of pro choice ideologically but with significant limits, early termination such as the day after pill, rape or incest. I don't support abortion if it means killing a human bigger than a peanut. I mean early termination limits. I believe people should be taking responsibility for their behaviors. But the tone set by this progressive secular government is appallingly anti personal responsibility, pro choice and un-Godly. So given my stated position, I expect the government to reflect my position. I believe in bodily autonomy as far as forced vaccines and the like, but I too reject the notion that abortion is a right citing bodily autonomy. At some point after conception, when the fetus develops into a tiny little body, it's not the mother's bodily autonomy anymore. I also believe that human life starts at conception so if the decision was mine I'd probably still choose not have an abortion. While I know where I stand, I can't predict the impact that a complete ban on abortion would have on someone else. So that's why I am willing to accept a small exception on very early term abortions with certain exceptions. I think women who have had 3 abortions shouldn't be having any more. One early term abortion in a lifetime under early term conditions and exceptions should be the standard. I would support a government that stands for that. But on the other hand I am also a conservative that supports small government as the government shouldn't be interfering in the lives of citizens. It's not an easy issue for conservatives. You can't make everyone happy. But I am completely opposed to how abortion is managed by government currently. I am not a progressive liberal or leftist globalist. I am a conservative, freedom loving person who believes in God and humanity. And I respect life. I wish there were clearer guidelines for humanity, to make life easier for everyone, but that too would mean following rules created by people and not God. I think we are missing God in this progressive society.
The irony of the pro choice folks hectoring and lecturing me that I should not have a choice re: an untested, poisonous shot regimen that doesn’t do anything that our public/private health and government officials unequivocally said it would. In my case, my private physician chided me when I raised natural immunity during my physical in 2021 after I had COVID. He belittled the tried and true science and emphatically said I needed to undergo the shot regimen for myself And society. He added I needed to do my part. When I referenced Dr. Marty Makary, he laughed and dismissed Makary as a quack. As an aside, his comments aged well.
Ultimately, and regrettably, I was jabbed twice during August/September 2021. I did so because my elderly parents resided on the west coast and I feared I may never be able to see them unless I complied. Unfortunately, I developed heart-related issues. After extensive testing, my cardiologist was unequivocal. No more shots. He made it clear I should not have been jabbed and that it out my health in peril.
Almost two years removed, I become angrier and angrier re: the lies and doubling down of policies that did not work - only made matters worse. And, my blood boils when my over-the-top pro-abortion folks cry “my body, my choice”, yet enthusiastically embraced the shot mandates and shamed anyone who had the temerity to ask questions. Selective amnesia abounds...too hell with consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Have you gone back and written and seen him/her in person, that asshole physician and read him the riot act?
I would also sue him. Even if you don't win ( for bodily harm ) you will set a great example for people/ patients to go after their Doctors and nurses that Coerced and Did not give them Informed Consent which is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW. A very well known Law in Pharmacy and Healthcare.
See Tom Rentz substack and his law firm. He is suing Joe Biden and DOD for not giving our Military informed consent before injecting them.
Also AFLD should have some leads for you on suing for coercion and lack of Informed Consent.
Doesn't it amaze you how some people keep going back to their horrible Doctors that they don't agree with ? Like they don't have a choice what Doctor they choose to go to like we are in some Communist Totalitarian Regime where they have no choice.
Everybody now, interview your Doctors like everyone else you hire ( your health IS your most important asset! BTW ) and ask them if they got the shot because you are not interested in choosing them as your doctor if they did. ( Meaning they cannot critically think ) .
Time for some Heart to Heart conversations. Get up and walk out if you are not hearing what you want. If you want to get more boosters, by all means get lots more! To each his own.
Doctors that can help those who think. FLCCC and AFLD. Both have Telehealth Visits, Referrals to Local Docs and Protocols for helping clear your body from the Covid injection.
Contraception and/or abstinence are simple and inexpensive solutions to this issue. Both are way more affordable than an abortion both financially and psychologically. If a woman doesn’t want or can’t afford a child, some personal responsibility is needed. As you stated well, comparing bodily autonomy in a person who will end another’s life(abortion) with one that won’t(the jab), is a hollow argument.
I feel exactly the same way. The common slogan is "my body, my choice". I've never understood how a woman who feels that way would not choose contraception. As you say, it's less expensive than an abortion and less devastating emotionally.
Hopefully I don't need to give you simple examples of this!
Condom and the Pill!!
Then we have 98% plus about 70 % equals 168 % ....Pretty damn good odds.
Hey if it is important enough to you have some spermicide foam on hand to shove up there afterwords if you forgot to take your damn pill and the condom leaked. Do the odds now!
When you write your book advise using at least 2 types of Birth Control to prevent having a baby, to make it 99.99999% effective.
The smarter ones will catch on. Then it will take away your moot argument of " Birth Control not being 100 % effective " Quotations said in a whiny voice.
Unfortunately, most everyone responding to this article here and below is missing Alex’s point regarding the fate of the Republican Party. While I understand how passionate Pro-Life people are to ban all abortions, it will no doubt be a short lived effort. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade combined with aggressive state legislative activity to ban most all abortions has given the Democrats a powerful wedge issue with over 60% voter support to take back control of the house and further cement control of the senate. And that 60% support appears to be just as "driven" as the Pro-Life movement. Just look at how the “Red Wave” in the 2022 elections turned into a mere ripple or look at the recent Wisconsin supreme court election. While I'm not tied to this issue, this move to ban most all abortions will not end well for the Pro-life movement nor the Republican Party.
Agreed. Possibly this pro-abortion activism will reach a tipping point and recede a bit. Especially as the economy continues to waver and Americans continue spending more and more money on daily needs. However, I do think Liberals have an inherent philosophical advantage: Hardcore liberals are willing to sacrifice *everything* for the sake of their agenda. This includes the economy (which they view as an outdated capitalist vestige anyway), the truth, and civil order. As far as Berenson's Trump point, that sounds like more of a talking point because Trump has won over a fair number of independents and it's still not clear (despite the continued efforts of the media to convince us otherwise) he is a political liability.
People forget the media/Liberals and Establishment will treat any other candidate who would promote true medical freedom (and freedom in general) the exact same way they are treating Trump, and make them out to be every bit as much a monster and "threat to democracy". If you're not sure about that, check out their reaction to RFK Jr's candidacy.
I’m not convinced of this. I understand that young leftist women don’t like it when abortion is made illegal, and a high percentage of independents don’t either. But those same independents also don’t like seeing a young woman who was screwed out of an NCAA swimming medal by a guy pretending to be female get physically assaulted and held hostage on a college campus for having the gall to speak out against extremist trans ideologues and their groomer agenda. The pro-life position is a known quantity and hasn’t changed in decades, whereas the cultural Marxist / critical theory & consciousness basket cases who control the institutions on the left seem to think they can push the boundaries of the left fringe continuously and indefinitely without incurring any political penalty (the 2021 Virginia governor result notwithstanding). What level of support each of the two parties has by the time of the 2024 election is unknowable, but from my perspective at least, the steadily increasing woke insanity, particularly with respect to how it’s being used to target, confuse & indoctrinate vulnerable children, is far more off-putting than the principled opposition to killing unborn babies.
DUI is also a matter of choice. We disallow it because someone could get killed. So absolute bodily autonomy is not real. In some cases death isn’t really death I guess?
No, it is not polling as high as you think. Yes people want woman to have access when it threatens their life and that's what you see in polls but that's not what is being taken away. Abortion is still legal in those banned states where it affects the mothers health. People are tired of witnessing a satanic ritual being played out. If you think it should be used as a form of contraceptive watch a video of an abortion and what happens to the child.
This “problem” isn’t solved, nor mitigated, nor danced around by discussing abortion. It’s solved, as most European nations have, by defining when life begins. We don’t need abortion laws on the books at all - we need simply determine at what point a fetus becomes a separate person with the right to life.
Threat to the mother? That’s self defense and killing a human is justified when it’s self defense. Baby dies naturally in utero or during birth? There’s no penalty for any humans death by natural causes.
This issue is complicated by politicians specifically so it remains a political cudgel , not because it’s a hard problem to solve.
Yes, those on the right who want to ban abortion in cases of incest or rape - especially at conception when a woman can end it without anyone ever knowing any better - and many will at the risk of great physical harm to themselves (and pretending otherwise is living in the same fantasy land that pretends eliminating cops will reduce crime) are taking an indefensible position - but the poles of all belief are never helpful
@ButTheDataSays, you wrote, "we need simply determine at what point a fetus becomes a separate person with the right to life."
We've known this for decades. Conception. And every college embryological textbook that hasn't been tainted by the fingers of wokeness have plainly stated it. If anyone needs the citations I have a host of them to provide.
Any talk of "personhood" is a feeble attempt to muddy the waters of what is clearly being done. The unjustified taking of an innocent and defenselss human life.
Public opinion simply does not matter. If polls showed that the entire world agreed that it was morally acceptable to kill a human in utero simply because it's unwanted, it would still be morally wrong. Why? Because for there to even be a moral standard, it has to be objective. If morality is merely relative then there is no right or wrong. Only the shifting moral opinions of the mortal.
You literally just defined democracy - “the shifting moral opinions of the mortal.” “Murder” is a legal definition - not a moral one.
This is the issue SO many Christians have - that causes me such strife. God calls on Christian’s to hold OTHER CHRISTIANS - accountable. But not to apply our morals to non-Christians. If you desire a space where your morals trump others, so as my sister did and live in a commune that exists independent of society. It’s not only possible, I’ve visited many such places.
If you wish instead to practice your faith but inside a democratically government constitutional republic then you have to accept that morals are LITERALLY defined by law and negotiated my mere mortals.
I pray this never happens - but if my daughter were raped and impregnated I’d do everything humanly possible to make sure that baby was born and given the best life possible. But I also willingly donate a significant portion of my income to those who need it more than I do, but I VEHEMENTLY oppose the forced redistribution of wealth. I can be personally firmly anti-abortion and also accept that my morals don’t trump others’ morals (we are equal in the eyes of the lord) and believe in the value of a democratic view of societal construct …
"This is the issue SO many Christians have - that causes me such strife. God calls on Christian’s to hold OTHER CHRISTIANS - accountable."
The discussion is in no way about forcing morality onto others. It's about promoting laws that offer equal protection under the law. Nobody believes a law can change someone's heart. Laws aren't for the purposes of the heart. They're set in order to establish what is legal and illegal. But what is legal and illegal has it's roots in what is right and wrong. And from where do we get a right and a wrong? A moral standard. Otherwise, why is it illegal to murder someone? The two are almost inseparable. But, again, the law has no power to change hearts. It only protects the innocent and defenseless humans in the womb are deserving of such protection.
Laws don't stop rape and murder all the time either do they? Should we abolish the law because we're imposing our Christian morality onto others? How silly.
"If you desire a space where your morals trump others, so as my sister did and live in a commune that exists independent of society. It’s not only possible, I’ve visited many such places."
Your morals trump the morals of a pedophile all the time don't they? Why would you do such a thing?
"If you wish instead to practice your faith but inside a democratically government constitutional republic then you have to accept that morals are LITERALLY defined by law and negotiated my mere mortals."
And I'm defending it and negotiating it now in a public forum with my words. Let the better arguments win the day because we all need to have a good foundation for what we think and believe and empty rhetoric and illogical talking points from the ungodly shouldn't sway those who have a sure foundation.
"...if my daughter were raped and impregnated I’d do everything humanly possible to make sure that baby was born and given the best life possible."
Amen. I applaud you. But why? How can you say, "Oh, I'd never allow someone to kill my grandchild in the womb - even if it was a rape baby - but it'd be ok to let someone else kill their child if it was a rape baby." How come we're all so willing to let evil overcome what God can turn into good?
"I can be personally firmly anti-abortion and also accept that my morals don’t trump others’ morals (we are equal in the eyes of the lord) and believe in the value of a democratic view of societal construct …"
Again, why does evil get to win? That'd be like saying, "Well, I'd personally never own a slave but I can't impose my morals onto the slave owners." Certainly, you and I wouldn't do such a thing in that case would we? Why would we do it with abortion?
While I am certainly glad to have a big tent for pro-lifers and welcome all stripes in I struggle with how the atheists and agnostics base their stance.
From what I gather they justify it via societal standards on what is right and wrong. Some may even go as to say it is always wrong, no matter time or place, to directly kill an innocent human being. But, they still have to rest that priniciple on human beliefs on value and that seems to me to be a foundation built on shifting sands.
From my side, and perhaps you agree, it seems that without a meta-physical God/Creator of humans there would be no objectively moral reason humans could not kill each other. After all, if we are self-created, shouldn't we be able to be self-desctructive?
I'm not forcing my beliefs on others. I believe in the law, which says that murder is a crime. Murder is a crime no matter your denomination or lack there of.
"Yes, those on the right who want to ban abortion in cases of incest or rape - especially at conception when a woman can end it"
No they don't. Has someone said that at one point time? Perhaps. Don't evoke a strawman. Given your name, do you have the data that shows, per state, the reason a woman sought abortion? Some states publish this data. I think you should look at it, you'd be surprised. Believe it or not, this fantasy that millions of women are being raped annually by their brother and need an abortion is not true.
I didn't say it happens often, at all. In fact, how INFREQUENTLY it happens is exactly why it's so outlandish to claim abortion should be banned in these cases. This issue, and this issue alone, is why Tudor lost in Michigan...
You have nailed the facts about human life, murder vs self defense, and politics. The only think you missed is that a human live begins at conception, as per science.
This has nothing to do with science. Politics never does. Is it settled "science" that kids can't drive until 16? That they can't vote until 18? That they can't drink until 21? Why do we keep conflating morals, "science," and law? Are they related, sure, are they the same? Absolutely not.
We still kill people legally all the time - self-defense, war, etc. All morally corrupt, with shades of grey arguments around them. But "legal" none the less.
The Romans used to have gladiators. The entire world used to have slaves. I know we believe that morals are always improving - but there's no evidence for that. Morals simply move around, and societies move around with them. Misunderstanding this is exactly the argument Alex is making as to why our view of "progress" holds us back.
Life may begin at conception per "science," and per science my 11 year old is old enough to drive my car (she does it all the time so she knows how in case of emergency) but society dictates other rules...
I actually think it is polling higher than he reports. A good chunk of Republicans, particularly pro life Republicans, are incredibly uninformed about the overlap in miscarriage treatments and first trimester abortions.
Let me challenge you on the still legal where it affects the mother’s health. There are two options for cleaning up a miscarriage, drug inducement and mechanical. Mechanical, also known as a DNC, has a high risk of causing permanent sterility. The drug inducement method works over 90% of the time and doesn’t carry longterm infertility risks. The drug method is banned by all the abortion bans because treating miscarriages is an approved alternative use not its “primary” use though the way statistics are tracked I am not sure about that.
In the last congressional elections abortion barely registered and that was right after the Supreme Court decision. People are for more concerned about the economy and someone starting WWIII. It's a misleading poll question because people like Berenson make it seem like the overwhelming majority are concerned about it. The question is always framed as taking abortion away completely, meaning even in those cases where it's needed to save the mother's life. Of course most people will say abortion is a concern at that point but that's not the argument being made.
If people look at the state data for reason for abortion it's almost exclusively for convenience (my term). When people try to frame the argument as being about protecting raped woman that is almost statically insignificant and, again, the overwhelming majority of people agree that is the exception that should be allowed.
My point was that the pro-life position looks popular on a paper poll. People like children. It doesn’t stay popular when you start explaining how banning abortion dovetails into other parts of reproductive healthcare. Basically the main leaders in the pro-life crowd haven’t kept up with the medical science regarding reproduction and abortion since Roe v Wade.
I suggest being careful around saying most abortions are for convenience. The design of the reporting forms make it the default category.
I don't quite get the argument you're putting forward. It seems like there are several points you're trying to make like the Government getting too involved in people's healthcare and the risks of abortion types, which exists regardless of whether abortion is banned or not. I may be misunderstanding you but I don't think that's what anyone is arguing right now, certainly not me.
Some states report some specific data on reason for abortion. If they can report things like rape or incest I assume it's up to the wiman to make that disclosure but that doesn't invalidate the data. There's nothing to substantiate that the primary role of abortion is anything other than a form of contraceptive.
Antiabortion bills always get too involved. It’s the only way to achieve their goal of reducing abortions.
I don’t have a complete picture of this but my personal research into this mess got seriously started after Texas’ SB8 passed. Since then I have come to the conclusion that the technology behind modern first trimester abortions has a major impact on is a single miscarriage a sentence to being childless. Given that cross application of the technology the only way to prevent a Dr. from subverting the entire ban is banning the technology. As such every ban on abortions are going to interfere with legitimate medical practice. They have to or such bans are trivial to bypass.
If reports of abortion because of rape are turned over to the police for investigation then I don’t want it is going to include a number of domestic abuse cases. This data doesn’t come from the abortion reports directly but from people involved in helping abused women. Most of those women aren’t allowed access to birth control so they use options like abortion.
I am in favor of increasing adoptions. I also realize that there are a good chunk of women in very bad situations where carrying a baby to term is higher risk to her than the abortion. I don’t expect a miraculous solution to that domestic violence problem either.
Between turning miscarriages into a sentence of sterility and the domestic abuse problem I have come to accept that unlimited first trimester abortion is the least bad option. So do most people I have had longer discussions about it.
I also understand that there are women to whom responsibility is an offensive concept. I don’t believe trying to control their lives is worth the other problems. History suggests they won’t even if they have to deal with children.
I talked to a person who works at an abortion clinic. She claims that abortions due to rape or incest are very rare. She also claims that many women are frequent patients. There is a surprisingly high percentage of women who seek 3+ abortions.
I believe that abortion statistics might help us understand the real issue (women using abortion as a birth control treatment). And maybe then we work towards a solution. But people prefer to argue about abortion without understanding the reason people are seeking abortion. That being the case, few are interested in addressing the core issue.
Exactly - the polling numbers cited are misleading. The majority of Americans want it to be legal with many restrictions. That majority includes people who support abortion in the cases of rape and incest (which is a tiny percentage of abortions) as well health of the mother (cases that are a health risk to the mother are truly rare, but used as an excuse for many). The “choice” occurs before having sexual intercourse. Period.
The real challenge for republicans is messaging. They suck and always have. The left is much louder, in control of most institutions, and far better at selling death than the right is in supporting and promoting life.
Why is it the right who is branded as inconsistent?
It is the left who claims to be for choice but then demanded vaccine mandates. Who on the right was demanding mandated abortions?
And were the overwhelming majority of women mandated to become pregnant? Or were they engaging in choices?
Bottom line is that no medical intervention should ever be mandated. Ever.
I understand and sympathize with Alex’s political analysis in this piece but I can not process how someone can agree that abortion is murder (and we are talking about an utterly defenseless infant) but conclude that we all need to get behind it because otherwise all these other bad things will happen.
Why must the weakest among us bear the brunt of our terrible behavior?
Yes, agreed. Alex is confusing the Left and Right here. Perhaps purposely, for the article responses?
It is the Left that says " my body my choice " ( he must know that ) then that same left that says " I was forced to inject the Covid injection in my body "( not a vaccine) ( he must know this ). What about your body, your choice? Whapp!! There goes that Decree !
Therein lies the glaring inconsistency.
The only thing the Left is consistant about is their lack of basic logic and their hypocrisy.
Extraordinary, that anyone takes them seriously, including themselves. I think deep down most of them know they can't hold a single logical thought process and they cannot take themselves seriously, then they become louder, to make up for it.
I am surprised you don't see taking your own life ( with a poisonous injection or by whatever means ) is completely different then taking someone else's life IE. one of your offsprings. They are their own person, top to bottom, at any stage. They are not you.
When you take someone else's life it is called murder. When you take your own life it is called suicide. We must use simple logic because the Evil left likes to confuse and obfuscate, because that is all they can do, to turn a wrong into a right.
" If they can't dazzle them with brillance they baffle with bull shit "
A couple of things here Alex. 1) The choice to have an abortion is not the same as the choice to not get vaccinated. One who chooses to not be vaccinated makes a choice about their own body alone. One who chooses an abortion chooses for themselves and the unborn, who has no voice in the decision. 2) All murders are highly personal choices.
If you consider abortion a private murder it should be done in private. Not in a hospital and on the payroll of the community. I think Europeans are more conscious of this. Their laws only allow it in emergencies like life of mother at stake or life threatening condition in baby. They do not know abortion here was allowed even on life ready babies
You are (willfully?) misrepresenting the majority Republican opinion on abortion. The country had reached a equilibrium consensus position on abortion and there was not a lot of fighting going on about. Then the left started pushing for late term abortions up to the moment of birth and this was a position that no one on the right could possibly tolerate.
Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Abortion is used by women primarily as BIRTH CONTROL. It is not because of medical, rape, or incest reasons.
Stated Reasons for Abortion when surveyed:
1. Having a baby would dramatically change my life: 74%
But what about birth control failure you say? There are numerous methods of birth control which have failure rates of 0.1% to 0.5%. Using abortion as birth control is never acceptable. 95% of women who had abortions surveyed were either not using birth control at all (54%) or not using birth control consistently (41%). What this means is that 95% of the women who have abortions are doing so as a means of birth control.
I have to agree with Ann Coulter that the abortion zealots are really doing the Republican party in. In their attempt to outdo each other, they are losing big time. I'm R... but support first trimester abortion. The idiots wanting to ban it under all circumstances are, well, idiots. If I had a daughter who was the victim or rape, incest, etc... the thought of making her go through with a pregnancy is absolutely barbaric.
I do find it insane that the left is so hell bent on the issue that they are willing to throwing every other thing away in the pursuit of abortion. And wanting to let a woman have the right to kill the fetus up until birth is demonic.
"I have to agree with Ann Coulter that the abortion zealots are really doing the Republican party in."
I did not know Coulter was pro-choice liberal in disguise.
"In their attempt to outdo each other, they are losing big time."
How is attempting to defend the lives of innocent and defenseless humans an attempt to "outdo" each other?
"I'm R... but support first trimester abortion. The idiots wanting to ban it under all circumstances are, well, idiots."
You just called me an idiot so now defend your accusation. Are you able to show how a first trimester human is unworthy of the protection of law simply because it is early in it's existence, unwanted, dependent, and located in the womb?
"If I had a daughter who was the victim or rape, incest, etc... the thought of making her go through with a pregnancy is absolutely barbaric."
Until you've allowed your thoughts to be critically challenged with new information. But I understand how emotional this topic could be. I too use to hold your position. Until I met people like Rebecca Kiessling, a human born from a rapist father. Until I read the story of Jaycee Lee Dugard who birthed two rape babies forced upon her by her captor. She adores those children. Are you able to tell these humans to their face that they were unworthy of protection in the womb simply because their father was a rapist? I thought we, as conservatives, didn't believe in the concept of overcoming evil with more evil but, rather, as the Word of God declares, "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
"I do find it insane that the left is so hell bent on the issue that they are willing to throwing every other thing away in the pursuit of abortion. And wanting to let a woman have the right to kill the fetus up until birth is demonic."
Agree. But I encourage you to think even more deeply on these matters. Since you mention demonic perhaps you're a believer in Jesus. Consider that those children born of rape and incest bear the image of God just as much as those born of loving fathers. And the Lord has the power to heal. To bless. To take what was meant for evil and turn it to good. Just as he did with Rebecca Kiessling and Jaycee Lee Dugard. Evil doesn't get to win.
Ann made it clear she is pro-life, but she admits that sticking to the extremeness insures R's will ultimately lose every office and lose the Senate, Congress and the White House in 2024. I respect your views, but just realize that holding to them with no wiggle room just means party annihilation and no voice for anything going forward.
It seems you're refusing to think more deeply on these matters. Allow yourself to be challenged in thought. If but for a minute. How can you say that Rebecca Kiessling was not deserving of equal protection under the law simply because her father was a rapist?
If her mother had her way, Rebecca Kiessling would not exist today. Listen to her testimony if you dare:
Did you just confess that you're ok with people killing their babies in the first trimester because you're tired of losing political seats?
If you can't roll with Jesus and endure the blowback from defending life to it's logical end because you're in fear of losing political seats then what good is your Christianity?
Seriously. We're called to hold one another accountable as Christians so I'm calling you to task on this publicly since you put it out there publicly.
The Pro-life movement is every bit as much carried by women as men—look at the crowds at the annual March in DC. It’s not a “political, how can we win” movement, but a fundamental passion for things that not only matter, but nothing else matters if they don’t.
No right to life—even in first trimester—no right to anything.
Anyone can then take anything from you simply because in THEIR mind it is better. There is no “winning” if you give in to that thinking.
And please stop suggesting it is somehow selfish men who drive a fully consistent Pro-life movement. The selfish and cowardly men back abortion because it most readily relieves them of any responsibility for their actions.
Ann Coulter thinks that people are saying one thing in public... then going to the polls and voting otherwise. If you are Republican, it's almost taboo to say out loud you support abortion. Weirdly, R's think it is hip to say they support gay marriage, though. Everything is upside down anymore.
Good points. Though I will never vote for another democrat except possibly RFK Jr., and even then it would depend on more research, as well as his opponent. The Ds have revealed themselves for the authoritarian monster that that are.
What is your dividing line between when abortion is okay and when it is demonic? How did you land on first trimester? I encourage you to watch a video of an abortion as you think about when it’s okay and when it’s too late.
Those that want to ban it in all circumstances are very few and you KNOW it but saying the R's, the right, the conservatives take this position makes for great DIVISION, talking points, and getting the uneducated and useful idiots to carry your water on the abortion issue.
As long as those few keep saying ban it in all circumstances... the political ads write themselves. If only one nut says ban it... Democrats can keep using that to win. We are making it easy to extinct us.
"Idiots", "barbaric".... Go ahead and kill the innocent baby for the sins of it's father. I'd council my daughter - and she'd agree - completely differently. God will judge us all.
There is absolutely nothing “idiotic” about being consistent and having actual principles. The American founders were “idiotic” I suppose to not engage in Realpolitik with George III?… and Reagan sure blew it calling the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, right? Whereas, there is of course rock solid support out there for all the Mitt Romneys and Paul Ryans who tell us we must abandon principals and “idiotic” thinking so we can sound more acceptable…?
My comment above addresses your opinion - you support first trimester abortion. Most Americans do not “support abortion” carte blanch - they support it with many restrictions. It’s not fair conflate the two as Alex did, and say the majority support abortion. Also, the need for abortion in the case of rape 1% and incest 0.5%
You are wrong. Again. The choice is there. Before the act. Be responsible. Protect yourself from disease. And avoid unwanted pregnancy. I would go further, don't have sex with man you don't want to have children with. Get married first. These the lessons we should be teaching our children.
I guess that I don't understand her argument. I thought that the abortion decision was passed to the states by the federal government and that it wasn't banned by the federal government... Anyway, if abortion is the taking of human life and abortion is murder, isn't that bad??? Maybe not at 4 weeks and probably not at 12 weeks but it sure seems that at some point, abortion clearly kills a baby and it seems strange that killing a baby is legal. It seems as wrong to me as killing your wife, which appears to be accepted in other some other cultures.
"If being vaccinated as an adult is a personal choice - and it should be - then having an abortion is too."
I'm stunned you wrote this. This is clearly a non-sequitur. As others have mentioned, there are two bodies involved. Two separate and unique sets of DNA. My body my choice is accurate. Nobody should be forced to get vaccinated against their will at the expense of their job or participation in the marketplace. Killing children is a whole other game.
We parents have an inherent duty to defend the lives of our children. In the United States we criminalize the harm of children by their parents. And the only difference about the child in the womb is location and whether or not it's wanted.
I'm unaware of any case in the United States where location and being wanted was an adequate defense in the acquittal of someone who harmed their child outside the womb and it is not an adequate defense when they do it inside.
This is the perfect way to start the national divorce (if one wanted such a thing): those who believe it is perfectly fine to murder a human child in utero should not be living in states where abortion is banned.
Alex looks at this as if it's only a woman's right to make a decision, but it is more than that. It is making us a nation of murderers who approve abortion as birth control.
NO STATE IS "BANNING ABORTION" as far as I know. They are running a big federalist-style experiment with varying caps on the amount of time a woman has do get an abortion. AND THE COUNTRY IS NOT in favor of abortion with no caps. So your entire post is built on a false premise.
"Legislating morality has never worked well. If abortion is a “woman’s choice”, the cost is also her responsibility."
Then shouldn't we just remove rape laws? Murder laws? Laws aren't intended to change hearts. Laws protect the innocent.
Humans begin at conception. They are made in the image of God. It does not nullify that idea whether it's day one, day 270, or day 36,500.
But even for the godless they can defend life, just as some atheist-agnostic-secular pro-life organizations do today. Because they know the science and they know humans begin at conception and are worthy of legal protection.
Laws are for maintaining societal order. Unfortunately, society continues in relative harmony even with abortion. I’m not telling you it’s moral. If murder and even petty theft were legalized then society breaks down.
I do agree that tragically much of the terrible political straights we find ourselves in revolves around protecting abortion at all cost and not innocent life. The desperate fight for the right to “privately murder” will be one of the biggest underlying causes of demise of our once great nation. Elections are swayed by the powerful forces to cling to the right. It’s so incredibly mid-evil and satanic that perhaps God gets the last word now after all and not simply in the afterlife..
There is an enormous difference between vaccination and premeditated murder. To compare the two and call it a "terrible ideological inconsistency" is abhorrent. The key point you miss here, and every other pro-choice individual is missing is that the choice regarding bodily autonomy in pregnancy is made well before conception. That choice is made when the decision to procreate is made; it's why pregnancies resulting from incest and rape are almost universally excluded from bans.
Bottom line, bodily autonomy is well and good. You do not, however, get a say when it is not your body. And quite frankly, that notion is incredibly consistent when it comes to opposition towards vaccine mandates and abortion.
And an offspring's (child's body) is not your body. At any time, obviously. They have there own with a completely different set of genetics ( genotype ) and phenotype.
If one is not educated in Science, one may not be capable of understanding despite it being a rather simple, easy to grasp premise. When it is an inconvenient truth is when the spinning starts for those children ( who never grew up ) who want what they want.
I disagree that abortion and fetal death from vaccines are qualitatively different for the fetus. In the first case, there was intent to kill a fetus; in the 2nd there was reckless and lethal endangerment. 100,000's of people are dead in the US due to the COVID vaccines alone, a figure that does not typically include the very high rate of miscarriages, 87% as Daily Clout calculated, caused by the COVID vaccines.
It's happening all over the world and it is cancelling more new human lives than the 10% of pregnancies that end in abortion.
https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/birth-rates-plunge-in-heavily-vaccinated#_ednref30
Colleen,
Good point. I suppose it is the degree of intent to kill another human being other then yourself. With abortion it is willful and informed murder for all above an IQ of 75.
With the Emergency! Experimental Permanent Gene Editing Bioweapon ( DOD Contracted ) Injection ( not a vaccine, this is exactly what it is ) the IQ number may nudge up a small bit. After all, most people do have a computer and research tool in their hands most of the day...
This is called Darwinism, however unpleasant it is on a humanitarian level, it is a force on earth since the beginning of time. Obviously there to promote evolution.
Although both the deliberately aborting and the recklessly vaccinating have killed their fetuses, the latter outnumbered the former in 2021-22. And more babies died at their hands. So if as Alex says, regarding political strategy, Republicans choose to be single issue on abortion, and lose an election over it, then the fascist democrats with their mandatory toxic injections will make sure that abortion is not only permissible but indirectly mandatory. Ob-gyns are still firing pregnant patients for refusing the clotshot, then denying their role in fetal death. This is why , if you're going to be a single-issue voter, fetuses are better served by us steadfastly anti-vax voters.
I’m a conservative independent and I’ll admit to struggling with the issue. As a former SJW lawyer I used to be pro-choice for all of the reasons that pro-choicers spout such as “it’s the woman’s body” and so on. My view changed immediately when I saw my first son in utero and the concept was no longer an intellectual abstraction.
That said, I agree with Alex that there is something deeply inconsistent between abortion absolutism and medical freedom. (Admittedly, so-called “progressives” who rail about choice yet support mandated vaccines have the same problem). In the end, it’s about gauging the pulse of the electorate.
A case in point is Michigan. Gretchen Whitmer’s totalitarian COVID policies were seemingly overlooked by Michigan voters who felt more threatened by the popular misreading of the constitutionally correct Dobbs decision advanced by state-controlled media.
Whitmer and her cabal were solidly re-elected (along with the democrats now controlling the legislative and judicial branches of government) and Michigan is now irrevocably in the blue state category because voters seemingly placed more value on their abstract right to abort unborn children than the very real destruction caused by Whitmer’s COVID policies. The value choice makes no sense to me intellectually yet, as Alex correctly points out, it’s a problem the GOP must solve if they hope to re-take power in this country.
A slight correction, "Michigan is now irrevocably in the blue state category because" the Democrats have perfected the art of the election steal. Full stop.
That, too. No argument from me. The counties of Wayne, Genesee, Ingham, Washtenaw, Macomb, and now even Oakland are bastions of corruption.
Yes. That's another angle that is absolutely right.
Hannah the point on "seeing" your son in utero" is a point and aspect EVERY woman carrying a child should be made to see and the man involved IF a man of honor-integrity. Profound, surreal and miraculous are words that come to mind and a game changer for certain. The whole point about actually SEEING what you are choosing to terminate is something every man and woman should see prior to ending a life. I remember being in cadaver labs in my med trainings, with people who had donated bodies to science for study. All of us students at the time were told just how these people had died. Some of obesity, some of chronic smoking or alcohol etc. To see the organ systems which took the brunt of bodily insult thru dissection was profound and I always said all people should be able to see these things because it changes you to the core in how you choose to live a life. My point here is to SEE often times makes all the difference in a choice made as it did for you...
Exactly. This is why mothers who are considering abortion change their minds when they see an ultrasound of their baby, and why the abortionists refuse to let them look at it. Once you see a live baby on the scan, you know the truth; it’s not just a “clump of cells”.
Great comment and exactly why I personally struggle with the issue.
I personally believe in life at conception. I believe that the unborn child is a legal “person” to which legal and moral duties apply. Sadly, there are those cases of the mother’s life, rape, and incest where difficult ethical choices must be made.
Yet remarkably, a majority of Americans apparently believe this point to be arguable. As a consequence, they would re-elect an authoritarian like Gretchen Whitmer than face the prospect of the state legislative process placing restrictions on abortion rights which is the thrust of Dobbs.
Conservatives need to solve this intellectual, legal, and moral problem. It has become existential at this point.
Hannah your comment was food for my soul. I lit up when you wrote, "My view changed immediately when I saw my first son in utero and the concept was no longer an intellectual abstraction." Absolutely the best thing I've read in a long time.
And you used to be a SJW attorney? And now you describe yourself as a conservative independent? Whaaat?! What a wonderful testimony.
But in regard to the rest of what you wrote, I'd like to encourage you to speak out about your experience more. It holds great power to help others.
Because it helped you to change your mind and we can't simply concede right and wrong because it isn't currently popular. I've studied this topic for years and much of the sway in public opinion really turned in the 60's under the headship of people like Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was a cofounder of NARAL. He later repented of his involvement in the abortion movement after the ultrasound was invented and he could see the babies moving away from the instruments as he was poking them during an abortion. He wrote a book and admitted that they constantly lied to the media because they knew the media was in their pocket. They would offer up false statistics on back alley deaths and the public bought it because the media peddled their lies.
And what squashes a lie? The truth. Just as you saw it on that ultrasound. So keep spreading your truth and it will hold great power to sway others.
We can't allow evil to win. Even if it costs us politically. May I ask you if you're a Christian now too by chance?
Thank you, Wayne. I’ve continued to argue this point since my awakening and I’ve lost a few friends as a result (but made better ones, as well). The larger problem is western culture’s continued march towards a society where there is no such thing as personal accountability.
Don’t teach people about contraception, abstinence, and personal responsibility. Simply abort the child so some abortion factory in Michigan can profit. Use the fetal tissue for vaccines and other medical experiments.
Gifted programs are eliminated from schools because they discriminate against un-gifted kids. Losing teams are given participation trophies. Obesity and unhealthy lifestyles are normalized. A basic biological concept like one’s gender is now a choice to normalize gender dysphoria. We end one war to start a new one and no one flinches.
Our political choices have been reduced to Biden and Trump. Where is the outrage? Who benefits from this?
It’s like the COVID shots (and why I’m eternally grateful to Mr. Berenson for his consistency and bravery on this point). It wasn’t until the side effects started to manifest that even the most diehard proponents were forced to admit that they may have been wrong. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back on abortion when the majority feel outrage at abortion factories and the societal damage caused when life no longer has value. We are living in an Orwellian time.
Yes, it's really interesting that both parties have conflicted positions on bodily autonomy. Overall, the Supreme Court supports bodily autonomy, but deviated somewhat in the Jacobson case, fining him $5.
https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/bodily-autonomy-judicial-precedent
But even Jacobson was limited to its facts. Interestingly, Jacobson was repeatedly and incorrectly relied upon by those arguing in favor of state-imposed vaccine mandates.
Parenthetically, to quote The Big Lebowski, “I dig your style”, doctor. Thank you for your bravery and leadership.
Courts ( gov ) do not Rule over our bodies of course 😂🤣 we do and our God does.
There are two bodies involved when it comes to a pregnant woman. Why do so many ignore this biological fact?
There is no inconsistency on the belief of bodily autonomy in regard to vaccines vs my position on abortion.
I have told many of my Republican friends if they want to win they are going to have to compromise a few seem to finally be realizing that hopefully more will also.
I am now a center left Independent that up until the covid debacle had been a 50 + year dyed in the wool Dem.serving as head of a large Dem group and precinct delegate. I was certain Gretchen would be out especially since she was caught violating her own insane mandates which was rumored she had been doing from the beginning. I would have worked hard to get her out and the rest of the Dems out,several who I know and am disgusted with, ie Debbie Dingell, Haley Stevens, and in particular Dana Nessel as well as state representatives and county commisioners. But then the Supreme Court overturned Roe.
I ended up voting for her. I hated doing that !! I and many others also felt the ballot proposal went to far because many of us who are pro choice are willing to compromise but the right like Tudor Dixon will not compromise so we were left with 2 extreme options and the right to choose won and will continue to win as Alex, yourself and others have pointed out and the recent Wisconsin election proved.
Since the advancement of early over the counter pregnancy detection and the morning after pill ,other than medical issues based on a Drs. recommendation (not laws) , rape and incest most of us would agree on a ban after the 1st trimester. So compromise could be achieved.
......And I would like to point out to all that say they are here because they were adopted not aborted... I am here as is my sister and our families because my mother had a nightmare illegal abortion in the 1940's .
She was in college and would have had to go home to her small farm town marry her boyfriend who was being sent overseas to fight in the final stages of the war. She would have never met or married our father. So that argument goes both ways....
Tudor Dixon was a train wreck. Coupled with the signature fiasco it's almost as though the MI GOP wanted to lose.
The timing of the Dobbs leak and the fact that no one will ever be punished for it makes the timing of the opinion's release dubious. It was calculated to achieve the very result you discussed.
Excellent simple breakdown of the subject. I agree completely.
Colleen,
You are Absolutely correct.
I used to be semi pro choice for early term, rapes, and incest. That said, I would have never gotten an abortion had I gotten pregnant even as a teen. It wasn't ever anything I would have considered, though I have no doubt someone would have recommended it. That being said, I was put on birth control at the age of 14 just un case. My mom wasn't taking any chances despite my inactivity. I know I'm being a little personal here, but it's real. And the distinction made about real vs ideological choices is a very integral and important point. I think the government has had a significant influence on latter generations where adolescents and young adults are far more likely to choose abortion. I know of two young women who have had 3 abortions each because they can't get their shit together. I think that lack of responsibility and, insight and education, contribute to the high numbers of abortions that happen now in comparison to when I was growing up in the 70s. Abortion has become an industry. And in Canada 🇨🇦 Trudeau has made sure there are no term limits on abortion, no limits of any kind. And he funds abortion in other countries with taxpayers dollars. It's disgusting. I am still on the verge of pro choice ideologically but with significant limits, early termination such as the day after pill, rape or incest. I don't support abortion if it means killing a human bigger than a peanut. I mean early termination limits. I believe people should be taking responsibility for their behaviors. But the tone set by this progressive secular government is appallingly anti personal responsibility, pro choice and un-Godly. So given my stated position, I expect the government to reflect my position. I believe in bodily autonomy as far as forced vaccines and the like, but I too reject the notion that abortion is a right citing bodily autonomy. At some point after conception, when the fetus develops into a tiny little body, it's not the mother's bodily autonomy anymore. I also believe that human life starts at conception so if the decision was mine I'd probably still choose not have an abortion. While I know where I stand, I can't predict the impact that a complete ban on abortion would have on someone else. So that's why I am willing to accept a small exception on very early term abortions with certain exceptions. I think women who have had 3 abortions shouldn't be having any more. One early term abortion in a lifetime under early term conditions and exceptions should be the standard. I would support a government that stands for that. But on the other hand I am also a conservative that supports small government as the government shouldn't be interfering in the lives of citizens. It's not an easy issue for conservatives. You can't make everyone happy. But I am completely opposed to how abortion is managed by government currently. I am not a progressive liberal or leftist globalist. I am a conservative, freedom loving person who believes in God and humanity. And I respect life. I wish there were clearer guidelines for humanity, to make life easier for everyone, but that too would mean following rules created by people and not God. I think we are missing God in this progressive society.
BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ....or if one is not responsable enough to remember to brush their teeth and take their pill
BIRTH CONTROL ( PILL ) IMPLANTS good for 4 years
removable, if you change your (irresponsible) mind🤫🙄
What implants?
Probably referring to Norplant or one of those? The one that goes in the arm, I think they last 3 years +.
Are you calling me irresponsible? ie via eye roll emoji (🙄)?
AR,
No,
Whoever the person was who said that sometimes one method of birth control does not work. Answer use two. I replied that to them.
AR,
Beautiful name.
"Intent to kill a fetus..."
Why does this word get used when this is a human being in the earliest state of development? Is the intent to make it seem less significant?
The irony of the pro choice folks hectoring and lecturing me that I should not have a choice re: an untested, poisonous shot regimen that doesn’t do anything that our public/private health and government officials unequivocally said it would. In my case, my private physician chided me when I raised natural immunity during my physical in 2021 after I had COVID. He belittled the tried and true science and emphatically said I needed to undergo the shot regimen for myself And society. He added I needed to do my part. When I referenced Dr. Marty Makary, he laughed and dismissed Makary as a quack. As an aside, his comments aged well.
Ultimately, and regrettably, I was jabbed twice during August/September 2021. I did so because my elderly parents resided on the west coast and I feared I may never be able to see them unless I complied. Unfortunately, I developed heart-related issues. After extensive testing, my cardiologist was unequivocal. No more shots. He made it clear I should not have been jabbed and that it out my health in peril.
Almost two years removed, I become angrier and angrier re: the lies and doubling down of policies that did not work - only made matters worse. And, my blood boils when my over-the-top pro-abortion folks cry “my body, my choice”, yet enthusiastically embraced the shot mandates and shamed anyone who had the temerity to ask questions. Selective amnesia abounds...too hell with consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
John,
Have you gone back and written and seen him/her in person, that asshole physician and read him the riot act?
I would also sue him. Even if you don't win ( for bodily harm ) you will set a great example for people/ patients to go after their Doctors and nurses that Coerced and Did not give them Informed Consent which is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW. A very well known Law in Pharmacy and Healthcare.
See Tom Rentz substack and his law firm. He is suing Joe Biden and DOD for not giving our Military informed consent before injecting them.
Also AFLD should have some leads for you on suing for coercion and lack of Informed Consent.
Best
I fired him.
John,
Good! You are kinder than I would have been.
Doesn't it amaze you how some people keep going back to their horrible Doctors that they don't agree with ? Like they don't have a choice what Doctor they choose to go to like we are in some Communist Totalitarian Regime where they have no choice.
Everybody now, interview your Doctors like everyone else you hire ( your health IS your most important asset! BTW ) and ask them if they got the shot because you are not interested in choosing them as your doctor if they did. ( Meaning they cannot critically think ) .
Time for some Heart to Heart conversations. Get up and walk out if you are not hearing what you want. If you want to get more boosters, by all means get lots more! To each his own.
Doctors that can help those who think. FLCCC and AFLD. Both have Telehealth Visits, Referrals to Local Docs and Protocols for helping clear your body from the Covid injection.
Best
Contraception and/or abstinence are simple and inexpensive solutions to this issue. Both are way more affordable than an abortion both financially and psychologically. If a woman doesn’t want or can’t afford a child, some personal responsibility is needed. As you stated well, comparing bodily autonomy in a person who will end another’s life(abortion) with one that won’t(the jab), is a hollow argument.
I feel exactly the same way. The common slogan is "my body, my choice". I've never understood how a woman who feels that way would not choose contraception. As you say, it's less expensive than an abortion and less devastating emotionally.
Contraception is not 100% effective. It never is. And I speak from experience.
Renee,
Use your God given brains and double up then.
Hopefully I don't need to give you simple examples of this!
Condom and the Pill!!
Then we have 98% plus about 70 % equals 168 % ....Pretty damn good odds.
Hey if it is important enough to you have some spermicide foam on hand to shove up there afterwords if you forgot to take your damn pill and the condom leaked. Do the odds now!
This is not Rocket Science people!
I’m 59. I could write a book on contraception. Thanks for the advice! Now bang your head against the wall…again.
RM
When you write your book advise using at least 2 types of Birth Control to prevent having a baby, to make it 99.99999% effective.
The smarter ones will catch on. Then it will take away your moot argument of " Birth Control not being 100 % effective " Quotations said in a whiny voice.
True, however abortion is not contraception.
Unfortunately, most everyone responding to this article here and below is missing Alex’s point regarding the fate of the Republican Party. While I understand how passionate Pro-Life people are to ban all abortions, it will no doubt be a short lived effort. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade combined with aggressive state legislative activity to ban most all abortions has given the Democrats a powerful wedge issue with over 60% voter support to take back control of the house and further cement control of the senate. And that 60% support appears to be just as "driven" as the Pro-Life movement. Just look at how the “Red Wave” in the 2022 elections turned into a mere ripple or look at the recent Wisconsin supreme court election. While I'm not tied to this issue, this move to ban most all abortions will not end well for the Pro-life movement nor the Republican Party.
Wrong P.
And God us coming to strike them soon. You missed your catechism class.
My mother had an abortion in the 40’s I had one in the 70’s God and I have a great personal relationship
Agreed. Possibly this pro-abortion activism will reach a tipping point and recede a bit. Especially as the economy continues to waver and Americans continue spending more and more money on daily needs. However, I do think Liberals have an inherent philosophical advantage: Hardcore liberals are willing to sacrifice *everything* for the sake of their agenda. This includes the economy (which they view as an outdated capitalist vestige anyway), the truth, and civil order. As far as Berenson's Trump point, that sounds like more of a talking point because Trump has won over a fair number of independents and it's still not clear (despite the continued efforts of the media to convince us otherwise) he is a political liability.
People forget the media/Liberals and Establishment will treat any other candidate who would promote true medical freedom (and freedom in general) the exact same way they are treating Trump, and make them out to be every bit as much a monster and "threat to democracy". If you're not sure about that, check out their reaction to RFK Jr's candidacy.
What are the odds that whoever follows Trump will be "even worse than Trump"?
150%
I’m not convinced of this. I understand that young leftist women don’t like it when abortion is made illegal, and a high percentage of independents don’t either. But those same independents also don’t like seeing a young woman who was screwed out of an NCAA swimming medal by a guy pretending to be female get physically assaulted and held hostage on a college campus for having the gall to speak out against extremist trans ideologues and their groomer agenda. The pro-life position is a known quantity and hasn’t changed in decades, whereas the cultural Marxist / critical theory & consciousness basket cases who control the institutions on the left seem to think they can push the boundaries of the left fringe continuously and indefinitely without incurring any political penalty (the 2021 Virginia governor result notwithstanding). What level of support each of the two parties has by the time of the 2024 election is unknowable, but from my perspective at least, the steadily increasing woke insanity, particularly with respect to how it’s being used to target, confuse & indoctrinate vulnerable children, is far more off-putting than the principled opposition to killing unborn babies.
Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. All you need to know is right here:
https://pdg4ff.substack.com/p/what-marks-the-beginning-of-the-end
DUI is also a matter of choice. We disallow it because someone could get killed. So absolute bodily autonomy is not real. In some cases death isn’t really death I guess?
Bravo!!!
Came here to say this. Thank you!
Well said; thank you.
No, it is not polling as high as you think. Yes people want woman to have access when it threatens their life and that's what you see in polls but that's not what is being taken away. Abortion is still legal in those banned states where it affects the mothers health. People are tired of witnessing a satanic ritual being played out. If you think it should be used as a form of contraceptive watch a video of an abortion and what happens to the child.
This “problem” isn’t solved, nor mitigated, nor danced around by discussing abortion. It’s solved, as most European nations have, by defining when life begins. We don’t need abortion laws on the books at all - we need simply determine at what point a fetus becomes a separate person with the right to life.
Threat to the mother? That’s self defense and killing a human is justified when it’s self defense. Baby dies naturally in utero or during birth? There’s no penalty for any humans death by natural causes.
This issue is complicated by politicians specifically so it remains a political cudgel , not because it’s a hard problem to solve.
Yes, those on the right who want to ban abortion in cases of incest or rape - especially at conception when a woman can end it without anyone ever knowing any better - and many will at the risk of great physical harm to themselves (and pretending otherwise is living in the same fantasy land that pretends eliminating cops will reduce crime) are taking an indefensible position - but the poles of all belief are never helpful
@ButTheDataSays, you wrote, "we need simply determine at what point a fetus becomes a separate person with the right to life."
We've known this for decades. Conception. And every college embryological textbook that hasn't been tainted by the fingers of wokeness have plainly stated it. If anyone needs the citations I have a host of them to provide.
Any talk of "personhood" is a feeble attempt to muddy the waters of what is clearly being done. The unjustified taking of an innocent and defenselss human life.
Public opinion simply does not matter. If polls showed that the entire world agreed that it was morally acceptable to kill a human in utero simply because it's unwanted, it would still be morally wrong. Why? Because for there to even be a moral standard, it has to be objective. If morality is merely relative then there is no right or wrong. Only the shifting moral opinions of the mortal.
You literally just defined democracy - “the shifting moral opinions of the mortal.” “Murder” is a legal definition - not a moral one.
This is the issue SO many Christians have - that causes me such strife. God calls on Christian’s to hold OTHER CHRISTIANS - accountable. But not to apply our morals to non-Christians. If you desire a space where your morals trump others, so as my sister did and live in a commune that exists independent of society. It’s not only possible, I’ve visited many such places.
If you wish instead to practice your faith but inside a democratically government constitutional republic then you have to accept that morals are LITERALLY defined by law and negotiated my mere mortals.
I pray this never happens - but if my daughter were raped and impregnated I’d do everything humanly possible to make sure that baby was born and given the best life possible. But I also willingly donate a significant portion of my income to those who need it more than I do, but I VEHEMENTLY oppose the forced redistribution of wealth. I can be personally firmly anti-abortion and also accept that my morals don’t trump others’ morals (we are equal in the eyes of the lord) and believe in the value of a democratic view of societal construct …
"This is the issue SO many Christians have - that causes me such strife. God calls on Christian’s to hold OTHER CHRISTIANS - accountable."
The discussion is in no way about forcing morality onto others. It's about promoting laws that offer equal protection under the law. Nobody believes a law can change someone's heart. Laws aren't for the purposes of the heart. They're set in order to establish what is legal and illegal. But what is legal and illegal has it's roots in what is right and wrong. And from where do we get a right and a wrong? A moral standard. Otherwise, why is it illegal to murder someone? The two are almost inseparable. But, again, the law has no power to change hearts. It only protects the innocent and defenseless humans in the womb are deserving of such protection.
Laws don't stop rape and murder all the time either do they? Should we abolish the law because we're imposing our Christian morality onto others? How silly.
"If you desire a space where your morals trump others, so as my sister did and live in a commune that exists independent of society. It’s not only possible, I’ve visited many such places."
Your morals trump the morals of a pedophile all the time don't they? Why would you do such a thing?
"If you wish instead to practice your faith but inside a democratically government constitutional republic then you have to accept that morals are LITERALLY defined by law and negotiated my mere mortals."
And I'm defending it and negotiating it now in a public forum with my words. Let the better arguments win the day because we all need to have a good foundation for what we think and believe and empty rhetoric and illogical talking points from the ungodly shouldn't sway those who have a sure foundation.
"...if my daughter were raped and impregnated I’d do everything humanly possible to make sure that baby was born and given the best life possible."
Amen. I applaud you. But why? How can you say, "Oh, I'd never allow someone to kill my grandchild in the womb - even if it was a rape baby - but it'd be ok to let someone else kill their child if it was a rape baby." How come we're all so willing to let evil overcome what God can turn into good?
"I can be personally firmly anti-abortion and also accept that my morals don’t trump others’ morals (we are equal in the eyes of the lord) and believe in the value of a democratic view of societal construct …"
Again, why does evil get to win? That'd be like saying, "Well, I'd personally never own a slave but I can't impose my morals onto the slave owners." Certainly, you and I wouldn't do such a thing in that case would we? Why would we do it with abortion?
Even secular atheists and agnostics have pro-life groups. See here: https://secularprolife.org
and here: https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeHumanists/
Wayne,
While I am certainly glad to have a big tent for pro-lifers and welcome all stripes in I struggle with how the atheists and agnostics base their stance.
From what I gather they justify it via societal standards on what is right and wrong. Some may even go as to say it is always wrong, no matter time or place, to directly kill an innocent human being. But, they still have to rest that priniciple on human beliefs on value and that seems to me to be a foundation built on shifting sands.
From my side, and perhaps you agree, it seems that without a meta-physical God/Creator of humans there would be no objectively moral reason humans could not kill each other. After all, if we are self-created, shouldn't we be able to be self-desctructive?
I could be very wrong, what are your thoughts?
I'm not forcing my beliefs on others. I believe in the law, which says that murder is a crime. Murder is a crime no matter your denomination or lack there of.
"Yes, those on the right who want to ban abortion in cases of incest or rape - especially at conception when a woman can end it"
No they don't. Has someone said that at one point time? Perhaps. Don't evoke a strawman. Given your name, do you have the data that shows, per state, the reason a woman sought abortion? Some states publish this data. I think you should look at it, you'd be surprised. Believe it or not, this fantasy that millions of women are being raped annually by their brother and need an abortion is not true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/michigan-republican-tudor-dixon-abortion-ban-rape/
I didn't say it happens often, at all. In fact, how INFREQUENTLY it happens is exactly why it's so outlandish to claim abortion should be banned in these cases. This issue, and this issue alone, is why Tudor lost in Michigan...
You have nailed the facts about human life, murder vs self defense, and politics. The only think you missed is that a human live begins at conception, as per science.
This has nothing to do with science. Politics never does. Is it settled "science" that kids can't drive until 16? That they can't vote until 18? That they can't drink until 21? Why do we keep conflating morals, "science," and law? Are they related, sure, are they the same? Absolutely not.
We still kill people legally all the time - self-defense, war, etc. All morally corrupt, with shades of grey arguments around them. But "legal" none the less.
The Romans used to have gladiators. The entire world used to have slaves. I know we believe that morals are always improving - but there's no evidence for that. Morals simply move around, and societies move around with them. Misunderstanding this is exactly the argument Alex is making as to why our view of "progress" holds us back.
Life may begin at conception per "science," and per science my 11 year old is old enough to drive my car (she does it all the time so she knows how in case of emergency) but society dictates other rules...
What?
I actually think it is polling higher than he reports. A good chunk of Republicans, particularly pro life Republicans, are incredibly uninformed about the overlap in miscarriage treatments and first trimester abortions.
Let me challenge you on the still legal where it affects the mother’s health. There are two options for cleaning up a miscarriage, drug inducement and mechanical. Mechanical, also known as a DNC, has a high risk of causing permanent sterility. The drug inducement method works over 90% of the time and doesn’t carry longterm infertility risks. The drug method is banned by all the abortion bans because treating miscarriages is an approved alternative use not its “primary” use though the way statistics are tracked I am not sure about that.
In the last congressional elections abortion barely registered and that was right after the Supreme Court decision. People are for more concerned about the economy and someone starting WWIII. It's a misleading poll question because people like Berenson make it seem like the overwhelming majority are concerned about it. The question is always framed as taking abortion away completely, meaning even in those cases where it's needed to save the mother's life. Of course most people will say abortion is a concern at that point but that's not the argument being made.
If people look at the state data for reason for abortion it's almost exclusively for convenience (my term). When people try to frame the argument as being about protecting raped woman that is almost statically insignificant and, again, the overwhelming majority of people agree that is the exception that should be allowed.
over time people in red states will increasingly view abortion as barbaric and these polls will shift
abortion became normalized
it will become un-normalized
just a matter of time before it's another barbaric practice we've put behind us
My point was that the pro-life position looks popular on a paper poll. People like children. It doesn’t stay popular when you start explaining how banning abortion dovetails into other parts of reproductive healthcare. Basically the main leaders in the pro-life crowd haven’t kept up with the medical science regarding reproduction and abortion since Roe v Wade.
I suggest being careful around saying most abortions are for convenience. The design of the reporting forms make it the default category.
I don't quite get the argument you're putting forward. It seems like there are several points you're trying to make like the Government getting too involved in people's healthcare and the risks of abortion types, which exists regardless of whether abortion is banned or not. I may be misunderstanding you but I don't think that's what anyone is arguing right now, certainly not me.
Some states report some specific data on reason for abortion. If they can report things like rape or incest I assume it's up to the wiman to make that disclosure but that doesn't invalidate the data. There's nothing to substantiate that the primary role of abortion is anything other than a form of contraceptive.
Antiabortion bills always get too involved. It’s the only way to achieve their goal of reducing abortions.
I don’t have a complete picture of this but my personal research into this mess got seriously started after Texas’ SB8 passed. Since then I have come to the conclusion that the technology behind modern first trimester abortions has a major impact on is a single miscarriage a sentence to being childless. Given that cross application of the technology the only way to prevent a Dr. from subverting the entire ban is banning the technology. As such every ban on abortions are going to interfere with legitimate medical practice. They have to or such bans are trivial to bypass.
If reports of abortion because of rape are turned over to the police for investigation then I don’t want it is going to include a number of domestic abuse cases. This data doesn’t come from the abortion reports directly but from people involved in helping abused women. Most of those women aren’t allowed access to birth control so they use options like abortion.
I am in favor of increasing adoptions. I also realize that there are a good chunk of women in very bad situations where carrying a baby to term is higher risk to her than the abortion. I don’t expect a miraculous solution to that domestic violence problem either.
Between turning miscarriages into a sentence of sterility and the domestic abuse problem I have come to accept that unlimited first trimester abortion is the least bad option. So do most people I have had longer discussions about it.
I also understand that there are women to whom responsibility is an offensive concept. I don’t believe trying to control their lives is worth the other problems. History suggests they won’t even if they have to deal with children.
I talked to a person who works at an abortion clinic. She claims that abortions due to rape or incest are very rare. She also claims that many women are frequent patients. There is a surprisingly high percentage of women who seek 3+ abortions.
I believe that abortion statistics might help us understand the real issue (women using abortion as a birth control treatment). And maybe then we work towards a solution. But people prefer to argue about abortion without understanding the reason people are seeking abortion. That being the case, few are interested in addressing the core issue.
Exactly - the polling numbers cited are misleading. The majority of Americans want it to be legal with many restrictions. That majority includes people who support abortion in the cases of rape and incest (which is a tiny percentage of abortions) as well health of the mother (cases that are a health risk to the mother are truly rare, but used as an excuse for many). The “choice” occurs before having sexual intercourse. Period.
The real challenge for republicans is messaging. They suck and always have. The left is much louder, in control of most institutions, and far better at selling death than the right is in supporting and promoting life.
My children were not my body part.
They are Individual humans that I housed prebirth just as I house them, post birth. Only the location changed.
Killing them in either location is evil.
I’m deeply sorry for the challenges of certain women, who wish not to be pregnant. However that doesn’t justify murder.
Human rights matter for all humans
Nobody can get pregnant anyway these days so not sure what everyone is arguing over. Jabs have made millennials and Gen Z mostly infertile.
made me laugh. Thanks
Why is it the right who is branded as inconsistent?
It is the left who claims to be for choice but then demanded vaccine mandates. Who on the right was demanding mandated abortions?
And were the overwhelming majority of women mandated to become pregnant? Or were they engaging in choices?
Bottom line is that no medical intervention should ever be mandated. Ever.
I understand and sympathize with Alex’s political analysis in this piece but I can not process how someone can agree that abortion is murder (and we are talking about an utterly defenseless infant) but conclude that we all need to get behind it because otherwise all these other bad things will happen.
Why must the weakest among us bear the brunt of our terrible behavior?
Lena,
Yes, agreed. Alex is confusing the Left and Right here. Perhaps purposely, for the article responses?
It is the Left that says " my body my choice " ( he must know that ) then that same left that says " I was forced to inject the Covid injection in my body "( not a vaccine) ( he must know this ). What about your body, your choice? Whapp!! There goes that Decree !
Therein lies the glaring inconsistency.
The only thing the Left is consistant about is their lack of basic logic and their hypocrisy.
Extraordinary, that anyone takes them seriously, including themselves. I think deep down most of them know they can't hold a single logical thought process and they cannot take themselves seriously, then they become louder, to make up for it.
Alex,
I am surprised you don't see taking your own life ( with a poisonous injection or by whatever means ) is completely different then taking someone else's life IE. one of your offsprings. They are their own person, top to bottom, at any stage. They are not you.
When you take someone else's life it is called murder. When you take your own life it is called suicide. We must use simple logic because the Evil left likes to confuse and obfuscate, because that is all they can do, to turn a wrong into a right.
" If they can't dazzle them with brillance they baffle with bull shit "
Best
A couple of things here Alex. 1) The choice to have an abortion is not the same as the choice to not get vaccinated. One who chooses to not be vaccinated makes a choice about their own body alone. One who chooses an abortion chooses for themselves and the unborn, who has no voice in the decision. 2) All murders are highly personal choices.
If you consider abortion a private murder it should be done in private. Not in a hospital and on the payroll of the community. I think Europeans are more conscious of this. Their laws only allow it in emergencies like life of mother at stake or life threatening condition in baby. They do not know abortion here was allowed even on life ready babies
You are (willfully?) misrepresenting the majority Republican opinion on abortion. The country had reached a equilibrium consensus position on abortion and there was not a lot of fighting going on about. Then the left started pushing for late term abortions up to the moment of birth and this was a position that no one on the right could possibly tolerate.
Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Abortion is used by women primarily as BIRTH CONTROL. It is not because of medical, rape, or incest reasons.
Stated Reasons for Abortion when surveyed:
1. Having a baby would dramatically change my life: 74%
2. Can't afford a baby: 73%
3. Don't want to be a single mother: 48%
4. Have completed my childbearing: 38%
5. Victim of rape: 1%
6. Victim of incest: 0.5%
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
But what about birth control failure you say? There are numerous methods of birth control which have failure rates of 0.1% to 0.5%. Using abortion as birth control is never acceptable. 95% of women who had abortions surveyed were either not using birth control at all (54%) or not using birth control consistently (41%). What this means is that 95% of the women who have abortions are doing so as a means of birth control.
https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-effectiveness-united-states
Can't afford a baby but still having unprotect sex.... and the worst: have completed childbearing. Poor babies.
No, I don't hate you - I agree with you.
I have to agree with Ann Coulter that the abortion zealots are really doing the Republican party in. In their attempt to outdo each other, they are losing big time. I'm R... but support first trimester abortion. The idiots wanting to ban it under all circumstances are, well, idiots. If I had a daughter who was the victim or rape, incest, etc... the thought of making her go through with a pregnancy is absolutely barbaric.
I do find it insane that the left is so hell bent on the issue that they are willing to throwing every other thing away in the pursuit of abortion. And wanting to let a woman have the right to kill the fetus up until birth is demonic.
"I have to agree with Ann Coulter that the abortion zealots are really doing the Republican party in."
I did not know Coulter was pro-choice liberal in disguise.
"In their attempt to outdo each other, they are losing big time."
How is attempting to defend the lives of innocent and defenseless humans an attempt to "outdo" each other?
"I'm R... but support first trimester abortion. The idiots wanting to ban it under all circumstances are, well, idiots."
You just called me an idiot so now defend your accusation. Are you able to show how a first trimester human is unworthy of the protection of law simply because it is early in it's existence, unwanted, dependent, and located in the womb?
"If I had a daughter who was the victim or rape, incest, etc... the thought of making her go through with a pregnancy is absolutely barbaric."
Until you've allowed your thoughts to be critically challenged with new information. But I understand how emotional this topic could be. I too use to hold your position. Until I met people like Rebecca Kiessling, a human born from a rapist father. Until I read the story of Jaycee Lee Dugard who birthed two rape babies forced upon her by her captor. She adores those children. Are you able to tell these humans to their face that they were unworthy of protection in the womb simply because their father was a rapist? I thought we, as conservatives, didn't believe in the concept of overcoming evil with more evil but, rather, as the Word of God declares, "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
"I do find it insane that the left is so hell bent on the issue that they are willing to throwing every other thing away in the pursuit of abortion. And wanting to let a woman have the right to kill the fetus up until birth is demonic."
Agree. But I encourage you to think even more deeply on these matters. Since you mention demonic perhaps you're a believer in Jesus. Consider that those children born of rape and incest bear the image of God just as much as those born of loving fathers. And the Lord has the power to heal. To bless. To take what was meant for evil and turn it to good. Just as he did with Rebecca Kiessling and Jaycee Lee Dugard. Evil doesn't get to win.
Ann made it clear she is pro-life, but she admits that sticking to the extremeness insures R's will ultimately lose every office and lose the Senate, Congress and the White House in 2024. I respect your views, but just realize that holding to them with no wiggle room just means party annihilation and no voice for anything going forward.
If a man was forced to carry a rapist's baby... the pro-life movement would cease to exist.
It seems you're refusing to think more deeply on these matters. Allow yourself to be challenged in thought. If but for a minute. How can you say that Rebecca Kiessling was not deserving of equal protection under the law simply because her father was a rapist?
If her mother had her way, Rebecca Kiessling would not exist today. Listen to her testimony if you dare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLPy42hoVjM
I’m tired of losing. It doesn’t get much deeper than that.
If one man had to carry a rapist’s baby, the pro life movement would end tomorrow.
Did you just confess that you're ok with people killing their babies in the first trimester because you're tired of losing political seats?
If you can't roll with Jesus and endure the blowback from defending life to it's logical end because you're in fear of losing political seats then what good is your Christianity?
Seriously. We're called to hold one another accountable as Christians so I'm calling you to task on this publicly since you put it out there publicly.
The Pro-life movement is every bit as much carried by women as men—look at the crowds at the annual March in DC. It’s not a “political, how can we win” movement, but a fundamental passion for things that not only matter, but nothing else matters if they don’t.
No right to life—even in first trimester—no right to anything.
Anyone can then take anything from you simply because in THEIR mind it is better. There is no “winning” if you give in to that thinking.
And please stop suggesting it is somehow selfish men who drive a fully consistent Pro-life movement. The selfish and cowardly men back abortion because it most readily relieves them of any responsibility for their actions.
So be it
That makes sense in human logic but not in God’s logic! He will honor our attempts to do the right things.
Thank you for this; you wrote beautifully what I was thinking. You are right on every point. Lord, please open our eyes to the truth.
Yes where is the common sense wing?
Ann Coulter thinks that people are saying one thing in public... then going to the polls and voting otherwise. If you are Republican, it's almost taboo to say out loud you support abortion. Weirdly, R's think it is hip to say they support gay marriage, though. Everything is upside down anymore.
Good points. Though I will never vote for another democrat except possibly RFK Jr., and even then it would depend on more research, as well as his opponent. The Ds have revealed themselves for the authoritarian monster that that are.
What is your dividing line between when abortion is okay and when it is demonic? How did you land on first trimester? I encourage you to watch a video of an abortion as you think about when it’s okay and when it’s too late.
By the way, I do not believe in destroying a child at any stage, and I am most certainly not “an idiot”. All the best to you.
Those that want to ban it in all circumstances are very few and you KNOW it but saying the R's, the right, the conservatives take this position makes for great DIVISION, talking points, and getting the uneducated and useful idiots to carry your water on the abortion issue.
As long as those few keep saying ban it in all circumstances... the political ads write themselves. If only one nut says ban it... Democrats can keep using that to win. We are making it easy to extinct us.
"Idiots", "barbaric".... Go ahead and kill the innocent baby for the sins of it's father. I'd council my daughter - and she'd agree - completely differently. God will judge us all.
There is absolutely nothing “idiotic” about being consistent and having actual principles. The American founders were “idiotic” I suppose to not engage in Realpolitik with George III?… and Reagan sure blew it calling the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, right? Whereas, there is of course rock solid support out there for all the Mitt Romneys and Paul Ryans who tell us we must abandon principals and “idiotic” thinking so we can sound more acceptable…?
My comment above addresses your opinion - you support first trimester abortion. Most Americans do not “support abortion” carte blanch - they support it with many restrictions. It’s not fair conflate the two as Alex did, and say the majority support abortion. Also, the need for abortion in the case of rape 1% and incest 0.5%
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
You are wrong. Again. The choice is there. Before the act. Be responsible. Protect yourself from disease. And avoid unwanted pregnancy. I would go further, don't have sex with man you don't want to have children with. Get married first. These the lessons we should be teaching our children.
I guess that I don't understand her argument. I thought that the abortion decision was passed to the states by the federal government and that it wasn't banned by the federal government... Anyway, if abortion is the taking of human life and abortion is murder, isn't that bad??? Maybe not at 4 weeks and probably not at 12 weeks but it sure seems that at some point, abortion clearly kills a baby and it seems strange that killing a baby is legal. It seems as wrong to me as killing your wife, which appears to be accepted in other some other cultures.
“Maybe not at 4 weeks and probably not at 12 weeks ”
This kind of arbitrary thinking unfortunately kills people. One is Homo Sapiens—cell or more—or not. Any other definition is baseless.
"If being vaccinated as an adult is a personal choice - and it should be - then having an abortion is too."
I'm stunned you wrote this. This is clearly a non-sequitur. As others have mentioned, there are two bodies involved. Two separate and unique sets of DNA. My body my choice is accurate. Nobody should be forced to get vaccinated against their will at the expense of their job or participation in the marketplace. Killing children is a whole other game.
We parents have an inherent duty to defend the lives of our children. In the United States we criminalize the harm of children by their parents. And the only difference about the child in the womb is location and whether or not it's wanted.
I'm unaware of any case in the United States where location and being wanted was an adequate defense in the acquittal of someone who harmed their child outside the womb and it is not an adequate defense when they do it inside.
This is the perfect way to start the national divorce (if one wanted such a thing): those who believe it is perfectly fine to murder a human child in utero should not be living in states where abortion is banned.
Alex looks at this as if it's only a woman's right to make a decision, but it is more than that. It is making us a nation of murderers who approve abortion as birth control.
Human life is sacred.
Humanism and murder-as-convenience are savagery.
NO STATE IS "BANNING ABORTION" as far as I know. They are running a big federalist-style experiment with varying caps on the amount of time a woman has do get an abortion. AND THE COUNTRY IS NOT in favor of abortion with no caps. So your entire post is built on a false premise.
Legislating morality has never worked well. If abortion is a “woman’s choice”, the cost is also her responsibility. .
This is the balance I think is right. You can’t force people who think it’s murder to have their tax dollars fund it.
"Legislating morality has never worked well. If abortion is a “woman’s choice”, the cost is also her responsibility."
Then shouldn't we just remove rape laws? Murder laws? Laws aren't intended to change hearts. Laws protect the innocent.
Humans begin at conception. They are made in the image of God. It does not nullify that idea whether it's day one, day 270, or day 36,500.
But even for the godless they can defend life, just as some atheist-agnostic-secular pro-life organizations do today. Because they know the science and they know humans begin at conception and are worthy of legal protection.
Laws are for maintaining societal order. Unfortunately, society continues in relative harmony even with abortion. I’m not telling you it’s moral. If murder and even petty theft were legalized then society breaks down.
I do agree that tragically much of the terrible political straights we find ourselves in revolves around protecting abortion at all cost and not innocent life. The desperate fight for the right to “privately murder” will be one of the biggest underlying causes of demise of our once great nation. Elections are swayed by the powerful forces to cling to the right. It’s so incredibly mid-evil and satanic that perhaps God gets the last word now after all and not simply in the afterlife..