Alex’s assertions of conservative hypocrisy on this issue sounds exactly like the pro-abortion indoctrination I got in undergrad and grad school. However, it doesn’t exactly hold water. In every successful abortion, and unique human being dies. As he said yesterday, it IS murder.
While I sit in an uncomfortable position of supporting early abortion rights, so the mother can have bodily autonomy, after the first 8-12 weeks, the choice to abortion is either because the mother doesn’t care enough about her own body to care if she’s carrying another life, or because mom doesn’t like diagnostics test results, which are often wrong, showing the child’s body is flawed.
I increasingly find myself questioning even early abortion. The “pro-choice” crew so often treats children like objects for manipulation, an annoyance, or worse. That’s terrifying.
I am also concerned that those fighting for abortion are often the same group that screams about the “climate change emergency,” advocates openly for child sterilization and genital mutilation, claims that children are community property, and promotes the idea that government and/ or corporations should get input on private medical decisions. As “safe, rare, and early” has given way to casual aborting of 2nd and even 3rd trimester human beings, I fear this crowd is but a small step away from forced abortions for “climate change” or “equity.”
Ultimately, because this was decided by courts and not more reasonable legislatures, we may be left with the choice between very limited abortion rights and legalization of infanticide (note CA extending the definition of allowable abortions beyond birth). I will choose the side of life. My young daughter can overcome having an unplanned and even unwanted child. Our society cannot survive the dismissive, indifferent, and out right cruel attitude the “pro-choice/ pro-abortion” crowd holds towards children, and other human beings generally.
Those who believes humans are nothing more than a disposable choice 6 months into life seem often to hold the belief that 6 year olds are community property with little regard for overtly and cruelly damaging them (note Covid), and increasingly 60 year olds who disagree with them should be dumped from participating in society.
If human life is disposable with no value at 4 or 5 or 6 month into life, at what point does that human being have value?
The individual human life has no value to leftist ideologues. If they don’t kill them in the womb, they kill their souls in childhood using the public education system.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comments and I can see you working out philosophical weakness in your current position allowing for abortion up to 6-8 weeks.
Having travelled this same path I envision you eventually concluding that no abortion should be legal for all of the reasons you mentioned.
If you would like a resource to further explore this issue I highly recommend “Persuasive Pro-Life” by Trent Horn.
If you aren’t a big reader Trent also has many debates and podcasts in the issue. Just search his name and abortion or pro-life on Google and various apps and you will get results.
FYI, he is Catholic but his abortion arguments are not premised on anything to do with the Church.
Thank you for the reference. My husband and kids are Catholic, and we send them to a top conservative Christian school...... while I am not excessively religious, I have found more faith in the pandemic, and grown to appreciate the truth and foresight in Christianity.
My arguments sound more secular, because to some extent they are. Religion is where I find my own personal moral compass, but I need more than my personal moral compass to determine my political stance and morality to impose on others.
For instance, I believe in the Christian definition of marriage personally, but I have always support gay marriage in the eyes of the state as basic fairness because homosexuality, unlike gender delusions, is actually real and has always existed. Pedophilia has always existed too, but necessitates harming innocent children, so clearly existence alone is not a moral justification.
I’m not sure where I will end up. I am adamant about bodily autonomy, and see this as an incredible nuanced and complicated issue. I want some early choice, but I’m tired of the justifications that insinuate MONTHS are needed to assert bodily autonomy. Are women, even poor women, really so hapless they can’t be expected to assert bodily autonomy by 8 or 10 weeks? If not, how long does it take? I read on here about people claiming you can’t force a woman to carry a baby for nine months - OK, fine, but how on Earth does that assertion justify 15 week abortions? One is almost 4 months in at that point. Now consider that at “viability” of 21 or 22 weeks??? It’s illogical.
Where I have moved is examining the argument. No woman needs months to assert bodily autonomy, and the procedure becomes increasingly evil as the baby gets larger and actual torture a necessity in the process of murdering the child.
My daughter and son are adamantly pro life. My daughter for religious reasons, my son scientific. They are 10 and 8. At that age I was cool with late term abortions to the extent I thought about it. They do challenge me. I also realize my kids weren’t ever disposable. Not for a single moment in their life. Not even as a tiny clump of cells.
You strike me as a person who is very intellectually curious and willing to examine and challenge her own premises. That’s very rare these days.
You bring up a lot of things in your post that I would love to go more in depth on but, to keep it more focused, I’ll stick to abortion and bodily autonomy.
If you don’t want to engage with some random guy in a thread I totally understand.
If you do, I’m curious as to what moral difference you would assign to the human being in the womb at 10 weeks and 1 day versus 10 weeks? Why would a woman’s bodily autonomy override the right of the human being at that particular point? (I’m using the longer period of 10 weeks but I think the same question would apply at 8, so if you want to use that time period feel free)
Again, you can also say you are not interested i having this discussion and I’ll respect that decision.
I’m not interested in inflaming passions on the internet. We have plenty of that already.
Also I would say I’m uncomfortable in my position. I think I’m grounded in the reality of the world, but morally, it’s a crap.
I have no idea how I got so lucky with my children (at least thus far), they are amazing. They make me reflect. Like all of us, they started as a clump of cells. One was planned, one was an oops - an adorable oops with a disability/ deformity that is real, but doesn’t change he has unlimited potential in life and he’s far too adorable and smart for his own good (or maybe ours) and he has always an understated charisma and natural good character most adults never achieve. He is an amazing little boy who adds just as much light and good to this world as his planned and amazing big sister. Only a monster could kill him. I could never pin point a moment this became true, only moments I didn’t realize this was true........
I am so grateful to be witness to such amazing conversations. I don’t often comment, but I give a lot of thought to what I read here. Thank you for articulating much of what I’ve considered.
NC Mom, that was one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read, no hyperbole! I too love my kids and wonder why God blessed me with such great daughters (two).
I have a question more directed to the world I suppose, one that also brushes against your thoughtful comments on viability and Alex's statement on same: A child cannot survive on their own at age 3 month, 1 year, 2, etc. There isn't an overly dramatic difference between a mother who has a baby on one side of a uterine wall and a baby clutched tight in her loving arms at 6 months. As cold as this sounds: the mother is a baby carriage of sorts, albeit a fancy medical carriage, and as demeaning as that sounds, I am a father who carried my 1 week 2 week 3 week etc. old daughters in my arms for hours to show them the world, and one would've needed to kill me first before anyone gave them a mandated jab, or worse. But back to NCMom: such a beautiful post!
You hit on a really important point. We must examine our own selves and own capacity for morality. The morality of a body politic is at stake here. After all if a “monster” or dangerous adversary attacks our homes and families we ourselves - advocates of bodily autonomy - may deny someone else their bodily autonomy real quick.
I don’t ascribe more value to human life on 10 weeks 1 day than 10 weeks. It IS a human life with value as soon as it implants and can grow.
I think this is incredibly complex and nuanced. Its not as simple as “give unwanted babies to a family that does want them.”
For many reasons unwanted pregnancies happen, sometimes for cruel reasons. I believe in bodily autonomy of the woman so long as it is purely a right to bodily autonomy. I sit uncomfortably here, because the baby is innocent.
However, having an abortion at 3, 4, 5 months has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. By 6-8 weeks every woman can and should know if she’s pregnant. I do not support abortion for any reason beyond this phase of realizing there is a pregnancy, which is the only time the decision is solely about the woman’s bodily autonomy.
If the allowance of legal abortion is for bodily autonomy, then nothing about the baby’s body or development should be considered, and no additional burden or risk of pain and torture placed upon the innocent growing human being - not for a woman’s procrastination or refusal to make a decision in a timely manner or any other reason.
The right to claim bodily autonomy ends when the mom knows, or should know, a unique and valuable human is growing in her womb, and chooses to keep the baby for any period of time beyond that anyway. A woman has no right to knowingly (or when she should know) grow a human, then change her mind and have it tortured and murdered.
My position is based on balancing bodily autonomy for women with natural rights for all humans. As I’ve said, it’s uncomfortable. The line at 10 weeks is simply because there must be a reasonable line. I could go with 8 weeks as well. If a woman is going to assert bodily autonomy, then assert it.
Abortion after the point of realization one is pregnant with a couple days to schedule getting a prescription has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Nothing. It has everything to do with the child, indifference to the child, or distain for the implications of that child’s life on the adults who created it. That’s not bodily autonomy. That’s murder.
I can see your logic in needing to set a line, as I follow the same logic and see needing to set a line.
Where I set it is fertilization because at that moment a unique and distinct human being comes into existence. I think once that takes place directly killing that human should be illegal.
To me, any other distinction or point seems arbitrary and one that can be moved on unsound philosophical grounds.
Does that make sense?
My argument could have weaknesses as well. What would you say those were.
You bring up truly important points. Nothing in life is “perfect” - not ourselves, not our children, not our governments, societies, cultural realities, corporations or institutions. But as Albert Camus underscored in The Myth Of Sisyphus we become the human beings we are meant to be by accepting our perceived “failures” with our perceived achievements. Although I will not concede on the issue of bodily autonomy because it leads to so many truly horror filled places in reality we must accept our children as they in fact are. If we do believe our children and everyone who enters our lives did not appear for a reason then where does that leave us? Clearly it leaves us with insanity. Even though uncomfortable we must learn to draw the lines we do accept well short of the horrors of denying anyone true bodily autonomy.
I’m not sure if your comment was directed at me or someone else in this thread.
Whatever the case, I’ll put in another plug for anything pro-life related, (YouTube debates, podcasts or his book “Persuasive Pro-Life), really helped me better articulate and advocate for my position.
I don’t think you’d be disappointed by anything he does.
I was directing it to NC Mom - she also articulated my thoughts on same sex marriage as well and I think we even are of the same age and life stage and I often find myself not only agreeing with her thoughts but reading the tidbits she’s shared about herself and thinking OMG me too!!. That said, I am really glad you commented as I appreciate and agree with your points as well. I thank you for this resource as I’m newer in my anti-abortion beliefs and would like to be able to better articulate myself with them. Thank you!! I’ll most definitely check this out.
For the intellectually curious, but not big readers, maybe a movie on the subject would stimulate additional perspective. A start might be the movie called “Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always. Next consider having discussions with impoverished, minority, enslaved in desperation people who don’t have the luxury of lounging around and enjoying this blog and the 600+ comments. Ask that growing populace their perspective. One might get an expanded view. Just saying.
You're correct - there's a betrayal at the heart of this. Unless we solve the greater, more fundamental, betrayals we are quite unlikely to solve this at all. In these gray areas we fail to be very intelligent at all. There's a bunch of articles here for someone to write.
I really enjoyed reading your view on this as a woman and as a Christian. I am a hardcore conservative, but I also believe that it is a nuanced and complicated issue. Your argument is very good. Some early choice is warranted but to insinuate that MONTHS are needed is ridiculous. Even in the case of rape and incest, months are not needed. I do think there is a potential for chemotherapy or radiation to save the life of the mother that would necessarily kill an unborn child past 15 weeks and those cases need to be analyzed very carefully and are exceedingly rare. Even then, I would hope that the oncologists would view the fetus as a human baby and consider waiting an additional 15 or 20 weeks. I would support late-term exceptions only in the most exceedingly rare and unusual cases (such as hypothetical one I mentioned). Like you said, this is a nuanced and complicated issue. It just brings me joy to know that a Christian mother could have such an even keeled and detailed viewpoint of abortion rather than just painting the picture black or white.
Thank you. I struggle with this. I try to be guided by what is most loving. The complete elimination of bodily autonomy, while morally justifiable for the sake of an innocent human life, does not feel loving to me. At the same time, the viability argument, while rooted firmly in bodily autonomy, allows for one human being to direct another innocent living human to be burned alive in saline or ripped apart limb by limb. It’s gruesome and cruel. That does not feel loving to me either.
My mom had a friend who was pregnant around the same time she was with me (I’m approaching 40). Her friend got whatever the disease from cat poop is that causes severe fetal abnormality. The doctors were also concerned the baby would die and the mom wouldn’t notice and the mom could die too as a result. I don’t know if this was legal then or now, though I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be if abortion at this stage/ for this reason is. Anyway, the mom and her husband insisted they could only induce labor. I’m not sure how far along she was - late second or very early 3rd trimester. She said she would absolutely not tolerate killing the baby first - she deserved at the very least to die in her parent’s arms. So that’s what they did. The degree of deformity was very upsetting. But the parents could plainly see their daughter would never have lived. They held her as she died just after birth, peacefully, in her mothers arms with her fathers hands also wrapped around her.
While their hearts were always broken for their lost child, they took great peace in knowing they comforted and cared for her until the very end. That is one of the most loving and heartbreaking stories I have ever heard around a heartbreaking and painful situation that is the rare case pro-abortion advocates use to justify the killing of any baby for any reason at any time in pregnancy (or even new borns in CA). The argument never explains why one must actively, cruelly, kill the child first.
On the other side my brother-in-law and his wife found out at 22 weeks their daughter was measuring only 18 weeks. When they got the genetic results which showed a rare mosaic trisomy, their doctor already had 3 physicians sign off on the abortion to schedule it right then and there. They had struggled to conceive for years. They had 2 viable eggs from IVF. Their son, 2 at the time, was the first. This was their last chance to have another child. They said absolutely not.
They prepared themselves for a still born or severely disabled child - which is what they were told to expect if they decided to “continue the pregnancy.” So they accepted it and hoped for the best.
My sister-in-law was induced at 33 weeks because of spiking blood pressure (something they were warned was likely to happen). Their daughter was born small, but otherwise healthy. She was breathing. She was healthy. She was totally normal. She left the NICU after only 2 weeks.
Today she is a completely normal, adorable, and insanely spunky 6 year old little girl. As it turns out the documentation of her mosaic trisomy is so rare no one actually knows much if anything about it. Based on the little girl at birth and beyond, it likely goes undiagnosed most of the time it happens. Had they not run the genetic testing to look for literally everything at such a late stage, all they would have known if she had in uterine growth restriction. To realize doctors err on the side of death without admitting they were giving the parents advice to kill their child based on an absolute worst case scenario in the basis of 5 document cases of this mosaic trisomy with a bad outcome worldwide is heartbreaking. It was only a couple of years after her birth that they found out just how flimsy the evidence was for the fear mongering the doctors engaged in.
Thanks for sharing the two stories. I think you understand that both of those stories are the rare exceptions, and even then, abortion was not the chosen answer. You also understand that sometimes abortion is warranted. And that's why I was so impressed with your first comment. When I listen to conservative talk radio, it seems that everything is hard right-wing. I sometimes listen or watch mainstream media, mostly for a laugh, and it's all hard left-wing. Lately, it seems that the left has gone far, far, far left -- so far that I wonder who actually watches CNN or reads the Washington Post. defund the police? late term abortions? cancel student loans? voting without an ID? No-bail laws? Guaranteed government income? Restricting political speech? (Pol speech would be deemed hate speech for the convenience of democrats). Yet, maybe conservative media has also gone a bit too far too, particularly on the topic of abortion. I love Charlie Kirk, Andrew Wilkow, Michael Berry, and others but not one conservative voice truly addresses the complexity and nuance of abortion.
I assume as a Christian conservative mother, people assume that you're just pro-life, against abortion in any scenario. Period. End of story. But people with conservative judeo-christian family values are just like any other group of people -- we're complex and we have a variety of opinions and we don't always get along.
In general, I believe that conservative Republicans with judeo-christian family values are on the right side of history -- mostly. I'm generalizing here, but kids raised in church in conservative households turn out better. I think that conservative Christian women make better wives and keep their husbands happier in more ways than just keeping a nice home, if you know what I mean. I think that conservative households are more likely to donate to charity (a proven fact). And if you have a flat tire, a conservative republican is about 20 times more likely to stop and help you fix it. That being said, that doesn't make all of our beliefs sacred and absolute.
I actually believe that most liberal democrats are actually against 2nd trimester and very much against 3rd trimester abortions. And I actually believe that more conservatives are sometimes OK with 1st trimester abortions than will admit to it. I think most conservatives, including myself, want to protect unborn children. In our zeal though, the movement to protect the unborn becomes so self-righteous that conservatives commonly get portrayed as being absolutely against abortion under any circumstance. Likewise liberals are so zealous in protecting abortion that they push to allow abortions even as the baby's head is crowning (or sadly even later). In reality, I don't think that the average conservative is completely anti abortion and I don't think the average liberal is pro-abortion up to the moment the baby pops out. If we could all agree on this, we might actually find that conservatives and liberals could mostly agree on abortion rights.
Really complex issue with many swamps to trap us. The stare decisis, precedent issue simply traps us in the double jeopardy where Roe vs. Wade left this. If I'm correct I believe the Roe Vs. Wade decision made it pretty impossible for States Rights to weigh in on this issue and change the law to fit the people's wishes.
Yes, this hot button, wedge issue is being used by both sides to try to distract us. I've been present at still births where the sacred nature of life is paramount and felt deeply.
Out of curiosity, what is your position on IVF? Those eggs that are fertilized and then frozen. Should a couple decide not to use all of their zygotes, would their destruction be akin to murder? Knowing this, should IVF be banned? For me, IVF has opened up Pandora’s box. What do you think?
Believe these are crucial points and I believe the real dilemmas lie in the culture. Before there are sperm & eggs which meet to form a human there are far larger interdependent webs which we cannot exist without successfully for very long. This is why open, Socratic debates on things such as the Abortion issue give us hope but also engender such complex uncomfortable emotions. At the intersection of Medicine and Governance lie many interesting tie ins.
No. As I’ve said, a unique human forms at the moment of conception, but only begins life/ is living with implantation. The (not very effective) rhythm method is meant to time sex so any fertilized eggs don’t have time to implant before the woman’s next period begins. IUDs do the same thing - prevent implantation - with far greater success.
Abortion is killing a living human being. Plan B is not. IUDs are not. I don’t believe destroying unused fertilized eggs from IVF is either, though many parents who have been through that strongly disagree.
It is a complex area - loaded with land mines. Anybody with common sense and a bit of education or experience knows a viable baby should not be killed. The sticky point you address is at what point does a fetus deserve the same right to bodily autonomy we expect. And obviously in 2020-2022 bodily autonomy isn’t counting for much. I’ve seen live video of Joe Biden espousing anti-abortion rhetoric when it was politically advantageous for him to do so. Our family deliberations on abortion quickly merge into Constitutional law and the issues of bodily autonomy. These are fundamentally, urgently important.
Constitutional law arguments are where the argument should devolve. Our Founders realized that national dictates are rarely good which is why they wanted to use 13 laboratories to deal with varying opinions (10th amendment). Roe v Wade did violence to this by usurping the States prerogatives to act democratically.
Any one who thinks overturning Roe is not pro democratic, or pro constitution has no concept of Democracy and has not read the Constitution (or Alito's draft decision, for that matter), but when has the left acted affirmatively for Democracy?
I am a Catholic, but science and the common law form the basis for my opposition to abortion. It's an undisputed scientific fact that conception creates a human life apart from its mother. That it cannot sustain life on its own does not matter because we can all name instances where survival is dependent on another. None of those instances allow another individual to kill that person. At the common law, you were always entitled to use lethal force against another to prevent grave BODILY harm or death. Emotional, financial harm are not justifications. Abortion in the case of rape/incest is a trickier problem because generally you cannot be forced against your will to care for another. In consensual sex, however, the parties assume the risk of pregnancy.
That argument can be turned around - In most places you can use lethal force against any person that enters your home without consent, but not a woman’s uterus?
Given the choice between a restrictive law like a heartbeat bill, and a law that would allow 22 week old fetuses to be ripped apart limb by limb or burned alive in saline, I will choose the heartbeat law. It places a high burden of personal responsibility on women to be aware of what is happening in our bodies, but it does not entirely rob us of the ability to assert bodily autonomy over our reproduction, not only in the case of tragedies like rape, but also in the case of mistakes like drunken one night stands. I also choose the heartbeat bill because it strains credulity to claim it takes over 4 months to assert a pregnancy is unwanted, and abortions at this stage are cruel as it demands the literal torturing to death of another human being. In this case, I will fall to the side of greater personal responsibility for women.
Conversely, after looking into the LA abortion ban being considered, the extreme position of banning all abortions at every stage, even certain forms birth control like plan B and IUDs, based on “the science of when life begins at conception,” I will choose to allow abortion until viability because I can’t ignore there is a profound difference scientifically between an embryo and a developed fetus, and bans on preventing pregnancy via emergency contraception denies women the right to autonomy over her own reproduction. It demands she maintain any pregnancy, even one started in violence, without consent.
In the case of rape it is accurate to say the embryo committed no crime, but it is also accurate to say the victim committed no crime, and forcing her to carry the offspring of her and her rapist is cruel. I would extend this beyond rape to simply the reality that it is cruel to give any man’s sperm more rights to reproduction than a woman has to her own womb, which is the outcome of outlawing plan B and IUDs. It strains credulity to tell women their right to bodily autonomy ends when a man’s sperm enters her body, even if that occurs against her will. I will not vote to rob women of our most basic right to bodily autonomy over our reproduction simply because a barely fertilized egg is technically a “human life.” I cannot square valuing human life with believing that a living human women should not have any rights at all to her bodily autonomy over reproduction - particularly if she’s violated. We are all flawed humans and the “close your legs” argument feels sanctimonious, often hypocritically so.
Yes, life begins at conception, but bodily autonomy doesn’t end at puberty for women. While I respect valid opinions on all sides, I’ve come to an important realization for my own personal stance that demands I honestly consider both lives.
The ideological arguments “based in science,” exist on both sides. They both sound great in theory, but end up being cruel, to me, in practice.
While I can only speak for myself, I believe I live in the space of moderation where law is often ultimately decided.
Abortion is not top of mind for mid terms. However, there are likely to justifiable backlashes against both extremes in moderate places like NC. For me, it will become an issue if either party pursues a legal mandate for either extreme, and I will vote against the party pursuing either extreme. Upon honest reflection I realize that if that happens it will impact my vote in this fall’s election, and every future election.
Everything you wrote here is why Europe has far more restrictive abortion laws than America does—and none of the hysteria over the issue that periodically bubbles up on our continent. If I'm allowed to put inks in Substack comments, here's a short summation of Europe vs. US on this issue:
The left side of the political spectrum wants us to emulate Europe, which they consider far more sophisticated, in virtually every way. Except this one.
While the 28 day after birth rule is terrifying, some are now talking into the toddler years. Yep, you heard that right. When evil is allowed to creep in, like it was with early abortion, taking the next leap of evil is simple for society. No matter the subject, we have seen this with every leftist policy plan.
I like to think of myself in team reality and as such I look at abortion from a collective standpoint in practical terms as well as from a perspective of trauma.
There is a trauma to the mother: that she has to reconcile for herself in her life and her relationship with God. However, it is minimal compared to the trauma an unwanted child could suffer
Forcing someone to bring a child into the world, especially if they are young, without resources, incapable or resentful, will only further the cycle of trauma throughout the community for two lifetimes instead of one.
In my view this is really a Socio economic issue. Most people who get abortions are doing so because they feel they cannot afford children and/or they do not have the familial support that it takes to do so without going insane...
People with resources will find a way. They will get abortions unobstructed. This will only impact low-income people who conservatives don't want to pay for anyway.
It is the biggest, most emotionally taxing and stressful thing anyone will ever do, in my opinion, is to be a parent. It is a never-ending job and the bulk of the weight lands on the female, not the ejaculator. How do we reconcile that?
It is a choice that should not be taken lightly regardless and should by no means be forced on to anyone.
This comment paints with a very broad brush. I've mentioned before, and NCmom eludes to this reality in her comment, but my husband and I try to put our money where our mouth is by supporting two very effective pro-life charities which directly assist expectant and already mothers with financial, spiritual, and physical needs. I think you need to check some studies because it has been shown time and time again that people who identify as "conservative" (and in particular, religious conservative) tend to give the most to charitable organizations. My objection is having the government be the sole support for people because it is spectacularly incompetent at doing so.
Finally, you need to check the stats put out by the Guttmacher institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) which lists the reasons why women procure abortions - you might be surprised.
I'm sorry you see fathers as only "ejaculators." If that is your experience, it explains much of your comment.
I'm sorry that's what you took from my comment. What a seriously crazy-making issue.
I think hard-line pro-lifers are some of the most hopeful and starry-eyed about people. Must be. I've met some real scumbags in my life but I like people and am generally hopeful.
Your assertion: “This will only impact low-income people who conservative don’t want to pay for anyway”
Actual reality: Room at the inn, and other organizations like it, are funded solely by pro-life people to help low income women in need. Moreover, conservatives are more likely to donate to charities than liberals, and more likely to volunteer their time to actually help the needy.
Who locked low income kids out of school while forcing their “essential worker” parents to go to work in person again?
In addition, there is a years long waiting list for childless couples to adopt an infant. There are families longing and waiting for a child, who would be blessed by a mom willing to carry to term and place her baby in a good home.
Thank you, NCMom. Love Life America, founded in Charlotte, will meet every need of a mom in crisis. I have friends who are mentors walking alongside moms and I volunteer at Habitat for Humanity to help one of them earn her hours to build her home.
I thought I was replying to the comment that pro-lifers are only pro-birth. Not the sociology-economic comment.
I agree there will be disparity in access. I think that is a sad reality of our current political state, and applies to far more than this debate. Inequality has and will always exist in every human society, and in nature, but the issue is being exacerbated terribly by our current political leadership to heartbreaking levels in the last 12 months. Poor mothers apparently need to cross the border illegally if they want to find safe formula for their babies.
Families wanting their already immune 5 year olds spared dangerous experimental injections with unknowable long term consequences that don’t protect anyone from anything might need to move out of CA if they want their kids to attend school in person. The lack of options for their child’s bodily autonomy there will fall disproportionately on the poor, but they’ll be able to have abortions or commit infanticide legally. Deep blue cities correlate to the greatest academic achievement gaps. Only parents of means can provide their kids an actual education and opportunity in life in most blue urban cities with enormous academic achievement gaps as leadership in most of those places opposes school choice that would give poor kids more options and opportunities.
Those situations certainly exist more than any of us would prefer and they are heartbreaking and difficult.
If someone ask you what young woman abandoned by her husband and left her destitute, without familial support and under immense mental and physical pressures should do with her toddler what would you advise?
It's not the same thing, at all. Not one bit. An aborted baby at 4 weeks literally looks like a cotton ball. Or a spider web with a thick middle. That's the physical reality.
How do socio-economic concerns change the fundamental nature of a human? Are poor people less human than rich people?
Through the lens of valuing all human life as equal in value by nature of each individual’s status as a human questions about the mother or father’s desire or ability to provide for that human is immaterial.
It's only immaterial from a philosophical perspective of potential. But human life outcomes are weighed heavily on parental ability to provide both physically & emotionally. Socioeconomic stressors are too often abuse and trauma. So.
When I am at the DMV with my 7 month old, and the man sitting next to me is easily 10 years my junior, there with a woman who may be one of his 7 children from 6 different mothers, or his current "piece" (I cannot tell and obviously do not inquire), is he a father of which you speak? Or is he an irresponsible ejaculator leaving many fatherless children to grow up in a stress-filled life with dubious potential outcomes likely to continue the cycle of abuse?
I do not know what the right answer is. I simply choose to know that abortion is sad, it harms many women & families, and I am not one without sin to force my will on to others.
knowing how God values human life and forcing that "knowing" on to others is the issue. women have been aborting babies since B.C. and will continue to do so regardless of your ideology or governmental restrictions.
Valuable to who? Not valuable to we the people unless there is a bunch of thieves in place to take these from us. Guess there's always wampum beads and/or trade and a government of fire circles. Or maybe the fine old traditions of gambling - real gambling not Las Vegas style.
Apparently, Alex actually believes that the baby's body is just an extension of the mother's body. If that's the case, Alex, when the baby is killed, why doesn't the mother die, too?
Here's the ACTUAL relevance: The reason we have so many doctors today who are willing to administer deadly drugs like Remdezivir and dangerous vaccines like mRNA while withholding life-saving treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin is because most doctors today are whores. They will do anything they are asked to do as long as it comes with a big fat paycheck. This trend started with abortion. It continued with countless deadly and addictive drugs, including opioids, amphetamines, and benzos. It persists to the present day with our "Covid response." The medicalization of abortion fueled an industry of doctors with ZERO ethics.
Gosh, that's really hard to acknowledge, but my respect for medical professionals has really plummeted the last 2 years. Your analysis rings true. What a sad state we're in.
Yes, we must learn to draw lines - sometimes uncomfortable ones - at bodily autonomy. If we fail at this it leaves too many opportunities for rank opportunists of the first order to serially abuse us, our families, our nations, cultures, corporations, institutions, our planet. As our revolutionary ancestors did understand and set forth pretty capably except for some glaring trade offs it is up to us to remedy the answers lie in being willing to become more fully human.
I confess to not reading this whole post and just want to jump in and say that the non-hypocritical link is to say that anti-vaxx and anti-abortion are both stances against killing people. Hence, both are consistently Pro-life.
...then there is also being against the profit motive for killing people; the cultural coercion to kill people; the censorship around alternatives to killing people (see Big Tech esp)...gee I think I see a pattern emerging...
Killing is killing. Think we may have evolved past believing killing is an answer to anything? Then again some have warned there is simply no way to build that many prisons or guillotines.
They are Pro-life and consistently so. To have linked these two things to conservatives and to simple, crass political expediency is a glaring hypocritical error and the first thing I noticed too.
Theoretically this isn’t a great comparison. An innocent new human being shouldn’t be equated to a human convicted of monstrously taking the life of other humans. My opposition to the death penalty personally has nothing to do with equating humans who choose to be monsters with innocent humans who have committed zero crimes. My opposition is that we have a legal system that I believe in on the whole, but recognize major weaknesses in as well. Humans aren’t very good at playing God, and I can’t support the death penalty because miscarriages of “justice” are too common in our flawed human system.
That said, my position on abortion didn’t change when I had an ooppsy who is now an amazing 8 year old boy, and wouldn’t change if my daughter found herself with an unwanted pregnancy. (My position is based in very early bodily autonomy for the mom, and protection of life after the first 8-10 weeks).
If my husband or one of our children were brutally murdered, I accept it’s likely I’d want the death penalty if I felt confident the right person was charged and convicted by a jury..... so there’s that too.
I would expand my comment to add: or sometimes too lazy. There is the im-famous Texas case of Michael Morton who was falsely imprisoned for 25 years for the murder of his wife in part because law enforcement didn't follow up leads that conflicted with their theory of the crime. DNA evidence finally cleared him, but not until the actual murderer killed another victim. Thank goodness he did not get the death penalty.
When we study the law we quickly encounter rightful laws which err in the interpretation of these laws. It is up to we the people to ever reinterpret the law to meet our ever expanding understanding. If we the people fail at this there will be plenty of abusive, rank opportunists who will do it for us.
Alex operates in a strictly materialist frame of mind- only what he can see,taste,handle,has meaning for him.His is the viewpoint that the laws of a supernatural realm can’t have real validity in the material world.And,if there is no God,then Alex’ analysis is a reasonable one.But if there is a God,and He is the God of Abraham,Isaac,and Jacob,oy such a problem he has…
Agree.. I am a christian, but acknowledge that christian beliefs should have nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is a worldly act, and the killing of a baby in the womb is a vile and heinous and inhumane act - with or without religion. Pro life has (or should have) nothing to do with religion and should separate itself from it....
Totally on board with the 5th and all of the Commandments. However, I don't need the Commandments to know that murder is wrong. Murder is wrong with or without religion..
Alex has a continuing dilemma: truth is unitary. Truth is indivisible. If the materialist weltanschauung is untrue, then his pursuit of truth is corrupted. It is constantly polluted with falsity. Truth is the alchemist's end. The truth about matter. We will never understand the truth about matter without understanding the truth about matter's creator.
God is a spirit - yet we material creatures are created in His image. The unitary nature of truth is bound up in the unitary nature of God. "Thy Word is truth" The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, and that one Man who dares to imagine He is the truth.
St.Augustine wrote,in DE TRINITATE,that when he reflected on the image of God in man,he came to believe that the image must be tripartite,as God Himself is,and that this image must exist in the mind of man,not his body.Further,in meditating on God’s image in the mind,he came to believe that it consisted in the Memory,the understanding,and the will.Memory,the image of the Father,for He knows all,understanding,the image of the Son,the divine Logos who spoke the world into being,and the will,image of the Holy Spirit which desires the things of God.
I am also Jewish. You are asking a religious question. We don’t have the same foundation and fundamental principals as say Catholics. As has been quipped many times by my fellow Jews: “Jews don’t consider any fetus to be viable until it graduates medical school. 😝🤦♂️😂
Lots of people are Jewish and here’s some discourses from the intellectual bastions of YouTube this morning on the possible existence of hypocrisy amongst those who are moral, upstanding citizens:
Exalting reproductive choice enables the prenatal killing based on sex and disability, plus embryo selection--central to IVF--gamete sales, cloning and genetic engineering.
These measures commodify human life are already causing, and will cause more, social harm via genetic inequality and alienation than drugs ever could.
Also, abortion is an exercise of sovereignty over another, second human being, that lies within a woman's body.
Plus, the availability of abortion on demand has enabled a Wild West sexual culture with many negative effects on family structure and STD transmission.
Also, the vaxxes harm the bodies of those who are required to take them.
Abortion has cheapened human life. And contributed to destroying the black family. Blacks were the reason Margaret Sanger wanted abortion and "birth control" on demand. She thought there were too many of them. And now their pregnancies end in abortion more frequently than any other ethnic group in the US.
I’ve heard a number of 30million plus black babies aborted since 1973 decision. Only a racist white supremacist would support this as being ok. White liberals have enslaved generations of blacks under the guise of the great society, and simultaneously for them to believe killing there unborn babies was a good thing. They achieved something the KKK could only dream of..blacks destroying themselves from within. I am hopeful that many are starting to wake up to this fact, as this bill of goods sold to them by the racist white liberal hucksters is nothing more than an empty promise founded in lies.
Might be other considerations like oppressive socio-economic conditions, which our own founding fathers helped create for all minorities, but especially blacks. Slave owners never considered abortion as long as the owned sex slaves complied and the “wife” never said anything. Things only got “chippy” once legalized slavery ended and the evolution of women’s rights allowed freedoms and choices never available before. Fetuses and babies and precious lives are all great blog chatter, but most abortions don’t involve well heeled families with resources like subscriptions to blog sites.
Even intelligent people like Alex completely misunderstand the core issue with abortion. You have the right to refuse medicine on the grounds of “my body my choice”, you don’t have the right to murder your unborn child - regardless of its size, location, level of development, or the fact that it’s your child.
Yes, along with the intentional misunderstanding or falsification of either the words or the intent of the US Constitution. Whether it's the issues surrounding abortion, free speech, inalienable rights, or the right to be defended from enemies real and imagined - the present "leaders" are failing epically. In every aspect they have broken their oaths.
People that argue for vaccine mandates are doing so under the presumption that your choice will endanger, harm, or kill others. (First argued via establishing herd immunity, then argued via strained hospital resources.)
Right, but that doesn’t change the fact that the issue of abortion isn’t about the woman’s body and her sovereignty over her body. There is a distinct, entirely whole, sovereign individual in the womb who has a right to life just like a 2 year old does. The size of that person, their level of development (a “clump of cells”), their location (in their mother’s womb), doesn’t change that fundamental fact. A debate about the common good, your duty in the pursuit of the common good, etc. as it relates to vaccines is a separate issue.
Sure, but there's a huge culpability of the medical industrial establishment here. And not that this may be correct under other circumstances but not in a world where "my body, my choice" actually doesn't count and where legalized murder through execution of criminals by the state and sponsored terror and murder are practiced by "legitimate" governments - especially and including the USA.
“Drugs regularly harm not only the user but the people immediately around him - who are often children. ”
Kind of like people immediately inside those who are carrying them? (Women, men, whatever we are being told by the left today).
I still believe that most people are against abortion at 39 weeks and yet think 12-15 weeks it is probably okay. Very few people think a 39 week abortion is fine or a 6 week isn’t and this is the nature of a debate for a legislature.
yeah, it's tough to have a binary legislation (legal/illegal) on an issue that requires the inordinately difficult merger of both the philosophical definition of life itself & the scientific concept of fetal viability
if a baby survives an abortion, should the baby be called safe? most believe so, but not all. these babies (no longer fitting the scientific definition of fetus) are not protected in all states.
life begins at conception. this is where the unique DNA is formed. is that where we draw the line, effectively outlawing abortion?
the youngest viable fetus that i'm aware of is 21 weeks, 1 day. is that where we draw the line? it's a relatively recent "record", surely to be broken again.
This is the problem in a nutshell. You're trying to legislate what is for most people a question of philosophy or faith. In general that requires a pragmatic compromise but neither side is willing to compromise.
it's also a matter of deciding which is the appropriate level to arbitrate between the two sides
finding consensus among a large, diverse group is usually more difficult than with a smaller, more cohesive group
should this be decided at the national level? our politicians have never taken up this legislation in the decades it has been an issue
should it be decided at the state level? where the attitudes, religions, philosophies within states are more coherent & reflect stark differences between different states.
should it be decided at the city or community level?
should this be decided at the individual level? is there a negative impact to the community outside the individual to the degree that the community merits input?
what are the positive and negative implications of banning abortion at any of these levels? will people be more cautious going forward? could that lead to deeper relational commitments before sex?
Sure, it’s from way back there in the dark ages somewhere. But ironically? This morning on YouTube we receive word through M.D. Campbell that Mad Magazine is putting out a First Third Issue.
You’re right. Why be against murdering children. There’s no alternative after all. If only there was some sort of service that connected mothers of unwanted children with childless couples who wanted children.
And, if only there were ways to prevent the pregnancy all together. Yes, I know there may be times related to the health of the mother or the results of rape, but those numbers are small.
And that's how I know abortion proponents aren't serious about solutions because even if you offer the incremental approach (like birth control or even allowing abortion for the "hard cases,") they won't concede any ground. They want abortion at any time, for any reason, and without cost.
It is not just about wanting them. There are many many other considerations. For example - a pregnancy is not easy by any means. Mentally or physically. Forcing a WOMAN (and I am of the belief that WOMEN get pregnant)- is not moral or ethical. It is a personal choice.
Same as justifying not vaxxing because the alternative is some chance of myocarditis. And even if vaccines don’t stop transmission, if your being vaxxed keeps you out of the hospital, it saves the bed for a person who may actually need it to save their life (pro life?!). So this nonsense can be justified eternally both ways.
It must stop at the source. Which is the government CANNOT tell anyone what to do with their bodies. Period.
The thing about getting jabbed for Covid (or any disease that has a vaccine) is having to predict the future. Saying the vax prevents hospitalization is based on statistics and (hopefully honest) studies. It's a "greater good" argument, saying "x" number of people will be saved by vaccination vs no vaccination.
But abortion is absolute. A life is killed with abortion. No theories, no statistics needed. Two lives go in, one comes out.
Just assuming vaccination will save "Joe" down the street is different than a procedure that 100% kills a living being. (Why do murderers get a double murder conviction for a pregnant women? That fetus is a life.)
The My Body, My Choice argument is more solid, though the argument there is who "owns" the fetus/baby? Is life absolutely sacrosanct? Or if that life depends on Mom for survival, then does Mom have the choice to do what she wants with that life? And if that life depends on Mom and Mom can do what she wants, when does that end? If she can kill the baby in utero, why not out of utero? A baby can't survive on its own in utero and a baby can't survive on its own in its first year of life. Where does it end?
Nine months of DISCOMFORT? Having a baby is life and death to a female body, so many things can go wrong, being fatal to the mother. Educate yourself about pregnancy before describing it as discomfort.
Are you from the 1700s? How many women do you know who have died in child birth? Lots of things are difficult and dangerous. Should someone be able to starve their child because the only job available is coal mining?
There’s a simple solution, you don’t want to risk a pregnancy, abstain from sex. Incapable of that?? Get a hysterectomy. The idea that it’s ok to kill an unborn baby out of convenience is disgusting to me. Immoral. Sick.
A hysterectomy is a little extreme. There are ample options for birth control, and plan B in the case of rape or unplanned sex for whatever reason. Sterilization isn’t exactly the first thing to recommend.....
I agree. I really don't like the idea of sterilization. But we have an abundance of birth control options (and I say that as an NFP practicing Catholic mom of 5 children) and dare I say it, people can abstain. We don't even talk about that as an option anymore - like it is beyond a person's capabilities..
Personally I may be against murdering children but still be capable of understanding why someone else caught in a sociological, psychological, ethical trap with insufficient alternatives or education may not understand this. Seems our state cannot even manage to avoid injecting the populace with mRNA vaccines, nor understand they may be murdering people - how they going to deal with the complications you present? Abuse is abuse, a trap is a trap.
It has long been my belief that many, many women don't fully appreciate what an abortion truly is - that's why the whole "clump of cells" language was so crucial in promoting it. There is a priest, long-involved in the pro-life movement, who has said, "if we want abortion to end - show a procedure live on TV. Until people see it, they won't understand it." There's a reason abortion advocates work so hard to prevent a pregnant women from seeing US images of her baby. On top of this failure to provide informed consent, the abortion industry has also co-opted the language surrounding adoption so that when asked, many young women can't imagine "giving their baby away" but can imagine killing them.
We can't all be embryologists but the basic concepts of human biology are pretty accessible. Given the proper intent, a relevant and accurate press - unaffected by rampant propaganda - accurate public education on this issue is entirely possible.
This decision does not ban abortions it removes it from the preview of the Federal Government. Which most issues should be as the Fed Government has poor integrity, skills and intelligence at every level.
As our revolutionary ancestors would remind us tyranny is a constant threat and often comes from within. Our ancestral leaders - Europeans and Native American’s alike had a shared fear - The Federal Governments.
When abortion was illegal there were way fewer. And women were happier on the whole because they weren't regarded as playthings to be forced into abortion by the oblivious studs who'd knock them up.
That’s a straw man argument. There is birth control. Plan B. Not having casual sex or pretending there is no consequence. Women know if they have been raped. Plan B is widely available.
I’m not actually opposed to very early abortion based on bodily autonomy.After that point, yes, you kill a human for a real or perceived flaw in that other human, it’s evil.
We put people in jail and even to death if they were to rip a new born baby apart limb by limb or if burn them is a salt bath so their skin fell off their body or cut their head open sucked out their brain. But you think it’s ok to do that to a different human the exact same age because it hasn’t passed through the birth canal??????
Just occasionally once I become really weary of an endlessly mindless argument I will quote Shakespeare or others. The right to our inalienable rights is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Like it or not this includes bodily autonomy. There are dichotomies we may have to live with.
Bodily autonomy for whom? Where specifically in the constitution does it say mommy can have her unborn child ripped apart limb by limb or burned alive in saline???
A women can “choose” to be pregnant for months, then violently kill her own child, based on your assertion, the constitution protects this?
I’ve read the constitution and federalist papers numerous times. I find no alluding to abortion rights at all, and certainly not the ability to choose to be pregnant for months, change your mind, and violently murder another living being then claim it’s for bodily autonomy.
Believe it's safe to say (but maybe not here) that we must assume bodily autonomy for all. Therein lies the dilemma. Hopefully we have fair minded Constitutional scholars who can guide us through this minefield. Hopefully we collectively make the correct decision. It may be that State's rights helps decide this.
Not at all. Just don't want it being endorsed by and paid for by government.
If they don't want the babies, maybe they can be a tad bit smarter and more careful about mitigating the risk of being pregnant? Kind of like mitigating other health risks? You smoke your whole life you can't be surprised when you get lung cancer
They do not have to raise a child they do not want because all 50 states have Safe Haven laws where any woman can drop off her newborn and be freed from the burden of raising it, freed from the expense, no consequences, just safely drop off that baby and she's done. The baby will end up being placed with carefully vetted parents in a carefully vetted home (safety inspection, fire inspection) where the child will have a good life and become a productive citizen. The woman is done when she drops off her baby at a state-designated fire station or hospital or other designated drop off point where the child will immediately receive care - the woman does this anonymously, no fee, no paperwork, no consequences, done.
True. In earlier ages women would leave unwanted babies on the steps of a church, or before churches existed, at a pagan temple, or at any other site where people gathered to worship. It was accepted practice. It's been happening forever.
Right, the child does not have to die for the mother to be free, if that is what she wants. Though many women want their child but are under pressure from others not to have it, or want the child but don't know about resources that are available to them that would allow them to have their child. Information and help that should be more widely known.
We're all "forced" to not kill other people. That's called having regard for human life and not being selective about it. It's not okay to kill a life just because no one can see that life.
There's a great deal of killing going on these days. Pretty odd for a people "forced" not to kill. As long as we live in a world where killing each other is fully justified by political, economic or social expediency where exactly will we draw the line?
We have already lost much of the ability to draw the line. When a society can't even agree on what defines a human being and when that life begins everything else becomes relative.
Quite obviously. This stubborn tendency to cope with our realities. We see it everywhere. The failure to support the intent, if not the letter, of the Constitution and understand the crucial fact of bodily autonomy hounds us like a ghost. Since we're all part of a very large whole where doesn't life begin? My strong suspicion is that the "powers that be" are fearful of yet another threat they do not want "us" to see. What we cannot see can indeed harm us.
You think they're fearful of us seeing something they're trying to keep hidden? Or that they're fearful of something and don't want us to see what it is?
Yes - but they are not dependent solely upon the mother. They can be raised perfectly with the complete absence of the mother. Not so for a foetus, especially prior to viability.
Of course the foetus is people. Our Mothers, Fathers, political realities and Planet Earth as a living system are also living bodies we are absolutely dependent upon.
So the birth canal is the difference between human life having value and being “not a person?” What about elderly people who are dependent? Or new borns? Or the physically disabled? Or someone in surgery?
A human from conception to death in old age is the same person. Only the appearance changes over time. Many nursing home patients are totally dependent on others to provide everything to them. Have you gone in to those homes and dispatched people because they depend on others???? Eagerness to kill the vulnerable is an appalling character trait. Heil.
Having to face the exigency that we may indeed be our own worst enemies? Mother’s and fathers can be monsters and generally due to generations of abuse themselves and way insufficient education. Us humans need to grow up and survive our own brutality.
Sometimes we’re forced to hold opposing views simultaneously. Our system is supposed to be able to deal with this fairly. The fact it does not always is up to us citizens to remedy. If the killer had no way of understanding psychologically that she/he was actually killing someone then it’s difficult to lay blame. Intent is critical here. So is education.
But if the mother can't abort the child, she is necessarily forced to carry & birth it- an undertaking which kills many women. Even the BEST most medically-uninteresting birth renders a woman "disabled" from her work for 6 weeks.
It's not ethical or legally permissible to force person A to undergo physical harm to benefit person B - even when person B is the child of person A. The courts can't force a mom to merely DONATE BLOOD to save the life of her child - so enshrined in our lies is bodily autonomy.
Do you know a lot of women who have died in childbirth then? I guess I’m convinced. It’s fine to murder people as long as you’re preventing some hypothetical harm to another person, and not preventing them from working for 6 weeks.
The science of embryology disagrees with you here. You can call it what you what, but it doesn't change the fact that you are talking about a whole, biologically distinct human being that has the same rights as you. Just because a child isn't as developed as you, isn't as big as you, is located inside the womb, or is dependent on the mother for sustenance, doesn't make it any less valuable. "Fetus" is Latin for "young one".
Let's try it with some of your examples above..."It's ok to murder my child because 'many' woman have died in child birth" (you should check the statistics on that, the word "many" doesn't apply). "It's ok to murder my child because I won't be able to work for 6 weeks". This isn't a complicated issue.
Our society has constructed a reverse sanctuary in a woman's womb.
In the reverse sanctuary, it is permissible to seize the helpless and tear it apart to kill it, no different than tearing the wings off a fly.
I know many are on board with this thinking. But I'm not. It's cruel and barbaric to even tear the wings off a fly. Is the fly's life worth it? Not really, no. But doing that lowers and coursens us as humans.
I'm actually beginning to worry about Berenson's Covid critique. He can't seem to think this one through. Abortion advocates think they can violate the bodily integrity of another human being by killing it. Vax fans think they can violate the bodily integrity of everyone around them, on the slim chance it will protect their health. It's not that difficult.
Well said. Yep, we're held hostage on many fronts by slick wordsmiths today. I's not the first time and it won't be the last. Our founding ancestors had a knack for wordsmithing combined with thinking. All hail the difference!
If you think about it from a legal perspective, both arguments rest on the premise of bodily autonomy (also called privacy). There can be no other justification, so they actually are quite similar if you need to argue for/against.
Remember that the argument for vaccine mandates is that they work for the good of others. Originally to stop spread (and thus save vulnerable lives), then shifted to protecting hospitals resources so no triage was necessary (again, presumably saving others’ lives).
However flawed, the theoretical underpinnings are the same.
No, I am not. I am not saying the arguments aren’t flawed, since in one case it will absolutely result in loss of life and in the other case it is presumed (“more people will die because of your selfish refusal to take a vaccine”). The fact that your choices will harm or kill others IS the justification for vaccine mandates.
The issue here is not abortion. The issue is the US Constitution. It states nothing about about abortion. The flimsy excuses offered in the Roe v Wade decision do not stand up to scrutiny and just about every legal scholar for the past 50 years has pointed this out, including many a liberal. The Supreme Court is doing their job here by pointing out that this is a legislative issue and must be decided by legislators and their constituents, not by courts. This is very important, as the globalists and socialists have used some of the precedent established by the absurd Roe decision to cram through all sorts of nefarious expanses of federal power, which were clearly never to be given to them. Witness the recent "creation" of a wing of the nefarious DHS to combat "misinformation". So the biggest liars in the country will now tell you what to believe is true. Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Our federal government has very clearly outlined areas of responsibility under our Constitution and has no business telling everyone how to live their lives. The citizens of Florida are very different from the citizens of Washington State. This decision would start to turn back the lunacy.
This is the crux of it - if we are thankful for federalism because of Covid, the same should apply to abortion. If the country wants to make abortion legal on the federal level, then Congress has to legislate, not the judiciary. This is not a federal issue and there is no constitutional right to abortion. Up until having my own kids I was pro choice up to a certain point, but these communist ghouls never know when to stop. And when I think about how easy abortion has become, it's no surprise that people treat the decision so cavalierly. Abortion, and the left's treatment of it as a sacrament, has no doubt contributed to America's moral rot and decay.
Agree completely. When you watch some of the "activists" screaming and foaming at the mouth, it becomes apparent that we, as a nation, have lost any notion of the sanctity of life. I shall have the right to crush my baby's head and rip it from limb to limb because of convenience! How dare you tell me otherwise! This same mindset is the fountainhead of so many other horrors, including the mass murder of citizens of other countries, torture of prisoners and a sociopathic ghoul of a President telling free US citizens that they must be injected with an experimental gene therapy or lose their jobs. We've lost our way. Time for DEMOCRACY (citizens voting) to right the ship.
I am a mother of 2 children, including a former preemie. When I learned a few years ago that so many women who already have children have abortions, I was STUNNED! I had hyperemesis (morning sickness on steroids for 9 straight months, puking multiple times a day) and both my pregnancies were hell on earth. I cried almost every day. Then I had multiple postpartum complications and almost died. When I look at my 3 and 10 year olds today, the thought of them not being here today because I couldn't make it through those god awful months blows my mind, especially when so many HG sufferers abort their children.
We need to SUPPORT women! Tell them they can make it! Tell them it feels impossible! Tell them they can do this! They are tough! Not let the abortion clinics tell them they are weak and and can't make it through. Are "women strong and capable of anything" or are they not?
Whatever happened to the women who used to run out in the street, get hit by a car and die so they could push their kids out of the way?
So sad. So sad that despite the technology PROVING it is a baby, people are "shouting their abortions." I cry for this nation. I cry for the woman who have abortions because they think their "lives will be ruined." No! Not ruined! It'll be hard but enhanced! Enhanced! My 10-year-old is the greatest thing that has ever happened to my husband and me.
Exalting reproductive choice enables the prenatal killing based on sex and disability, plus embryo selection--central to IVF--and gamete sales, cloning and genetic engineering.
These measures commodify human life are already causing, and will cause more, social harm via genetic inequality and alienation than drugs ever could.
Plus, the availability of abortion on demand has enabled a Wild West sexual culture with many negative effects on family structure and STD transmission.
And the vaxxes harm the bodies of those who are required to take them.
Have been thankful for the fact our Revolutionary Ancestors included States Rights and inalienable rights simultaneously. There’s a betrayal at the heart of it. I knew this argument applied to the American Civil War in some way. Useful to remember the founding ancestors we’re most distrustful of their own federal governments. These boys and girls finally remembered they were landed aristocrats. They understood deceptions. Our country is based on the acceptance of ambiguity. The founding Dads and Moms knew the were making trade offs and hoped (trusted?) we would correct these inequalities.
The Constitution? Do y’all mean to imply here we should all be impressed with the issue of Constitutionality? Hasn’t the Constitution been thoroughly shredded by the events of 2020-2022 and before?
While it's true that many individuals have failed to uphold their oaths of office to abide by, protect and defend the US Constitution, I believe we owe it to generations past & future to recognize the temporary delusions for what they are and to make them right. We can all see with our own eyes the death, destruction, rot & sheer lunacy that occurs when mortal men are drunk on power and cheap money. Our Constitution is a permanent check on those who would attempt to take away your natural rights.
All the more reason to be pleased with this potential decision. And perhaps now our legislators could actually start to legislate again (sans omnibus bills) and keep the executive in check. But I’m dreaming, ya?
JC is largely correct. Alito enumerates in exquisite detail how and why Roe and Casey are considered to have been decided outside the scope of the Constitution and are examples of "raw judicial power." He makes a compelling argument that judicial legislation must be replaced with legislation crafted by the peoples' representatives. Alex should stay in his lane ... his comments miss the essence of the problem; in this case it's a legal consideration - the morality gets sorted out through the political process of legislation that should reflect the will of the majority. That's how democracy works. Read the draft decision - it's interesting and commenters opining on the leaked document have an obligation to know what they're talking about.
It's not fully true that the Constitution doesn't address this issue. The term "abortion" speaks to the pregnancy, not the developing baby—you are aborting a pregnancy by killing the developing baby. There would be no reason for the Constitution to speak of abortion (I doubt it was a big problem at the time). It does, however, address the taking of life with the authorization of the state: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (5th & 14th Amendments). The 14th Amendment also guarantees equal protection of the laws. To the extent the Constitution addresses the issue, that's how it does so—there's no due process for babies still in the womb (which, to his credit, Alex acknowledges are human beings who are murdered by the abortion procedure) and no equal protection of the laws for them. That's the reason for denying the "personhood" of the developing baby (same thing that was done with human beings of African descent to justify enslaving them despite 5th Amendment protections). If we call them "persons," the 5th & 14th Amendments apply.
Guess it comes down to our definition of "person" then. But no, I don't imagine the possibility of legal abortion was a concept at the time. However the old fashioned kind by suicide, coat hanger, or induced attempts at abortion were around. There have always been women who got caught in these situations through no fault of their own.
You might enjoy reading Justice Alito's full 98 page decision (draft). I was fascinated by his lengthy review of the history of American law on abortion, dating back to the early founding of the country. I had no idea how much discussion there actually was on this issue prior to the last century.
I, too, read his draft decision. I strongly recommend that everyone read it. This decision is NOT as portrayed by our President, Schumer, Pocahontas, and the usual leftist hysterics. Their rants and wailing are the very definition of dis mis and mal information. And yet go unchallenged.
I'm not a lawyer but I play one on my tablet. Seriously, any attorneys out there willing to discuss the decision? Would love to read a reasoned analysis from either side.
I read it. You're right—it was very interesting. (The opinion is a pleasure to read because it's so clearly written, not full of convoluted sentences and legalese.) He covered not just U.S. law, but English common law. Our legal tradition and the one from which we inherited our system always saw the developing baby as something to protect. Abortion was considered not legal/criminal in nature, depending on stage of pregnancy. None ever recognized a right to terminate a pregnancy by killing the baby until the second half of the 20th century.
Totally agree! So many legal documents are a headache to plow through. I wanted to read it to better understand the ruling, (What? You can't trust the news? Lol!), and found it to be both incredibly informative and very well written in common language.
So true we do not live in a society where we are encouraged to explore the truth of reality. Am going to presuppose that we citizens untrained in the law have some work to do, lol.
Although we know both karma and the purposeful killing of a baby, especially past a few weeks, will have complicated negative effects on both the mother and the State who supports it is a failure all around, there is more. Like gender change being placed in the hands of children who don’t fully understand the possible horrid effects of drug therapy, surgery & bodily mutilation, not to mention the psychological effects - abortion too is a double-edged sword.
And I’m speaking here of the negative psychosocial effects on women. I’m NOT suggesting that women or the state don’t know what they’re doing and NOT suggesting the mother should NOT have the right to 100% bodily autonomy. Like most things in life and government when we look further we find dichotomies - inconvenient truth.
In a society where we are fully aware and conscious abortion should not be necessary. In such an environment every new life would be regarded as the most wonderful, positive thing imaginable. When we observe nature we sometimes see mothers in a healthy deep population give birth to three fawns. If otherwise blinded we may presume erroneously that it is a great harm to both mothers and babies. Nature however may have other plans. As we watch a mother and Triplett fawns play in our backyard there appears only joy.
So in a society where we truly respect each other’s bodily autonomy 100% and base our relationships on trust, real communication, and respect it is difficult to see that abortion would ever be necessary. Way to optimistic viewpoints? Maybe. But I’m suggesting that the need for any woman to need to own her own body to the extent she herself must see her body held hostage to a parasite (a fetus) which must be destroyed is a 100% damnation of the rest of us. Without all men and women together educated and socialized to know we are all one - we are all lost. We as humans could not be more interdependent with each other, with the natural world, with the universe. The hubris which makes us perceive that we are somehow Independant or exempt is a seriously delusional deceipt. It leads straight to the culture of death we have inherited.
Yes, as a legal matter, it comes down to how we define "person." But a legal definition doesn't change reality—it either reflects or denies reality. We did that with slaves of African ancestry prior to the 14th Amendment. It didn't make them any less human beings, entitled to the same God-given rights to life and freedom as all other human beings.
And yes, there have always been and always will be women who get caught in these situations through no fault of their own. We don't usually make policy based on the exceptions. "Hard cases make bad law" is a well-known legal aphorism for good reason.
The hypocrisy doesn’t run both ways on abortion. You’re missing the fact that those who are against abortion truly see a fetus as a baby and a life that no one has the right to terminate. I think they have a good point, or at least a respectable view that you should take into account.
"I believe prohibitions against drugs can be theoretically justified. Drugs regularly harm not only the user but the people immediately around him - who are often children."
i mean, this is kind of how we feel about abortion
Criminalizing a decision that has very minimal effects on society at large, compared to the huge effect it has on the individual - is not sound policy IMHO
but people murder should be criminalized, correct? what about prostitution? drugs? spousal abuse? child abuse?
the effects of most of these are relatively private. it's hard to tell if there are incidences of child abuse or spousal abuse in your own neighborhood, yet you would surely call the police if you saw an instance. why? at what point precisely are the impacts of any of these beyond "minimal"?
what are the societal implications of legalized abortion? are there any? would society be different if it were to be outlawed in your state? would people act differently if they didn't have a reliable failsafe option to avoid pregnancy? would people be less likely to have sex outside of casual relationships or with strangers & instead reserve intercourse for committed or married relationships? would these effects to a society be considered "minimal", or could they become something much greater than that?
That argument is ridiculous, we don't lock people up for passing influenza to their grandparents and killing them. A miscarriage is not an intentional act.
We have a word.for intentional miscarriage. It is abortion. Bad arguments like.this may bring some people to your side in the short term but ultimately destroy your credibility.
The question come down to when we grant rights to the unborn. If they are ALWAYS people with rights, then we must lock up women who miscarry."
interesting. so, "the unborn" should not be protected, but the "born" should.
where do you draw the line?
in some states, if a child survives an abortion attempt - they are technically born & not a fetus, but they will effectively be killed by the doctor & the mother shortly.
is the line within 1 hour of being born? 1 day? 1 year?
are you safe if you are born?
what if a mother goes into early labor before a scheduled late term abortion appointment? the time and date of the appointment would seem arbitrary in light of the difficulty we have in accurately predicting births.
a fetus is considered viable after 26 weeks. they are in essence able to survive in the world. should the mother be able to abort a viable fetus? if so, why? it has unique dna and often differs from the mother in sex and blood type. when does the fetus begin to have intrinsic value?
"so, "the unborn" should not be protected, but the "born" should."
------------
Yes, this is the basic legal reality we find ourselves in. We gain rights when we are born and become people. If you want to protect people before that time, the state legislature is the proper place to make that happen.
This does indeed seem to be the best way to handle these difficult issues.
I cannot imagine how much worse the world would be if the states were prevented from taking differing covid responses. Florida & Georgia and the rest removing their restrictions showed in real time how pointless & harmful they were.
Some years ago my friend got a phone call from a sister he had never met. 30 years previously their, at the time, unwed teen parents had put her up for adoption. If conceived 30 years later she would not have been allowed to live.
Abortion is either OK or not, if not it blackens the soul of those directly involved and the society that sanctions it.
A grave mistake is to fall into the 'we cannot successfully outlaw it' fallacy. It may be unrealistic to outlaw abortion but we can attempt to structure laws and society so that it is very clear that abortion is a grave last resort and the parents who make the sacrifice required to allow their child to live are doing a good thing worthy of support and encouragement,
Yes, the 'we cannot successfully outlaw it' fallacy. I think Alex missed the similarity of his argument on drugs (discourage their use) with many people's position on abortion. Perhaps they can't all be stopped and perhaps there should be some very specific exceptions, but it is still incumbent on society to discourage immoral behavior (killing an innocent person).
When you outlaw something it just moves underground. And it affects the poorest of the society the most. And just use a condom is about as useless as just get vaccinated,. Like masks, they need to be used properly, fitted well and used once, a fact that is lost on many people.
Women’s bodies, women’s choice BUT provide sufficient education so everyone understands the stakes. For Socratic education. Talk with our kids often and now.
The little comedians do understand. My 7 year old grandson, following an age-appropriate deep discussion on th application of creativity to screens vs brass tacks reality - involving liberal anecdotes as to the roles of imagination in architecture and science - quipped: “You mean to tell me everything we see ( gestures to the surrounding reality) is from my imagination.? This little guy is a veteran YouTuber, an addicted gamer, and a talented little musician.
The argument is about whether SCOTUS gets to make up the laws of the land, not abortion. But I'm glad that argument is elevated.
Abortion is the eugenicist's wet dream. Vacuum and flush out the unborn babies of the poor, dirty, unwashed...especially minorities. One study had African-American abortions making up 36% of all abortions (vs. 13% of the general population). The great ethnic cleansers of all time were strongly pro-abortion (Margaret Sanger, Nazis, communists). Democrats take their cues from these heroes of the Left once again...but I'm surprised to see it here.
There is nothing hypocritical about conservative objections to a forced, harmful and useless vaccine and the desire to protect an unborn CHILD (as Dementia Joe Biden accidently said).
Most of us know people who gave birth to very premature babies who survived and thrived; while those same babies can be vacuumed out of the womb and flushed according to "it's a woman's choice" false principles.
It is no more a woman's choice than infanticide. The argument Alex is making follows the same gaslighting feints we've heard from the Left for decades - that it's a woman's body, a "fetus", and just a mass of clay inside that needs extracted. I'm sorry, I disagree with these premises.
Anyone who's seen images of an unborn child - images not available 50 years ago - understand that the science of the pro-life conservatives wins again (as with masks, vaccines, lockdowns). That is a child, not a "fetus", and the child should have the right to live.
That’s weird. I thought the argument was about whether the Supreme Court gets to operate within some expectations of personal and institutional privacy. Also that the Supreme Court is only authorized to interpret and reinterpret the law by we the people. This requires constant oversight and participation by we the people. Leave it to corporatist politicians and we land back where Patrick Henry and others put us when he laid down the gauntlet for all tyrannically minded: “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.” If we forget what this means we are truly lost.
In the case of abortion, it is not "my body, my choice." In the case of abortion, there are TWO BODIES. The pro-abortion crowd intentionally ignores this inconvenient truth.
The fact that it would be legal for me as a bystander to use physical force to protect a mother and her 1 minute old child, but it is legal for that same mother to kill that same child 1 minute before birth and I as a feeling human being am supposed to shrug and say oh-well, just another "private murder" is insanity and the stuff of horror movies insidiously masked as a medical procedure.
My 14yr old got 2 jabs. Never got the booster. Her summer camp won’t allow her to attend unless she gets the booster. The same people screaming my body my choice. I will never forgot the hypocrisy and I will NEVER financially support an organization that bought into authoritarianism. Organizations still enforcing boosters on healthy kids should be held accountable.
Pretty good analysis. I mostly agree. Here's where I think it gets hard though with abortion. You say, "But they fail the second. They [fetuses] cannot survive in the real world, not without a level of police power incompatible with a democratic state." Well, neither can a 1-day-old baby survive in the world without a mother's (or nurse's) assistance -- and we deem that assistance a legally enforceable duty. (Your phrase "police power incompatible with a democratic state" is not an argument; it's just another way of stating your conclusion.) So is it the distinction between the baby's being outside or inside the body that determines the duty? Sounds a bit strange, to have the duty attach when the person no longer is attached, but let's go with it for the moment . . . until we see that isn't a clear boundary either, because all our polling data indicates our democratic society is perfectly fine with abortion restrictions applicable to the late third trimester. So what is the boundary that makes practical sense?
The answer, I think, is that we don't know -- a logical/theoretical/philosophical argument isn't going to get us to a compelling, undeniable, immutable conclusion.
Which means the topic is a good candidate for a democratic lawmaking process, rather than being resolved by reading a right (which in its application will have to have a high degree of specificity) into the Constitution.
Except when your choice brutally, horrifically, and painfully murders an innocent child, or releases them to be live organ donors for profit in the process of murdering them. There simply is no justification for this.
I was a teenager and something of a hippy-type when I heard on the car radio that abortion had been declared legal. My immediate thought was that this was not progress. Through so many decades, through having 3 children in mostly tough times, and having 9 grandchildren, my beliefs have never wavered. They never will.
When all is said and done, I don't understand why an action, murder, is acceptable to a certain portion of our population. Especially to that portion of our population that is by definition, unable to defend itself.
As a gay man, I do not have a dog in the abortion fight. However, the Roe v Wade decision is not about abortion. It is about states rights. The abortion issue can be settled by returning the issue to the states. Those states that want abortion can have it. Those that do not, then they don’t have to have it. If you live in a state that does not allow abortion and you believe that is wrong, then take to the democratic process and elect people that will give you the results you want.
If all of these people raging against the Supremes for the hypothetical decision are so upset, then get together and start an effort to encode the availability of abortion into the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment. Or an easier path, elect the Senators and Representatives that will vote for a law enshrining abortion as the law of the land.
But what they would rather do, since it is the path of least resistance, is to lean on a Constitutionally questionable judicial precedent (not a law), and then hold each Supreme Justice Nominee hostage to answering the question “is Roe v Wade settled law?”.
The mRNA drugs are a whole other issue. But bringing the force of the State to make people take a drug that they did not want to take OR that they might have legitimate questions about is not compatible with a free democracy. People (should) have the choice as to what to put into their bodies. If the vaccines were so effective, and a person took the “jab”, then why would they care about others who did or did not make the same choice.
They two are separate issues. I used the “My body, my choice” argument since it was fun to watch the faces of people on the other side get all contorted as they tried to explain it away. But, in reality, the issues are different. And BTW, I did take the “jab”. I am over 65 and have some conditions that pre-disposed me to COVID. So I made a bargain with the Devil, and took the jab. But I know what I did and why I did it. Forcing people to do that is wrong.
Yes, how epically everyone misses the point about this particular leak as it applies to this draft regarding the legal complications of Roe Vs. Wade. The Supreme Court is tasked with the critically important point of interpreting and reinterpreting our laws. To accomplish this the need to have a reasonable expectation of personal and institutional privacy. Laws under consideration need intense discussions and many drafts and redrafts. Threatening justices and fencing off the Supreme Court building are not good images for we the people. As our Revolutionary ancestors famously quipped to questioning citizens “It’s a republic, if you can keep it.” It’s a Revolutionary republic - IF we the people can keep it.
Your downward slide continues. The choice of what … killing a child.
And with the vaccines I don’t care what they do elsewhere. I never said don’t mandate everywhere. If you’re stupid enough to keep electing fascists then have at it. Let them control you. Just not in my county or city. They can still have the freedom to get abortions where ever they want. And they ignore the technology since 1972 with the myriad of abortifacient drugs.
It is not something that runs both ways.
You are hell bent on continually to chink your armor which yet again makes me still anti-vaccine based on many others and what I’ve seen personally but your arguments…. not so much.
Yes. Because preventing the murder of a child is the same as forcing someone to take a drug. These two issues are only superficially similar.
Alex’s assertions of conservative hypocrisy on this issue sounds exactly like the pro-abortion indoctrination I got in undergrad and grad school. However, it doesn’t exactly hold water. In every successful abortion, and unique human being dies. As he said yesterday, it IS murder.
While I sit in an uncomfortable position of supporting early abortion rights, so the mother can have bodily autonomy, after the first 8-12 weeks, the choice to abortion is either because the mother doesn’t care enough about her own body to care if she’s carrying another life, or because mom doesn’t like diagnostics test results, which are often wrong, showing the child’s body is flawed.
I increasingly find myself questioning even early abortion. The “pro-choice” crew so often treats children like objects for manipulation, an annoyance, or worse. That’s terrifying.
I am also concerned that those fighting for abortion are often the same group that screams about the “climate change emergency,” advocates openly for child sterilization and genital mutilation, claims that children are community property, and promotes the idea that government and/ or corporations should get input on private medical decisions. As “safe, rare, and early” has given way to casual aborting of 2nd and even 3rd trimester human beings, I fear this crowd is but a small step away from forced abortions for “climate change” or “equity.”
Ultimately, because this was decided by courts and not more reasonable legislatures, we may be left with the choice between very limited abortion rights and legalization of infanticide (note CA extending the definition of allowable abortions beyond birth). I will choose the side of life. My young daughter can overcome having an unplanned and even unwanted child. Our society cannot survive the dismissive, indifferent, and out right cruel attitude the “pro-choice/ pro-abortion” crowd holds towards children, and other human beings generally.
Those who believes humans are nothing more than a disposable choice 6 months into life seem often to hold the belief that 6 year olds are community property with little regard for overtly and cruelly damaging them (note Covid), and increasingly 60 year olds who disagree with them should be dumped from participating in society.
If human life is disposable with no value at 4 or 5 or 6 month into life, at what point does that human being have value?
The individual human life has no value to leftist ideologues. If they don’t kill them in the womb, they kill their souls in childhood using the public education system.
Absolutely correct!
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comments and I can see you working out philosophical weakness in your current position allowing for abortion up to 6-8 weeks.
Having travelled this same path I envision you eventually concluding that no abortion should be legal for all of the reasons you mentioned.
If you would like a resource to further explore this issue I highly recommend “Persuasive Pro-Life” by Trent Horn.
If you aren’t a big reader Trent also has many debates and podcasts in the issue. Just search his name and abortion or pro-life on Google and various apps and you will get results.
FYI, he is Catholic but his abortion arguments are not premised on anything to do with the Church.
Thank you for the reference. My husband and kids are Catholic, and we send them to a top conservative Christian school...... while I am not excessively religious, I have found more faith in the pandemic, and grown to appreciate the truth and foresight in Christianity.
My arguments sound more secular, because to some extent they are. Religion is where I find my own personal moral compass, but I need more than my personal moral compass to determine my political stance and morality to impose on others.
For instance, I believe in the Christian definition of marriage personally, but I have always support gay marriage in the eyes of the state as basic fairness because homosexuality, unlike gender delusions, is actually real and has always existed. Pedophilia has always existed too, but necessitates harming innocent children, so clearly existence alone is not a moral justification.
I’m not sure where I will end up. I am adamant about bodily autonomy, and see this as an incredible nuanced and complicated issue. I want some early choice, but I’m tired of the justifications that insinuate MONTHS are needed to assert bodily autonomy. Are women, even poor women, really so hapless they can’t be expected to assert bodily autonomy by 8 or 10 weeks? If not, how long does it take? I read on here about people claiming you can’t force a woman to carry a baby for nine months - OK, fine, but how on Earth does that assertion justify 15 week abortions? One is almost 4 months in at that point. Now consider that at “viability” of 21 or 22 weeks??? It’s illogical.
Where I have moved is examining the argument. No woman needs months to assert bodily autonomy, and the procedure becomes increasingly evil as the baby gets larger and actual torture a necessity in the process of murdering the child.
My daughter and son are adamantly pro life. My daughter for religious reasons, my son scientific. They are 10 and 8. At that age I was cool with late term abortions to the extent I thought about it. They do challenge me. I also realize my kids weren’t ever disposable. Not for a single moment in their life. Not even as a tiny clump of cells.
You strike me as a person who is very intellectually curious and willing to examine and challenge her own premises. That’s very rare these days.
You bring up a lot of things in your post that I would love to go more in depth on but, to keep it more focused, I’ll stick to abortion and bodily autonomy.
If you don’t want to engage with some random guy in a thread I totally understand.
If you do, I’m curious as to what moral difference you would assign to the human being in the womb at 10 weeks and 1 day versus 10 weeks? Why would a woman’s bodily autonomy override the right of the human being at that particular point? (I’m using the longer period of 10 weeks but I think the same question would apply at 8, so if you want to use that time period feel free)
Again, you can also say you are not interested i having this discussion and I’ll respect that decision.
I’m not interested in inflaming passions on the internet. We have plenty of that already.
Also I would say I’m uncomfortable in my position. I think I’m grounded in the reality of the world, but morally, it’s a crap.
I have no idea how I got so lucky with my children (at least thus far), they are amazing. They make me reflect. Like all of us, they started as a clump of cells. One was planned, one was an oops - an adorable oops with a disability/ deformity that is real, but doesn’t change he has unlimited potential in life and he’s far too adorable and smart for his own good (or maybe ours) and he has always an understated charisma and natural good character most adults never achieve. He is an amazing little boy who adds just as much light and good to this world as his planned and amazing big sister. Only a monster could kill him. I could never pin point a moment this became true, only moments I didn’t realize this was true........
I am so grateful to be witness to such amazing conversations. I don’t often comment, but I give a lot of thought to what I read here. Thank you for articulating much of what I’ve considered.
NC Mom, that was one of the most beautiful posts I've ever read, no hyperbole! I too love my kids and wonder why God blessed me with such great daughters (two).
I have a question more directed to the world I suppose, one that also brushes against your thoughtful comments on viability and Alex's statement on same: A child cannot survive on their own at age 3 month, 1 year, 2, etc. There isn't an overly dramatic difference between a mother who has a baby on one side of a uterine wall and a baby clutched tight in her loving arms at 6 months. As cold as this sounds: the mother is a baby carriage of sorts, albeit a fancy medical carriage, and as demeaning as that sounds, I am a father who carried my 1 week 2 week 3 week etc. old daughters in my arms for hours to show them the world, and one would've needed to kill me first before anyone gave them a mandated jab, or worse. But back to NCMom: such a beautiful post!
You hit on a really important point. We must examine our own selves and own capacity for morality. The morality of a body politic is at stake here. After all if a “monster” or dangerous adversary attacks our homes and families we ourselves - advocates of bodily autonomy - may deny someone else their bodily autonomy real quick.
I don’t ascribe more value to human life on 10 weeks 1 day than 10 weeks. It IS a human life with value as soon as it implants and can grow.
I think this is incredibly complex and nuanced. Its not as simple as “give unwanted babies to a family that does want them.”
For many reasons unwanted pregnancies happen, sometimes for cruel reasons. I believe in bodily autonomy of the woman so long as it is purely a right to bodily autonomy. I sit uncomfortably here, because the baby is innocent.
However, having an abortion at 3, 4, 5 months has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. By 6-8 weeks every woman can and should know if she’s pregnant. I do not support abortion for any reason beyond this phase of realizing there is a pregnancy, which is the only time the decision is solely about the woman’s bodily autonomy.
If the allowance of legal abortion is for bodily autonomy, then nothing about the baby’s body or development should be considered, and no additional burden or risk of pain and torture placed upon the innocent growing human being - not for a woman’s procrastination or refusal to make a decision in a timely manner or any other reason.
The right to claim bodily autonomy ends when the mom knows, or should know, a unique and valuable human is growing in her womb, and chooses to keep the baby for any period of time beyond that anyway. A woman has no right to knowingly (or when she should know) grow a human, then change her mind and have it tortured and murdered.
My position is based on balancing bodily autonomy for women with natural rights for all humans. As I’ve said, it’s uncomfortable. The line at 10 weeks is simply because there must be a reasonable line. I could go with 8 weeks as well. If a woman is going to assert bodily autonomy, then assert it.
Abortion after the point of realization one is pregnant with a couple days to schedule getting a prescription has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Nothing. It has everything to do with the child, indifference to the child, or distain for the implications of that child’s life on the adults who created it. That’s not bodily autonomy. That’s murder.
I can see your logic in needing to set a line, as I follow the same logic and see needing to set a line.
Where I set it is fertilization because at that moment a unique and distinct human being comes into existence. I think once that takes place directly killing that human should be illegal.
To me, any other distinction or point seems arbitrary and one that can be moved on unsound philosophical grounds.
Does that make sense?
My argument could have weaknesses as well. What would you say those were.
You bring up truly important points. Nothing in life is “perfect” - not ourselves, not our children, not our governments, societies, cultural realities, corporations or institutions. But as Albert Camus underscored in The Myth Of Sisyphus we become the human beings we are meant to be by accepting our perceived “failures” with our perceived achievements. Although I will not concede on the issue of bodily autonomy because it leads to so many truly horror filled places in reality we must accept our children as they in fact are. If we do believe our children and everyone who enters our lives did not appear for a reason then where does that leave us? Clearly it leaves us with insanity. Even though uncomfortable we must learn to draw the lines we do accept well short of the horrors of denying anyone true bodily autonomy.
I have so many of the same views as you and feel like I’m reading my own thoughts but can’t articulate them like this.
C Marie,
I’m not sure if your comment was directed at me or someone else in this thread.
Whatever the case, I’ll put in another plug for anything pro-life related, (YouTube debates, podcasts or his book “Persuasive Pro-Life), really helped me better articulate and advocate for my position.
I don’t think you’d be disappointed by anything he does.
Lance
I was directing it to NC Mom - she also articulated my thoughts on same sex marriage as well and I think we even are of the same age and life stage and I often find myself not only agreeing with her thoughts but reading the tidbits she’s shared about herself and thinking OMG me too!!. That said, I am really glad you commented as I appreciate and agree with your points as well. I thank you for this resource as I’m newer in my anti-abortion beliefs and would like to be able to better articulate myself with them. Thank you!! I’ll most definitely check this out.
For the intellectually curious, but not big readers, maybe a movie on the subject would stimulate additional perspective. A start might be the movie called “Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always. Next consider having discussions with impoverished, minority, enslaved in desperation people who don’t have the luxury of lounging around and enjoying this blog and the 600+ comments. Ask that growing populace their perspective. One might get an expanded view. Just saying.
You're correct - there's a betrayal at the heart of this. Unless we solve the greater, more fundamental, betrayals we are quite unlikely to solve this at all. In these gray areas we fail to be very intelligent at all. There's a bunch of articles here for someone to write.
I really enjoyed reading your view on this as a woman and as a Christian. I am a hardcore conservative, but I also believe that it is a nuanced and complicated issue. Your argument is very good. Some early choice is warranted but to insinuate that MONTHS are needed is ridiculous. Even in the case of rape and incest, months are not needed. I do think there is a potential for chemotherapy or radiation to save the life of the mother that would necessarily kill an unborn child past 15 weeks and those cases need to be analyzed very carefully and are exceedingly rare. Even then, I would hope that the oncologists would view the fetus as a human baby and consider waiting an additional 15 or 20 weeks. I would support late-term exceptions only in the most exceedingly rare and unusual cases (such as hypothetical one I mentioned). Like you said, this is a nuanced and complicated issue. It just brings me joy to know that a Christian mother could have such an even keeled and detailed viewpoint of abortion rather than just painting the picture black or white.
Thank you. I struggle with this. I try to be guided by what is most loving. The complete elimination of bodily autonomy, while morally justifiable for the sake of an innocent human life, does not feel loving to me. At the same time, the viability argument, while rooted firmly in bodily autonomy, allows for one human being to direct another innocent living human to be burned alive in saline or ripped apart limb by limb. It’s gruesome and cruel. That does not feel loving to me either.
My mom had a friend who was pregnant around the same time she was with me (I’m approaching 40). Her friend got whatever the disease from cat poop is that causes severe fetal abnormality. The doctors were also concerned the baby would die and the mom wouldn’t notice and the mom could die too as a result. I don’t know if this was legal then or now, though I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be if abortion at this stage/ for this reason is. Anyway, the mom and her husband insisted they could only induce labor. I’m not sure how far along she was - late second or very early 3rd trimester. She said she would absolutely not tolerate killing the baby first - she deserved at the very least to die in her parent’s arms. So that’s what they did. The degree of deformity was very upsetting. But the parents could plainly see their daughter would never have lived. They held her as she died just after birth, peacefully, in her mothers arms with her fathers hands also wrapped around her.
While their hearts were always broken for their lost child, they took great peace in knowing they comforted and cared for her until the very end. That is one of the most loving and heartbreaking stories I have ever heard around a heartbreaking and painful situation that is the rare case pro-abortion advocates use to justify the killing of any baby for any reason at any time in pregnancy (or even new borns in CA). The argument never explains why one must actively, cruelly, kill the child first.
On the other side my brother-in-law and his wife found out at 22 weeks their daughter was measuring only 18 weeks. When they got the genetic results which showed a rare mosaic trisomy, their doctor already had 3 physicians sign off on the abortion to schedule it right then and there. They had struggled to conceive for years. They had 2 viable eggs from IVF. Their son, 2 at the time, was the first. This was their last chance to have another child. They said absolutely not.
They prepared themselves for a still born or severely disabled child - which is what they were told to expect if they decided to “continue the pregnancy.” So they accepted it and hoped for the best.
My sister-in-law was induced at 33 weeks because of spiking blood pressure (something they were warned was likely to happen). Their daughter was born small, but otherwise healthy. She was breathing. She was healthy. She was totally normal. She left the NICU after only 2 weeks.
Today she is a completely normal, adorable, and insanely spunky 6 year old little girl. As it turns out the documentation of her mosaic trisomy is so rare no one actually knows much if anything about it. Based on the little girl at birth and beyond, it likely goes undiagnosed most of the time it happens. Had they not run the genetic testing to look for literally everything at such a late stage, all they would have known if she had in uterine growth restriction. To realize doctors err on the side of death without admitting they were giving the parents advice to kill their child based on an absolute worst case scenario in the basis of 5 document cases of this mosaic trisomy with a bad outcome worldwide is heartbreaking. It was only a couple of years after her birth that they found out just how flimsy the evidence was for the fear mongering the doctors engaged in.
Thanks for sharing the two stories. I think you understand that both of those stories are the rare exceptions, and even then, abortion was not the chosen answer. You also understand that sometimes abortion is warranted. And that's why I was so impressed with your first comment. When I listen to conservative talk radio, it seems that everything is hard right-wing. I sometimes listen or watch mainstream media, mostly for a laugh, and it's all hard left-wing. Lately, it seems that the left has gone far, far, far left -- so far that I wonder who actually watches CNN or reads the Washington Post. defund the police? late term abortions? cancel student loans? voting without an ID? No-bail laws? Guaranteed government income? Restricting political speech? (Pol speech would be deemed hate speech for the convenience of democrats). Yet, maybe conservative media has also gone a bit too far too, particularly on the topic of abortion. I love Charlie Kirk, Andrew Wilkow, Michael Berry, and others but not one conservative voice truly addresses the complexity and nuance of abortion.
I assume as a Christian conservative mother, people assume that you're just pro-life, against abortion in any scenario. Period. End of story. But people with conservative judeo-christian family values are just like any other group of people -- we're complex and we have a variety of opinions and we don't always get along.
In general, I believe that conservative Republicans with judeo-christian family values are on the right side of history -- mostly. I'm generalizing here, but kids raised in church in conservative households turn out better. I think that conservative Christian women make better wives and keep their husbands happier in more ways than just keeping a nice home, if you know what I mean. I think that conservative households are more likely to donate to charity (a proven fact). And if you have a flat tire, a conservative republican is about 20 times more likely to stop and help you fix it. That being said, that doesn't make all of our beliefs sacred and absolute.
I actually believe that most liberal democrats are actually against 2nd trimester and very much against 3rd trimester abortions. And I actually believe that more conservatives are sometimes OK with 1st trimester abortions than will admit to it. I think most conservatives, including myself, want to protect unborn children. In our zeal though, the movement to protect the unborn becomes so self-righteous that conservatives commonly get portrayed as being absolutely against abortion under any circumstance. Likewise liberals are so zealous in protecting abortion that they push to allow abortions even as the baby's head is crowning (or sadly even later). In reality, I don't think that the average conservative is completely anti abortion and I don't think the average liberal is pro-abortion up to the moment the baby pops out. If we could all agree on this, we might actually find that conservatives and liberals could mostly agree on abortion rights.
Really complex issue with many swamps to trap us. The stare decisis, precedent issue simply traps us in the double jeopardy where Roe vs. Wade left this. If I'm correct I believe the Roe Vs. Wade decision made it pretty impossible for States Rights to weigh in on this issue and change the law to fit the people's wishes.
Yes, this hot button, wedge issue is being used by both sides to try to distract us. I've been present at still births where the sacred nature of life is paramount and felt deeply.
Out of curiosity, what is your position on IVF? Those eggs that are fertilized and then frozen. Should a couple decide not to use all of their zygotes, would their destruction be akin to murder? Knowing this, should IVF be banned? For me, IVF has opened up Pandora’s box. What do you think?
Believe these are crucial points and I believe the real dilemmas lie in the culture. Before there are sperm & eggs which meet to form a human there are far larger interdependent webs which we cannot exist without successfully for very long. This is why open, Socratic debates on things such as the Abortion issue give us hope but also engender such complex uncomfortable emotions. At the intersection of Medicine and Governance lie many interesting tie ins.
No. As I’ve said, a unique human forms at the moment of conception, but only begins life/ is living with implantation. The (not very effective) rhythm method is meant to time sex so any fertilized eggs don’t have time to implant before the woman’s next period begins. IUDs do the same thing - prevent implantation - with far greater success.
Abortion is killing a living human being. Plan B is not. IUDs are not. I don’t believe destroying unused fertilized eggs from IVF is either, though many parents who have been through that strongly disagree.
It is a complex area - loaded with land mines. Anybody with common sense and a bit of education or experience knows a viable baby should not be killed. The sticky point you address is at what point does a fetus deserve the same right to bodily autonomy we expect. And obviously in 2020-2022 bodily autonomy isn’t counting for much. I’ve seen live video of Joe Biden espousing anti-abortion rhetoric when it was politically advantageous for him to do so. Our family deliberations on abortion quickly merge into Constitutional law and the issues of bodily autonomy. These are fundamentally, urgently important.
Constitutional law arguments are where the argument should devolve. Our Founders realized that national dictates are rarely good which is why they wanted to use 13 laboratories to deal with varying opinions (10th amendment). Roe v Wade did violence to this by usurping the States prerogatives to act democratically.
Any one who thinks overturning Roe is not pro democratic, or pro constitution has no concept of Democracy and has not read the Constitution (or Alito's draft decision, for that matter), but when has the left acted affirmatively for Democracy?
Taking advantage of a weakness in our body politic? Stare decisis?
Beautiful
Trent Horn is great!
Exactly. Life is liberty for the child and the mother. We are fooling ourselves that any other option is a solution.
I am a Catholic, but science and the common law form the basis for my opposition to abortion. It's an undisputed scientific fact that conception creates a human life apart from its mother. That it cannot sustain life on its own does not matter because we can all name instances where survival is dependent on another. None of those instances allow another individual to kill that person. At the common law, you were always entitled to use lethal force against another to prevent grave BODILY harm or death. Emotional, financial harm are not justifications. Abortion in the case of rape/incest is a trickier problem because generally you cannot be forced against your will to care for another. In consensual sex, however, the parties assume the risk of pregnancy.
Archbishop Sycamore,
Is your football team going to be better this year?😉
Lance
That argument can be turned around - In most places you can use lethal force against any person that enters your home without consent, but not a woman’s uterus?
Given the choice between a restrictive law like a heartbeat bill, and a law that would allow 22 week old fetuses to be ripped apart limb by limb or burned alive in saline, I will choose the heartbeat law. It places a high burden of personal responsibility on women to be aware of what is happening in our bodies, but it does not entirely rob us of the ability to assert bodily autonomy over our reproduction, not only in the case of tragedies like rape, but also in the case of mistakes like drunken one night stands. I also choose the heartbeat bill because it strains credulity to claim it takes over 4 months to assert a pregnancy is unwanted, and abortions at this stage are cruel as it demands the literal torturing to death of another human being. In this case, I will fall to the side of greater personal responsibility for women.
Conversely, after looking into the LA abortion ban being considered, the extreme position of banning all abortions at every stage, even certain forms birth control like plan B and IUDs, based on “the science of when life begins at conception,” I will choose to allow abortion until viability because I can’t ignore there is a profound difference scientifically between an embryo and a developed fetus, and bans on preventing pregnancy via emergency contraception denies women the right to autonomy over her own reproduction. It demands she maintain any pregnancy, even one started in violence, without consent.
In the case of rape it is accurate to say the embryo committed no crime, but it is also accurate to say the victim committed no crime, and forcing her to carry the offspring of her and her rapist is cruel. I would extend this beyond rape to simply the reality that it is cruel to give any man’s sperm more rights to reproduction than a woman has to her own womb, which is the outcome of outlawing plan B and IUDs. It strains credulity to tell women their right to bodily autonomy ends when a man’s sperm enters her body, even if that occurs against her will. I will not vote to rob women of our most basic right to bodily autonomy over our reproduction simply because a barely fertilized egg is technically a “human life.” I cannot square valuing human life with believing that a living human women should not have any rights at all to her bodily autonomy over reproduction - particularly if she’s violated. We are all flawed humans and the “close your legs” argument feels sanctimonious, often hypocritically so.
Yes, life begins at conception, but bodily autonomy doesn’t end at puberty for women. While I respect valid opinions on all sides, I’ve come to an important realization for my own personal stance that demands I honestly consider both lives.
The ideological arguments “based in science,” exist on both sides. They both sound great in theory, but end up being cruel, to me, in practice.
While I can only speak for myself, I believe I live in the space of moderation where law is often ultimately decided.
Abortion is not top of mind for mid terms. However, there are likely to justifiable backlashes against both extremes in moderate places like NC. For me, it will become an issue if either party pursues a legal mandate for either extreme, and I will vote against the party pursuing either extreme. Upon honest reflection I realize that if that happens it will impact my vote in this fall’s election, and every future election.
Everything you wrote here is why Europe has far more restrictive abortion laws than America does—and none of the hysteria over the issue that periodically bubbles up on our continent. If I'm allowed to put inks in Substack comments, here's a short summation of Europe vs. US on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHrihwWJv8o
Transcript and Facts & Sources available here: https://www.prageru.com/video/whos-more-pro-choice-europe-or-america
The left side of the political spectrum wants us to emulate Europe, which they consider far more sophisticated, in virtually every way. Except this one.
Well said!
While the 28 day after birth rule is terrifying, some are now talking into the toddler years. Yep, you heard that right. When evil is allowed to creep in, like it was with early abortion, taking the next leap of evil is simple for society. No matter the subject, we have seen this with every leftist policy plan.
Thank you for this insightful comment, NCMom
So well said
I like to think of myself in team reality and as such I look at abortion from a collective standpoint in practical terms as well as from a perspective of trauma.
There is a trauma to the mother: that she has to reconcile for herself in her life and her relationship with God. However, it is minimal compared to the trauma an unwanted child could suffer
Forcing someone to bring a child into the world, especially if they are young, without resources, incapable or resentful, will only further the cycle of trauma throughout the community for two lifetimes instead of one.
In my view this is really a Socio economic issue. Most people who get abortions are doing so because they feel they cannot afford children and/or they do not have the familial support that it takes to do so without going insane...
People with resources will find a way. They will get abortions unobstructed. This will only impact low-income people who conservatives don't want to pay for anyway.
It is the biggest, most emotionally taxing and stressful thing anyone will ever do, in my opinion, is to be a parent. It is a never-ending job and the bulk of the weight lands on the female, not the ejaculator. How do we reconcile that?
It is a choice that should not be taken lightly regardless and should by no means be forced on to anyone.
This comment paints with a very broad brush. I've mentioned before, and NCmom eludes to this reality in her comment, but my husband and I try to put our money where our mouth is by supporting two very effective pro-life charities which directly assist expectant and already mothers with financial, spiritual, and physical needs. I think you need to check some studies because it has been shown time and time again that people who identify as "conservative" (and in particular, religious conservative) tend to give the most to charitable organizations. My objection is having the government be the sole support for people because it is spectacularly incompetent at doing so.
Finally, you need to check the stats put out by the Guttmacher institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) which lists the reasons why women procure abortions - you might be surprised.
I'm sorry you see fathers as only "ejaculators." If that is your experience, it explains much of your comment.
NAB, NCmom, you are nailing it about conservatives and charity (and abortion). Thanks!
Thank you for this comment; I’m unable to “like” it for some reason but I agree with you.
I am happily married with two children.
I'm sorry that's what you took from my comment. What a seriously crazy-making issue.
I think hard-line pro-lifers are some of the most hopeful and starry-eyed about people. Must be. I've met some real scumbags in my life but I like people and am generally hopeful.
Your assertion: “This will only impact low-income people who conservative don’t want to pay for anyway”
Actual reality: Room at the inn, and other organizations like it, are funded solely by pro-life people to help low income women in need. Moreover, conservatives are more likely to donate to charities than liberals, and more likely to volunteer their time to actually help the needy.
Who locked low income kids out of school while forcing their “essential worker” parents to go to work in person again?
So much for your assertion you are team reality.
In addition, there is a years long waiting list for childless couples to adopt an infant. There are families longing and waiting for a child, who would be blessed by a mom willing to carry to term and place her baby in a good home.
Thank you, NCMom. Love Life America, founded in Charlotte, will meet every need of a mom in crisis. I have friends who are mentors walking alongside moms and I volunteer at Habitat for Humanity to help one of them earn her hours to build her home.
I was with you until your last sentence.
As I agree with you on your points of charity, it doesn't change the fact that people of means will still get abortions if they want them.
And people of need have to be savvy, informed and hopeful enough to seek out the help.
I thought I was replying to the comment that pro-lifers are only pro-birth. Not the sociology-economic comment.
I agree there will be disparity in access. I think that is a sad reality of our current political state, and applies to far more than this debate. Inequality has and will always exist in every human society, and in nature, but the issue is being exacerbated terribly by our current political leadership to heartbreaking levels in the last 12 months. Poor mothers apparently need to cross the border illegally if they want to find safe formula for their babies.
Families wanting their already immune 5 year olds spared dangerous experimental injections with unknowable long term consequences that don’t protect anyone from anything might need to move out of CA if they want their kids to attend school in person. The lack of options for their child’s bodily autonomy there will fall disproportionately on the poor, but they’ll be able to have abortions or commit infanticide legally. Deep blue cities correlate to the greatest academic achievement gaps. Only parents of means can provide their kids an actual education and opportunity in life in most blue urban cities with enormous academic achievement gaps as leadership in most of those places opposes school choice that would give poor kids more options and opportunities.
Lady chuck,
Those situations certainly exist more than any of us would prefer and they are heartbreaking and difficult.
If someone ask you what young woman abandoned by her husband and left her destitute, without familial support and under immense mental and physical pressures should do with her toddler what would you advise?
It's not the same thing, at all. Not one bit. An aborted baby at 4 weeks literally looks like a cotton ball. Or a spider web with a thick middle. That's the physical reality.
So what a human being looks like determines the value of a human and legal what rights and protections they have?
I think we know the results of that thinking.
No. That is a false equivalency argument.
Nice description of a father. Ejaculator?
How do socio-economic concerns change the fundamental nature of a human? Are poor people less human than rich people?
Through the lens of valuing all human life as equal in value by nature of each individual’s status as a human questions about the mother or father’s desire or ability to provide for that human is immaterial.
It's only immaterial from a philosophical perspective of potential. But human life outcomes are weighed heavily on parental ability to provide both physically & emotionally. Socioeconomic stressors are too often abuse and trauma. So.
When I am at the DMV with my 7 month old, and the man sitting next to me is easily 10 years my junior, there with a woman who may be one of his 7 children from 6 different mothers, or his current "piece" (I cannot tell and obviously do not inquire), is he a father of which you speak? Or is he an irresponsible ejaculator leaving many fatherless children to grow up in a stress-filled life with dubious potential outcomes likely to continue the cycle of abuse?
I do not know what the right answer is. I simply choose to know that abortion is sad, it harms many women & families, and I am not one without sin to force my will on to others.
You don’t have to be without sin to know how God values human life.
knowing how God values human life and forcing that "knowing" on to others is the issue. women have been aborting babies since B.C. and will continue to do so regardless of your ideology or governmental restrictions.
It's just the reality.
🎯🎯🎯
Thank you for writing what I intended to reply. 😔.
Great post, NCmom!
Beautifully articulated. Thank you.
Excellent.
It’s not valuable unless it provides votes and cash.
Valuable to who? Not valuable to we the people unless there is a bunch of thieves in place to take these from us. Guess there's always wampum beads and/or trade and a government of fire circles. Or maybe the fine old traditions of gambling - real gambling not Las Vegas style.
Apparently, Alex actually believes that the baby's body is just an extension of the mother's body. If that's the case, Alex, when the baby is killed, why doesn't the mother die, too?
Here's the ACTUAL relevance: The reason we have so many doctors today who are willing to administer deadly drugs like Remdezivir and dangerous vaccines like mRNA while withholding life-saving treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin is because most doctors today are whores. They will do anything they are asked to do as long as it comes with a big fat paycheck. This trend started with abortion. It continued with countless deadly and addictive drugs, including opioids, amphetamines, and benzos. It persists to the present day with our "Covid response." The medicalization of abortion fueled an industry of doctors with ZERO ethics.
Gosh, that's really hard to acknowledge, but my respect for medical professionals has really plummeted the last 2 years. Your analysis rings true. What a sad state we're in.
So true, Darby!
Yes, we must learn to draw lines - sometimes uncomfortable ones - at bodily autonomy. If we fail at this it leaves too many opportunities for rank opportunists of the first order to serially abuse us, our families, our nations, cultures, corporations, institutions, our planet. As our revolutionary ancestors did understand and set forth pretty capably except for some glaring trade offs it is up to us to remedy the answers lie in being willing to become more fully human.
I confess to not reading this whole post and just want to jump in and say that the non-hypocritical link is to say that anti-vaxx and anti-abortion are both stances against killing people. Hence, both are consistently Pro-life.
Right
...then there is also being against the profit motive for killing people; the cultural coercion to kill people; the censorship around alternatives to killing people (see Big Tech esp)...gee I think I see a pattern emerging...
🎯🎯🎯
👍
🎯
Killing is killing. Think we may have evolved past believing killing is an answer to anything? Then again some have warned there is simply no way to build that many prisons or guillotines.
Killing is an answer to the threat of being killed.
An uncomfortable reality we must accept as we work out the definition of bodily autonomy?
They are Pro-life and consistently so. To have linked these two things to conservatives and to simple, crass political expediency is a glaring hypocritical error and the first thing I noticed too.
What’s your stance on the death penalty?
that our legal system is too corrupt to implement it
Nailed it.
Theoretically this isn’t a great comparison. An innocent new human being shouldn’t be equated to a human convicted of monstrously taking the life of other humans. My opposition to the death penalty personally has nothing to do with equating humans who choose to be monsters with innocent humans who have committed zero crimes. My opposition is that we have a legal system that I believe in on the whole, but recognize major weaknesses in as well. Humans aren’t very good at playing God, and I can’t support the death penalty because miscarriages of “justice” are too common in our flawed human system.
That said, my position on abortion didn’t change when I had an ooppsy who is now an amazing 8 year old boy, and wouldn’t change if my daughter found herself with an unwanted pregnancy. (My position is based in very early bodily autonomy for the mom, and protection of life after the first 8-10 weeks).
If my husband or one of our children were brutally murdered, I accept it’s likely I’d want the death penalty if I felt confident the right person was charged and convicted by a jury..... so there’s that too.
I would expand my comment to add: or sometimes too lazy. There is the im-famous Texas case of Michael Morton who was falsely imprisoned for 25 years for the murder of his wife in part because law enforcement didn't follow up leads that conflicted with their theory of the crime. DNA evidence finally cleared him, but not until the actual murderer killed another victim. Thank goodness he did not get the death penalty.
When we study the law we quickly encounter rightful laws which err in the interpretation of these laws. It is up to we the people to ever reinterpret the law to meet our ever expanding understanding. If we the people fail at this there will be plenty of abusive, rank opportunists who will do it for us.
Go easy on Alex. He’s a Yale man and they have a hard time understanding this.
Alex operates in a strictly materialist frame of mind- only what he can see,taste,handle,has meaning for him.His is the viewpoint that the laws of a supernatural realm can’t have real validity in the material world.And,if there is no God,then Alex’ analysis is a reasonable one.But if there is a God,and He is the God of Abraham,Isaac,and Jacob,oy such a problem he has…
I don't think there is a God. And I am 100% against killing babies.
Agree.. I am a christian, but acknowledge that christian beliefs should have nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is a worldly act, and the killing of a baby in the womb is a vile and heinous and inhumane act - with or without religion. Pro life has (or should have) nothing to do with religion and should separate itself from it....
How would you feel if your 5 year old child was murdered? The 5th commandment was pretty specific.
Totally on board with the 5th and all of the Commandments. However, I don't need the Commandments to know that murder is wrong. Murder is wrong with or without religion..
Good for you and no /s intended.
Alex has a continuing dilemma: truth is unitary. Truth is indivisible. If the materialist weltanschauung is untrue, then his pursuit of truth is corrupted. It is constantly polluted with falsity. Truth is the alchemist's end. The truth about matter. We will never understand the truth about matter without understanding the truth about matter's creator.
Who loves matter- He created it…
God is a spirit - yet we material creatures are created in His image. The unitary nature of truth is bound up in the unitary nature of God. "Thy Word is truth" The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, and that one Man who dares to imagine He is the truth.
St.Augustine wrote,in DE TRINITATE,that when he reflected on the image of God in man,he came to believe that the image must be tripartite,as God Himself is,and that this image must exist in the mind of man,not his body.Further,in meditating on God’s image in the mind,he came to believe that it consisted in the Memory,the understanding,and the will.Memory,the image of the Father,for He knows all,understanding,the image of the Son,the divine Logos who spoke the world into being,and the will,image of the Holy Spirit which desires the things of God.
Whoever claimed politics wasn't intertwined with philosophy?
He's an observant Jew I thought. Not sure how he can reconcile that with turning a blind eye to 800k abortions a year in the US alone.
There is a difference between observing and believing.This may be what it looks like…
I am also Jewish. You are asking a religious question. We don’t have the same foundation and fundamental principals as say Catholics. As has been quipped many times by my fellow Jews: “Jews don’t consider any fetus to be viable until it graduates medical school. 😝🤦♂️😂
Tough audience😄
I appreciate good self-deprecation :)
Lots of people are Jewish and here’s some discourses from the intellectual bastions of YouTube this morning on the possible existence of hypocrisy amongst those who are moral, upstanding citizens:
https://youtu.be/SlcLlH49mCY
Existential?
Ultimately
Hey,you stole my handle😄
🤣
Exalting reproductive choice enables the prenatal killing based on sex and disability, plus embryo selection--central to IVF--gamete sales, cloning and genetic engineering.
These measures commodify human life are already causing, and will cause more, social harm via genetic inequality and alienation than drugs ever could.
Also, abortion is an exercise of sovereignty over another, second human being, that lies within a woman's body.
Plus, the availability of abortion on demand has enabled a Wild West sexual culture with many negative effects on family structure and STD transmission.
Also, the vaxxes harm the bodies of those who are required to take them.
Abortion has cheapened human life. And contributed to destroying the black family. Blacks were the reason Margaret Sanger wanted abortion and "birth control" on demand. She thought there were too many of them. And now their pregnancies end in abortion more frequently than any other ethnic group in the US.
I’ve heard a number of 30million plus black babies aborted since 1973 decision. Only a racist white supremacist would support this as being ok. White liberals have enslaved generations of blacks under the guise of the great society, and simultaneously for them to believe killing there unborn babies was a good thing. They achieved something the KKK could only dream of..blacks destroying themselves from within. I am hopeful that many are starting to wake up to this fact, as this bill of goods sold to them by the racist white liberal hucksters is nothing more than an empty promise founded in lies.
“Race hustling poverty pimps”. Congressman J.C. Watts R -OK. In a reference to white liberals and black “leaders” Jesse Jackso and Al Sharpton.
Might be other considerations like oppressive socio-economic conditions, which our own founding fathers helped create for all minorities, but especially blacks. Slave owners never considered abortion as long as the owned sex slaves complied and the “wife” never said anything. Things only got “chippy” once legalized slavery ended and the evolution of women’s rights allowed freedoms and choices never available before. Fetuses and babies and precious lives are all great blog chatter, but most abortions don’t involve well heeled families with resources like subscriptions to blog sites.
That Wild West culture is a double edged sword and a merry go round.
humanae vitae?
Even intelligent people like Alex completely misunderstand the core issue with abortion. You have the right to refuse medicine on the grounds of “my body my choice”, you don’t have the right to murder your unborn child - regardless of its size, location, level of development, or the fact that it’s your child.
The "misunderstanding" of the core issue of abortion is completely intentional.
Yes, along with the intentional misunderstanding or falsification of either the words or the intent of the US Constitution. Whether it's the issues surrounding abortion, free speech, inalienable rights, or the right to be defended from enemies real and imagined - the present "leaders" are failing epically. In every aspect they have broken their oaths.
People that argue for vaccine mandates are doing so under the presumption that your choice will endanger, harm, or kill others. (First argued via establishing herd immunity, then argued via strained hospital resources.)
Right, but that doesn’t change the fact that the issue of abortion isn’t about the woman’s body and her sovereignty over her body. There is a distinct, entirely whole, sovereign individual in the womb who has a right to life just like a 2 year old does. The size of that person, their level of development (a “clump of cells”), their location (in their mother’s womb), doesn’t change that fundamental fact. A debate about the common good, your duty in the pursuit of the common good, etc. as it relates to vaccines is a separate issue.
Sure, but there's a huge culpability of the medical industrial establishment here. And not that this may be correct under other circumstances but not in a world where "my body, my choice" actually doesn't count and where legalized murder through execution of criminals by the state and sponsored terror and murder are practiced by "legitimate" governments - especially and including the USA.
Isn’t there an important value in being able to successfully hold two opposing ideas simultaneously?
yeah, i think i read about that in 1984
“Drugs regularly harm not only the user but the people immediately around him - who are often children. ”
Kind of like people immediately inside those who are carrying them? (Women, men, whatever we are being told by the left today).
I still believe that most people are against abortion at 39 weeks and yet think 12-15 weeks it is probably okay. Very few people think a 39 week abortion is fine or a 6 week isn’t and this is the nature of a debate for a legislature.
yeah, it's tough to have a binary legislation (legal/illegal) on an issue that requires the inordinately difficult merger of both the philosophical definition of life itself & the scientific concept of fetal viability
if a baby survives an abortion, should the baby be called safe? most believe so, but not all. these babies (no longer fitting the scientific definition of fetus) are not protected in all states.
life begins at conception. this is where the unique DNA is formed. is that where we draw the line, effectively outlawing abortion?
the youngest viable fetus that i'm aware of is 21 weeks, 1 day. is that where we draw the line? it's a relatively recent "record", surely to be broken again.
This is the problem in a nutshell. You're trying to legislate what is for most people a question of philosophy or faith. In general that requires a pragmatic compromise but neither side is willing to compromise.
it's also a matter of deciding which is the appropriate level to arbitrate between the two sides
finding consensus among a large, diverse group is usually more difficult than with a smaller, more cohesive group
should this be decided at the national level? our politicians have never taken up this legislation in the decades it has been an issue
should it be decided at the state level? where the attitudes, religions, philosophies within states are more coherent & reflect stark differences between different states.
should it be decided at the city or community level?
should this be decided at the individual level? is there a negative impact to the community outside the individual to the degree that the community merits input?
what are the positive and negative implications of banning abortion at any of these levels? will people be more cautious going forward? could that lead to deeper relational commitments before sex?
“Kind of like people immediately inside those who are carrying them?”
🎯🎯🎯
Sure, it’s from way back there in the dark ages somewhere. But ironically? This morning on YouTube we receive word through M.D. Campbell that Mad Magazine is putting out a First Third Issue.
Schizophrenia.
Absolutely it is. When we cannot hold two opposing viewpoints simultaneously and honor it.
Damn straight.
Alex's moral equivalency reveals a gigantic blind spot.
He wrote 1,100 words on this topic and managed to avoid mentioning the obvious point I saw in the first several comments by readers.
Murder a child or murder a citizen with the vaccine. In both cases the policy is supported by the left.
I agree. Sometimes I wish Alex would stay in his lane.
Stay in his lane is a disgusting insult. You're one of 'them' and don't even realize it.
So you are ok forcing millions of women into jail or forcing them to have babies they do not want?? How is that different from a police state?
You’re right. Why be against murdering children. There’s no alternative after all. If only there was some sort of service that connected mothers of unwanted children with childless couples who wanted children.
And, if only there were ways to prevent the pregnancy all together. Yes, I know there may be times related to the health of the mother or the results of rape, but those numbers are small.
And that's how I know abortion proponents aren't serious about solutions because even if you offer the incremental approach (like birth control or even allowing abortion for the "hard cases,") they won't concede any ground. They want abortion at any time, for any reason, and without cost.
🎯
It is not just about wanting them. There are many many other considerations. For example - a pregnancy is not easy by any means. Mentally or physically. Forcing a WOMAN (and I am of the belief that WOMEN get pregnant)- is not moral or ethical. It is a personal choice.
Justifying murder because the alternative is 9 months of discomfort? I’m not sure that’s morally sound ground you’re on there.
Same as justifying not vaxxing because the alternative is some chance of myocarditis. And even if vaccines don’t stop transmission, if your being vaxxed keeps you out of the hospital, it saves the bed for a person who may actually need it to save their life (pro life?!). So this nonsense can be justified eternally both ways.
It must stop at the source. Which is the government CANNOT tell anyone what to do with their bodies. Period.
The thing about getting jabbed for Covid (or any disease that has a vaccine) is having to predict the future. Saying the vax prevents hospitalization is based on statistics and (hopefully honest) studies. It's a "greater good" argument, saying "x" number of people will be saved by vaccination vs no vaccination.
But abortion is absolute. A life is killed with abortion. No theories, no statistics needed. Two lives go in, one comes out.
Just assuming vaccination will save "Joe" down the street is different than a procedure that 100% kills a living being. (Why do murderers get a double murder conviction for a pregnant women? That fetus is a life.)
The My Body, My Choice argument is more solid, though the argument there is who "owns" the fetus/baby? Is life absolutely sacrosanct? Or if that life depends on Mom for survival, then does Mom have the choice to do what she wants with that life? And if that life depends on Mom and Mom can do what she wants, when does that end? If she can kill the baby in utero, why not out of utero? A baby can't survive on its own in utero and a baby can't survive on its own in its first year of life. Where does it end?
There are two bodies in the abortion case. No amount of playing semantics negates that.
When the governments arrive at your door to help - resist!
THEIR bodies. And as long as a foetus is not viable (and some may argue even after) - it is THEIR body.
Nine months of DISCOMFORT? Having a baby is life and death to a female body, so many things can go wrong, being fatal to the mother. Educate yourself about pregnancy before describing it as discomfort.
Are you from the 1700s? How many women do you know who have died in child birth? Lots of things are difficult and dangerous. Should someone be able to starve their child because the only job available is coal mining?
Having a baby is literally life and death. Correct. That’s the point.
Discomfort. Ok.
There’s a simple solution, you don’t want to risk a pregnancy, abstain from sex. Incapable of that?? Get a hysterectomy. The idea that it’s ok to kill an unborn baby out of convenience is disgusting to me. Immoral. Sick.
A hysterectomy is a little extreme. There are ample options for birth control, and plan B in the case of rape or unplanned sex for whatever reason. Sterilization isn’t exactly the first thing to recommend.....
I agree. I really don't like the idea of sterilization. But we have an abundance of birth control options (and I say that as an NFP practicing Catholic mom of 5 children) and dare I say it, people can abstain. We don't even talk about that as an option anymore - like it is beyond a person's capabilities..
it is a personal choice to become pregnant. (barring pregnancy by rape which is extremely rare.)
it is a personal choice to drink and drive. sometimes it may work out great. sometimes you may face very serious consequences.
🎯
It’s also a personal choice to engage in unprotected sex or refuse to use plan B in the case of rape.
🎯
Bodily autonomy?
Personally I may be against murdering children but still be capable of understanding why someone else caught in a sociological, psychological, ethical trap with insufficient alternatives or education may not understand this. Seems our state cannot even manage to avoid injecting the populace with mRNA vaccines, nor understand they may be murdering people - how they going to deal with the complications you present? Abuse is abuse, a trap is a trap.
It has long been my belief that many, many women don't fully appreciate what an abortion truly is - that's why the whole "clump of cells" language was so crucial in promoting it. There is a priest, long-involved in the pro-life movement, who has said, "if we want abortion to end - show a procedure live on TV. Until people see it, they won't understand it." There's a reason abortion advocates work so hard to prevent a pregnant women from seeing US images of her baby. On top of this failure to provide informed consent, the abortion industry has also co-opted the language surrounding adoption so that when asked, many young women can't imagine "giving their baby away" but can imagine killing them.
We can't all be embryologists but the basic concepts of human biology are pretty accessible. Given the proper intent, a relevant and accurate press - unaffected by rampant propaganda - accurate public education on this issue is entirely possible.
I love you.
This decision does not ban abortions it removes it from the preview of the Federal Government. Which most issues should be as the Fed Government has poor integrity, skills and intelligence at every level.
good reminder, but you meant to say "purview"
As our revolutionary ancestors would remind us tyranny is a constant threat and often comes from within. Our ancestral leaders - Europeans and Native American’s alike had a shared fear - The Federal Governments.
When abortion was illegal there were way fewer. And women were happier on the whole because they weren't regarded as playthings to be forced into abortion by the oblivious studs who'd knock them up.
That’s a straw man argument. There is birth control. Plan B. Not having casual sex or pretending there is no consequence. Women know if they have been raped. Plan B is widely available.
I’m not actually opposed to very early abortion based on bodily autonomy.After that point, yes, you kill a human for a real or perceived flaw in that other human, it’s evil.
We put people in jail and even to death if they were to rip a new born baby apart limb by limb or if burn them is a salt bath so their skin fell off their body or cut their head open sucked out their brain. But you think it’s ok to do that to a different human the exact same age because it hasn’t passed through the birth canal??????
This is OK with you??????
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dead-babies-found-in-dc-apartment-may-have-been-victims-of-infanticide-following-abortion-attempts/
Just occasionally once I become really weary of an endlessly mindless argument I will quote Shakespeare or others. The right to our inalienable rights is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Like it or not this includes bodily autonomy. There are dichotomies we may have to live with.
Bodily autonomy for whom? Where specifically in the constitution does it say mommy can have her unborn child ripped apart limb by limb or burned alive in saline???
A women can “choose” to be pregnant for months, then violently kill her own child, based on your assertion, the constitution protects this?
I’ve read the constitution and federalist papers numerous times. I find no alluding to abortion rights at all, and certainly not the ability to choose to be pregnant for months, change your mind, and violently murder another living being then claim it’s for bodily autonomy.
“Bodily autonomy for whom?” 🎯
Believe it's safe to say (but maybe not here) that we must assume bodily autonomy for all. Therein lies the dilemma. Hopefully we have fair minded Constitutional scholars who can guide us through this minefield. Hopefully we collectively make the correct decision. It may be that State's rights helps decide this.
Not at all. Just don't want it being endorsed by and paid for by government.
If they don't want the babies, maybe they can be a tad bit smarter and more careful about mitigating the risk of being pregnant? Kind of like mitigating other health risks? You smoke your whole life you can't be surprised when you get lung cancer
They do not have to raise a child they do not want because all 50 states have Safe Haven laws where any woman can drop off her newborn and be freed from the burden of raising it, freed from the expense, no consequences, just safely drop off that baby and she's done. The baby will end up being placed with carefully vetted parents in a carefully vetted home (safety inspection, fire inspection) where the child will have a good life and become a productive citizen. The woman is done when she drops off her baby at a state-designated fire station or hospital or other designated drop off point where the child will immediately receive care - the woman does this anonymously, no fee, no paperwork, no consequences, done.
True. In earlier ages women would leave unwanted babies on the steps of a church, or before churches existed, at a pagan temple, or at any other site where people gathered to worship. It was accepted practice. It's been happening forever.
Right, the child does not have to die for the mother to be free, if that is what she wants. Though many women want their child but are under pressure from others not to have it, or want the child but don't know about resources that are available to them that would allow them to have their child. Information and help that should be more widely known.
We're all "forced" to not kill other people. That's called having regard for human life and not being selective about it. It's not okay to kill a life just because no one can see that life.
There's a great deal of killing going on these days. Pretty odd for a people "forced" not to kill. As long as we live in a world where killing each other is fully justified by political, economic or social expediency where exactly will we draw the line?
We have already lost much of the ability to draw the line. When a society can't even agree on what defines a human being and when that life begins everything else becomes relative.
Quite obviously. This stubborn tendency to cope with our realities. We see it everywhere. The failure to support the intent, if not the letter, of the Constitution and understand the crucial fact of bodily autonomy hounds us like a ghost. Since we're all part of a very large whole where doesn't life begin? My strong suspicion is that the "powers that be" are fearful of yet another threat they do not want "us" to see. What we cannot see can indeed harm us.
You think they're fearful of us seeing something they're trying to keep hidden? Or that they're fearful of something and don't want us to see what it is?
Kind of like forcing folks into sociological jail because they don’t want to have a certain medicine or force their kids to do this?
Or like forcing people to go to prison for killing other people.
A foetus fully dependent on the mother for sustenance is NOT people.
And btw may I ask your stance on the Death penalty? Isn’t that life sacred?
New borns and toddlers are famously self sufficient.
Yes - but they are not dependent solely upon the mother. They can be raised perfectly with the complete absence of the mother. Not so for a foetus, especially prior to viability.
"A foetus fully dependent on the mother for sustenance is NOT people."
we tried letting our infant forage for food, but he just cried & insisted on sustenance from mother
Of course the foetus is people. Our Mothers, Fathers, political realities and Planet Earth as a living system are also living bodies we are absolutely dependent upon.
So the birth canal is the difference between human life having value and being “not a person?” What about elderly people who are dependent? Or new borns? Or the physically disabled? Or someone in surgery?
Good point, NCmom!
My son was born with 32-week heart and lungs. If I killed him 2 weeks after he was born, would that be OK? He wasn't 40 weeks!
ALL life has value. Period.
A human from conception to death in old age is the same person. Only the appearance changes over time. Many nursing home patients are totally dependent on others to provide everything to them. Have you gone in to those homes and dispatched people because they depend on others???? Eagerness to kill the vulnerable is an appalling character trait. Heil.
So when they are a newborn they are NOT people either? That's not what the law says.
I’m anti death penalty 100%
What about when a baby is breast fed? Who else can do the full-time breast feeding with milk specifically designed for them?
Having to face the exigency that we may indeed be our own worst enemies? Mother’s and fathers can be monsters and generally due to generations of abuse themselves and way insufficient education. Us humans need to grow up and survive our own brutality.
Sometimes we’re forced to hold opposing views simultaneously. Our system is supposed to be able to deal with this fairly. The fact it does not always is up to us citizens to remedy. If the killer had no way of understanding psychologically that she/he was actually killing someone then it’s difficult to lay blame. Intent is critical here. So is education.
"preventing the murder of a child"
But if the mother can't abort the child, she is necessarily forced to carry & birth it- an undertaking which kills many women. Even the BEST most medically-uninteresting birth renders a woman "disabled" from her work for 6 weeks.
It's not ethical or legally permissible to force person A to undergo physical harm to benefit person B - even when person B is the child of person A. The courts can't force a mom to merely DONATE BLOOD to save the life of her child - so enshrined in our lies is bodily autonomy.
Do you know a lot of women who have died in childbirth then? I guess I’m convinced. It’s fine to murder people as long as you’re preventing some hypothetical harm to another person, and not preventing them from working for 6 weeks.
Finish this sentence - it's ok to murder my child because __________________.
They're not "children" they're fetuses
The science of embryology disagrees with you here. You can call it what you what, but it doesn't change the fact that you are talking about a whole, biologically distinct human being that has the same rights as you. Just because a child isn't as developed as you, isn't as big as you, is located inside the womb, or is dependent on the mother for sustenance, doesn't make it any less valuable. "Fetus" is Latin for "young one".
OMFG...
Let's try it with some of your examples above..."It's ok to murder my child because 'many' woman have died in child birth" (you should check the statistics on that, the word "many" doesn't apply). "It's ok to murder my child because I won't be able to work for 6 weeks". This isn't a complicated issue.
Our society has constructed a reverse sanctuary in a woman's womb.
In the reverse sanctuary, it is permissible to seize the helpless and tear it apart to kill it, no different than tearing the wings off a fly.
I know many are on board with this thinking. But I'm not. It's cruel and barbaric to even tear the wings off a fly. Is the fly's life worth it? Not really, no. But doing that lowers and coursens us as humans.
Yes, so we thought before 2020!
Boom! But probably lost on the lost. Humans used to sacrifice their children for better crops. This is a moral issue, not political.
Love the sarcasm!
I'm actually beginning to worry about Berenson's Covid critique. He can't seem to think this one through. Abortion advocates think they can violate the bodily integrity of another human being by killing it. Vax fans think they can violate the bodily integrity of everyone around them, on the slim chance it will protect their health. It's not that difficult.
He's a wordsmith, not a thinker.
Well said. Yep, we're held hostage on many fronts by slick wordsmiths today. I's not the first time and it won't be the last. Our founding ancestors had a knack for wordsmithing combined with thinking. All hail the difference!
The sarcasm is about all that holds us together on this Thursday of breaking news on YouTube.
Amen to that!
If you think about it from a legal perspective, both arguments rest on the premise of bodily autonomy (also called privacy). There can be no other justification, so they actually are quite similar if you need to argue for/against.
Remember that the argument for vaccine mandates is that they work for the good of others. Originally to stop spread (and thus save vulnerable lives), then shifted to protecting hospitals resources so no triage was necessary (again, presumably saving others’ lives).
However flawed, the theoretical underpinnings are the same.
I think you’re forgetting about one of the bodies in the abortion case.
No, I am not. I am not saying the arguments aren’t flawed, since in one case it will absolutely result in loss of life and in the other case it is presumed (“more people will die because of your selfish refusal to take a vaccine”). The fact that your choices will harm or kill others IS the justification for vaccine mandates.
Wrong. In fact they are identical it what they require from the police power to enforce.
In "what they require from police power to enforce". So, umm, they are not identical, right?
The issue here is not abortion. The issue is the US Constitution. It states nothing about about abortion. The flimsy excuses offered in the Roe v Wade decision do not stand up to scrutiny and just about every legal scholar for the past 50 years has pointed this out, including many a liberal. The Supreme Court is doing their job here by pointing out that this is a legislative issue and must be decided by legislators and their constituents, not by courts. This is very important, as the globalists and socialists have used some of the precedent established by the absurd Roe decision to cram through all sorts of nefarious expanses of federal power, which were clearly never to be given to them. Witness the recent "creation" of a wing of the nefarious DHS to combat "misinformation". So the biggest liars in the country will now tell you what to believe is true. Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Our federal government has very clearly outlined areas of responsibility under our Constitution and has no business telling everyone how to live their lives. The citizens of Florida are very different from the citizens of Washington State. This decision would start to turn back the lunacy.
This is the crux of it - if we are thankful for federalism because of Covid, the same should apply to abortion. If the country wants to make abortion legal on the federal level, then Congress has to legislate, not the judiciary. This is not a federal issue and there is no constitutional right to abortion. Up until having my own kids I was pro choice up to a certain point, but these communist ghouls never know when to stop. And when I think about how easy abortion has become, it's no surprise that people treat the decision so cavalierly. Abortion, and the left's treatment of it as a sacrament, has no doubt contributed to America's moral rot and decay.
Agree completely. When you watch some of the "activists" screaming and foaming at the mouth, it becomes apparent that we, as a nation, have lost any notion of the sanctity of life. I shall have the right to crush my baby's head and rip it from limb to limb because of convenience! How dare you tell me otherwise! This same mindset is the fountainhead of so many other horrors, including the mass murder of citizens of other countries, torture of prisoners and a sociopathic ghoul of a President telling free US citizens that they must be injected with an experimental gene therapy or lose their jobs. We've lost our way. Time for DEMOCRACY (citizens voting) to right the ship.
I am a mother of 2 children, including a former preemie. When I learned a few years ago that so many women who already have children have abortions, I was STUNNED! I had hyperemesis (morning sickness on steroids for 9 straight months, puking multiple times a day) and both my pregnancies were hell on earth. I cried almost every day. Then I had multiple postpartum complications and almost died. When I look at my 3 and 10 year olds today, the thought of them not being here today because I couldn't make it through those god awful months blows my mind, especially when so many HG sufferers abort their children.
We need to SUPPORT women! Tell them they can make it! Tell them it feels impossible! Tell them they can do this! They are tough! Not let the abortion clinics tell them they are weak and and can't make it through. Are "women strong and capable of anything" or are they not?
Whatever happened to the women who used to run out in the street, get hit by a car and die so they could push their kids out of the way?
So sad. So sad that despite the technology PROVING it is a baby, people are "shouting their abortions." I cry for this nation. I cry for the woman who have abortions because they think their "lives will be ruined." No! Not ruined! It'll be hard but enhanced! Enhanced! My 10-year-old is the greatest thing that has ever happened to my husband and me.
Exalting reproductive choice enables the prenatal killing based on sex and disability, plus embryo selection--central to IVF--and gamete sales, cloning and genetic engineering.
These measures commodify human life are already causing, and will cause more, social harm via genetic inequality and alienation than drugs ever could.
Plus, the availability of abortion on demand has enabled a Wild West sexual culture with many negative effects on family structure and STD transmission.
And the vaxxes harm the bodies of those who are required to take them.
Have been thankful for the fact our Revolutionary Ancestors included States Rights and inalienable rights simultaneously. There’s a betrayal at the heart of it. I knew this argument applied to the American Civil War in some way. Useful to remember the founding ancestors we’re most distrustful of their own federal governments. These boys and girls finally remembered they were landed aristocrats. They understood deceptions. Our country is based on the acceptance of ambiguity. The founding Dads and Moms knew the were making trade offs and hoped (trusted?) we would correct these inequalities.
The Constitution? Do y’all mean to imply here we should all be impressed with the issue of Constitutionality? Hasn’t the Constitution been thoroughly shredded by the events of 2020-2022 and before?
While it's true that many individuals have failed to uphold their oaths of office to abide by, protect and defend the US Constitution, I believe we owe it to generations past & future to recognize the temporary delusions for what they are and to make them right. We can all see with our own eyes the death, destruction, rot & sheer lunacy that occurs when mortal men are drunk on power and cheap money. Our Constitution is a permanent check on those who would attempt to take away your natural rights.
We are doing that from our ironclad positions of those inalienable rights. Constitutionality?
All the more reason to be pleased with this potential decision. And perhaps now our legislators could actually start to legislate again (sans omnibus bills) and keep the executive in check. But I’m dreaming, ya?
Yep, seems as if being an optimist is the real epidemic?
JC is largely correct. Alito enumerates in exquisite detail how and why Roe and Casey are considered to have been decided outside the scope of the Constitution and are examples of "raw judicial power." He makes a compelling argument that judicial legislation must be replaced with legislation crafted by the peoples' representatives. Alex should stay in his lane ... his comments miss the essence of the problem; in this case it's a legal consideration - the morality gets sorted out through the political process of legislation that should reflect the will of the majority. That's how democracy works. Read the draft decision - it's interesting and commenters opining on the leaked document have an obligation to know what they're talking about.
Stare decicis? My spell checker doesn’t even want to spell this correctly. It balks at Corporatocracy too.
The problem with that argument is that rights not specifically announced in the Constitution default to the people:
10th and 9th Amendments.
Yep! Abortion was in there the whole time!
It's not fully true that the Constitution doesn't address this issue. The term "abortion" speaks to the pregnancy, not the developing baby—you are aborting a pregnancy by killing the developing baby. There would be no reason for the Constitution to speak of abortion (I doubt it was a big problem at the time). It does, however, address the taking of life with the authorization of the state: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (5th & 14th Amendments). The 14th Amendment also guarantees equal protection of the laws. To the extent the Constitution addresses the issue, that's how it does so—there's no due process for babies still in the womb (which, to his credit, Alex acknowledges are human beings who are murdered by the abortion procedure) and no equal protection of the laws for them. That's the reason for denying the "personhood" of the developing baby (same thing that was done with human beings of African descent to justify enslaving them despite 5th Amendment protections). If we call them "persons," the 5th & 14th Amendments apply.
Guess it comes down to our definition of "person" then. But no, I don't imagine the possibility of legal abortion was a concept at the time. However the old fashioned kind by suicide, coat hanger, or induced attempts at abortion were around. There have always been women who got caught in these situations through no fault of their own.
You might enjoy reading Justice Alito's full 98 page decision (draft). I was fascinated by his lengthy review of the history of American law on abortion, dating back to the early founding of the country. I had no idea how much discussion there actually was on this issue prior to the last century.
I, too, read his draft decision. I strongly recommend that everyone read it. This decision is NOT as portrayed by our President, Schumer, Pocahontas, and the usual leftist hysterics. Their rants and wailing are the very definition of dis mis and mal information. And yet go unchallenged.
Are they unchallenged on SubStack? Would expect someone trained in the law would jump in and fill this gap.
I'm not a lawyer but I play one on my tablet. Seriously, any attorneys out there willing to discuss the decision? Would love to read a reasoned analysis from either side.
I read it. You're right—it was very interesting. (The opinion is a pleasure to read because it's so clearly written, not full of convoluted sentences and legalese.) He covered not just U.S. law, but English common law. Our legal tradition and the one from which we inherited our system always saw the developing baby as something to protect. Abortion was considered not legal/criminal in nature, depending on stage of pregnancy. None ever recognized a right to terminate a pregnancy by killing the baby until the second half of the 20th century.
Totally agree! So many legal documents are a headache to plow through. I wanted to read it to better understand the ruling, (What? You can't trust the news? Lol!), and found it to be both incredibly informative and very well written in common language.
So true we do not live in a society where we are encouraged to explore the truth of reality. Am going to presuppose that we citizens untrained in the law have some work to do, lol.
Although we know both karma and the purposeful killing of a baby, especially past a few weeks, will have complicated negative effects on both the mother and the State who supports it is a failure all around, there is more. Like gender change being placed in the hands of children who don’t fully understand the possible horrid effects of drug therapy, surgery & bodily mutilation, not to mention the psychological effects - abortion too is a double-edged sword.
And I’m speaking here of the negative psychosocial effects on women. I’m NOT suggesting that women or the state don’t know what they’re doing and NOT suggesting the mother should NOT have the right to 100% bodily autonomy. Like most things in life and government when we look further we find dichotomies - inconvenient truth.
In a society where we are fully aware and conscious abortion should not be necessary. In such an environment every new life would be regarded as the most wonderful, positive thing imaginable. When we observe nature we sometimes see mothers in a healthy deep population give birth to three fawns. If otherwise blinded we may presume erroneously that it is a great harm to both mothers and babies. Nature however may have other plans. As we watch a mother and Triplett fawns play in our backyard there appears only joy.
So in a society where we truly respect each other’s bodily autonomy 100% and base our relationships on trust, real communication, and respect it is difficult to see that abortion would ever be necessary. Way to optimistic viewpoints? Maybe. But I’m suggesting that the need for any woman to need to own her own body to the extent she herself must see her body held hostage to a parasite (a fetus) which must be destroyed is a 100% damnation of the rest of us. Without all men and women together educated and socialized to know we are all one - we are all lost. We as humans could not be more interdependent with each other, with the natural world, with the universe. The hubris which makes us perceive that we are somehow Independant or exempt is a seriously delusional deceipt. It leads straight to the culture of death we have inherited.
This is an excellent summation and draft. The law has proven to be as murky as is possible and complicates any common sense on the matter.
Link: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft
Link?
Yes, as a legal matter, it comes down to how we define "person." But a legal definition doesn't change reality—it either reflects or denies reality. We did that with slaves of African ancestry prior to the 14th Amendment. It didn't make them any less human beings, entitled to the same God-given rights to life and freedom as all other human beings.
And yes, there have always been and always will be women who get caught in these situations through no fault of their own. We don't usually make policy based on the exceptions. "Hard cases make bad law" is a well-known legal aphorism for good reason.
Absolutely correct. Thank you.
The hypocrisy doesn’t run both ways on abortion. You’re missing the fact that those who are against abortion truly see a fetus as a baby and a life that no one has the right to terminate. I think they have a good point, or at least a respectable view that you should take into account.
"I believe prohibitions against drugs can be theoretically justified. Drugs regularly harm not only the user but the people immediately around him - who are often children."
i mean, this is kind of how we feel about abortion
Criminalizing a decision that has very minimal effects on society at large, compared to the huge effect it has on the individual - is not sound policy IMHO
but people murder should be criminalized, correct? what about prostitution? drugs? spousal abuse? child abuse?
the effects of most of these are relatively private. it's hard to tell if there are incidences of child abuse or spousal abuse in your own neighborhood, yet you would surely call the police if you saw an instance. why? at what point precisely are the impacts of any of these beyond "minimal"?
what are the societal implications of legalized abortion? are there any? would society be different if it were to be outlawed in your state? would people act differently if they didn't have a reliable failsafe option to avoid pregnancy? would people be less likely to have sex outside of casual relationships or with strangers & instead reserve intercourse for committed or married relationships? would these effects to a society be considered "minimal", or could they become something much greater than that?
Murder yes
Prostitution no
Drugs no
Spousal abuse yes
child abuse yes
The question come down to when we grant rights to the unborn. If they are ALWAYS people with rights, then we must lock up women who miscarry.
That argument is ridiculous, we don't lock people up for passing influenza to their grandparents and killing them. A miscarriage is not an intentional act.
It's nearly impossible to legally prove you infected somebody with the flu.
A miscarriage will be an intentional act if abortion gets banned. Will you lock up the mother?
We have a word.for intentional miscarriage. It is abortion. Bad arguments like.this may bring some people to your side in the short term but ultimately destroy your credibility.
"child abuse yes
The question come down to when we grant rights to the unborn. If they are ALWAYS people with rights, then we must lock up women who miscarry."
interesting. so, "the unborn" should not be protected, but the "born" should.
where do you draw the line?
in some states, if a child survives an abortion attempt - they are technically born & not a fetus, but they will effectively be killed by the doctor & the mother shortly.
is the line within 1 hour of being born? 1 day? 1 year?
are you safe if you are born?
what if a mother goes into early labor before a scheduled late term abortion appointment? the time and date of the appointment would seem arbitrary in light of the difficulty we have in accurately predicting births.
a fetus is considered viable after 26 weeks. they are in essence able to survive in the world. should the mother be able to abort a viable fetus? if so, why? it has unique dna and often differs from the mother in sex and blood type. when does the fetus begin to have intrinsic value?
"so, "the unborn" should not be protected, but the "born" should."
------------
Yes, this is the basic legal reality we find ourselves in. We gain rights when we are born and become people. If you want to protect people before that time, the state legislature is the proper place to make that happen.
where do you draw the line?
------------
That's up to the states and the people in them!
"That's up to the states and the people in them!"
-------------
This does indeed seem to be the best way to handle these difficult issues.
I cannot imagine how much worse the world would be if the states were prevented from taking differing covid responses. Florida & Georgia and the rest removing their restrictions showed in real time how pointless & harmful they were.
There’s another life at stake for abortion Alex. Someone else’s life, someone with unique DNA from the mother.
That is the difference. A just society must endeavor to protect that life.
Arguments for abortion are weak and abhorrent when viewed through that lens.
Some years ago my friend got a phone call from a sister he had never met. 30 years previously their, at the time, unwed teen parents had put her up for adoption. If conceived 30 years later she would not have been allowed to live.
Abortion is either OK or not, if not it blackens the soul of those directly involved and the society that sanctions it.
A grave mistake is to fall into the 'we cannot successfully outlaw it' fallacy. It may be unrealistic to outlaw abortion but we can attempt to structure laws and society so that it is very clear that abortion is a grave last resort and the parents who make the sacrifice required to allow their child to live are doing a good thing worthy of support and encouragement,
Yes, the 'we cannot successfully outlaw it' fallacy. I think Alex missed the similarity of his argument on drugs (discourage their use) with many people's position on abortion. Perhaps they can't all be stopped and perhaps there should be some very specific exceptions, but it is still incumbent on society to discourage immoral behavior (killing an innocent person).
When you outlaw something it just moves underground. And it affects the poorest of the society the most. And just use a condom is about as useless as just get vaccinated,. Like masks, they need to be used properly, fitted well and used once, a fact that is lost on many people.
People are using the same condom more than once? Inflation is even worse than I thought.
Women’s bodies, women’s choice BUT provide sufficient education so everyone understands the stakes. For Socratic education. Talk with our kids often and now.
The little comedians do understand. My 7 year old grandson, following an age-appropriate deep discussion on th application of creativity to screens vs brass tacks reality - involving liberal anecdotes as to the roles of imagination in architecture and science - quipped: “You mean to tell me everything we see ( gestures to the surrounding reality) is from my imagination.? This little guy is a veteran YouTuber, an addicted gamer, and a talented little musician.
Don’t give up hope.
The argument is about whether SCOTUS gets to make up the laws of the land, not abortion. But I'm glad that argument is elevated.
Abortion is the eugenicist's wet dream. Vacuum and flush out the unborn babies of the poor, dirty, unwashed...especially minorities. One study had African-American abortions making up 36% of all abortions (vs. 13% of the general population). The great ethnic cleansers of all time were strongly pro-abortion (Margaret Sanger, Nazis, communists). Democrats take their cues from these heroes of the Left once again...but I'm surprised to see it here.
There is nothing hypocritical about conservative objections to a forced, harmful and useless vaccine and the desire to protect an unborn CHILD (as Dementia Joe Biden accidently said).
Most of us know people who gave birth to very premature babies who survived and thrived; while those same babies can be vacuumed out of the womb and flushed according to "it's a woman's choice" false principles.
It is no more a woman's choice than infanticide. The argument Alex is making follows the same gaslighting feints we've heard from the Left for decades - that it's a woman's body, a "fetus", and just a mass of clay inside that needs extracted. I'm sorry, I disagree with these premises.
Anyone who's seen images of an unborn child - images not available 50 years ago - understand that the science of the pro-life conservatives wins again (as with masks, vaccines, lockdowns). That is a child, not a "fetus", and the child should have the right to live.
That’s weird. I thought the argument was about whether the Supreme Court gets to operate within some expectations of personal and institutional privacy. Also that the Supreme Court is only authorized to interpret and reinterpret the law by we the people. This requires constant oversight and participation by we the people. Leave it to corporatist politicians and we land back where Patrick Henry and others put us when he laid down the gauntlet for all tyrannically minded: “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.” If we forget what this means we are truly lost.
In the case of abortion, it is not "my body, my choice." In the case of abortion, there are TWO BODIES. The pro-abortion crowd intentionally ignores this inconvenient truth.
The fact that it would be legal for me as a bystander to use physical force to protect a mother and her 1 minute old child, but it is legal for that same mother to kill that same child 1 minute before birth and I as a feeling human being am supposed to shrug and say oh-well, just another "private murder" is insanity and the stuff of horror movies insidiously masked as a medical procedure.
My 14yr old got 2 jabs. Never got the booster. Her summer camp won’t allow her to attend unless she gets the booster. The same people screaming my body my choice. I will never forgot the hypocrisy and I will NEVER financially support an organization that bought into authoritarianism. Organizations still enforcing boosters on healthy kids should be held accountable.
Send to a different camp. Too bad she got the first 2 jabs. Not too late to withhold your financial support of these places.
Pretty good analysis. I mostly agree. Here's where I think it gets hard though with abortion. You say, "But they fail the second. They [fetuses] cannot survive in the real world, not without a level of police power incompatible with a democratic state." Well, neither can a 1-day-old baby survive in the world without a mother's (or nurse's) assistance -- and we deem that assistance a legally enforceable duty. (Your phrase "police power incompatible with a democratic state" is not an argument; it's just another way of stating your conclusion.) So is it the distinction between the baby's being outside or inside the body that determines the duty? Sounds a bit strange, to have the duty attach when the person no longer is attached, but let's go with it for the moment . . . until we see that isn't a clear boundary either, because all our polling data indicates our democratic society is perfectly fine with abortion restrictions applicable to the late third trimester. So what is the boundary that makes practical sense?
The answer, I think, is that we don't know -- a logical/theoretical/philosophical argument isn't going to get us to a compelling, undeniable, immutable conclusion.
Which means the topic is a good candidate for a democratic lawmaking process, rather than being resolved by reading a right (which in its application will have to have a high degree of specificity) into the Constitution.
Great points 👍🏻
In moral questions, one must err on the side of LIFE, not life-taking.
86% of planned parenthood facilities are in minority neighborhoods
who are we trying so hard to kill off and why?
Your body, your choice...
Except when your choice brutally, horrifically, and painfully murders an innocent child, or releases them to be live organ donors for profit in the process of murdering them. There simply is no justification for this.
I was a teenager and something of a hippy-type when I heard on the car radio that abortion had been declared legal. My immediate thought was that this was not progress. Through so many decades, through having 3 children in mostly tough times, and having 9 grandchildren, my beliefs have never wavered. They never will.
This is the best comment on this page!👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
When all is said and done, I don't understand why an action, murder, is acceptable to a certain portion of our population. Especially to that portion of our population that is by definition, unable to defend itself.
As a gay man, I do not have a dog in the abortion fight. However, the Roe v Wade decision is not about abortion. It is about states rights. The abortion issue can be settled by returning the issue to the states. Those states that want abortion can have it. Those that do not, then they don’t have to have it. If you live in a state that does not allow abortion and you believe that is wrong, then take to the democratic process and elect people that will give you the results you want.
If all of these people raging against the Supremes for the hypothetical decision are so upset, then get together and start an effort to encode the availability of abortion into the Constitution via a Constitutional Amendment. Or an easier path, elect the Senators and Representatives that will vote for a law enshrining abortion as the law of the land.
But what they would rather do, since it is the path of least resistance, is to lean on a Constitutionally questionable judicial precedent (not a law), and then hold each Supreme Justice Nominee hostage to answering the question “is Roe v Wade settled law?”.
The mRNA drugs are a whole other issue. But bringing the force of the State to make people take a drug that they did not want to take OR that they might have legitimate questions about is not compatible with a free democracy. People (should) have the choice as to what to put into their bodies. If the vaccines were so effective, and a person took the “jab”, then why would they care about others who did or did not make the same choice.
They two are separate issues. I used the “My body, my choice” argument since it was fun to watch the faces of people on the other side get all contorted as they tried to explain it away. But, in reality, the issues are different. And BTW, I did take the “jab”. I am over 65 and have some conditions that pre-disposed me to COVID. So I made a bargain with the Devil, and took the jab. But I know what I did and why I did it. Forcing people to do that is wrong.
Yes, how epically everyone misses the point about this particular leak as it applies to this draft regarding the legal complications of Roe Vs. Wade. The Supreme Court is tasked with the critically important point of interpreting and reinterpreting our laws. To accomplish this the need to have a reasonable expectation of personal and institutional privacy. Laws under consideration need intense discussions and many drafts and redrafts. Threatening justices and fencing off the Supreme Court building are not good images for we the people. As our Revolutionary ancestors famously quipped to questioning citizens “It’s a republic, if you can keep it.” It’s a Revolutionary republic - IF we the people can keep it.
Your downward slide continues. The choice of what … killing a child.
And with the vaccines I don’t care what they do elsewhere. I never said don’t mandate everywhere. If you’re stupid enough to keep electing fascists then have at it. Let them control you. Just not in my county or city. They can still have the freedom to get abortions where ever they want. And they ignore the technology since 1972 with the myriad of abortifacient drugs.
It is not something that runs both ways.
You are hell bent on continually to chink your armor which yet again makes me still anti-vaccine based on many others and what I’ve seen personally but your arguments…. not so much.
States rights?