On abortion as the #1 issue
t worries me, the notion that there are so many people in the voting public for whom it is possible that abortion might be the #1, #2 and #3 (…) issue. The economy could crash, the speech police could start arresting people, trial by jury could be thrown on the discard pile, their 401(k)s could be confiscated to cover the government debt, but as long as they can rest assured that those annoying “fetuses” can be eliminated whenever they decide it’s time, they can be okay with all of the rest. I really don’t understand it, I guess.
I’ll try to explain. Firstly, the women for whom that other list – the economy could crash, etc. – would be secondary don’t see the list as the likely consequence of voting for the Democrats. They think the economy will be good enough, trial by jury is going fine if jurors convict evil Donald Trump, and the like. You get the idea. It’s not as though, if not for abortion, they’d otherwise be conservative Republicans.
And although I suppose there are women who have abortions because they find the growing fetus and prospect of a child “annoying,” I think that for more women there’s a sense of true terror at an unwanted pregnancy. It’s often far far more than “annoying” – would that it were only that.
As a woman who has been pregnant and borne a deeply wanted child, I nevertheless found pregnancy very difficult and can well imagine what it might be like to experience it without choosing to do so. I’m not saying every woman feels this way, but even with a wanted pregnancy there is a sense of being taken over by something alien to your entire previous experience, and the physical and emotional discomfort that goes with it can be quite intense, as well as fear of the unknown. The woman’s entire body undergoes a change that is far-reaching and encompasses profound hormonal and emotional upheaval, the re-arrangements of her visceral organs, and then a childbirth that usually is very painful.
With a wanted child, it’s very much worth it for the end result – which is a child. With an unwanted child, the woman either has to raise that child and be its mother for the rest of her life – which sometimes works out fine but sometimes does not – or give it away, which is another wrenching experience.
Some woman do undertake abortions casually. I submit that most don’t see it that way. I’ve been fortunate enough to never have had one, and I don’t think I ever could have done so. But that doesn’t mean I don’t see how difficult and profound the decision often is.
It may be my imagination, but it seems to me that some of the most outspoken women who would list abortion as their #1 issue are often past their childbearing years anyway.
Any number of people have ended up in situations where they feel there are no good choices. A large fraction of those people had good choices at one time, but they made choices which had consequences that foreclosed other choices at later times. The kinds of choices that land one in prison, for example, or permanently crippled, or dead.
There are some women who did not make the choices that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, but for those (the vast majority) who did make choices, the ones that led potentially to an unwanted pregnancy were not a mystery to them at the time they were made.
The road to an unwanted pregnancy has many offramps (most of which are inexpensive, safe, and effective) before the last exit, getting an abortion.
As for wrenching decisions, well, sometimes we do find caring for others to be a burden. A profoundly disabled child already born, an elderly parent with dementia; I’m sure a legal method of eliminating these burdens would involve wrenching decisions too… and yet for now we have as a society kept some of these methods illegal in these cases. But not only is the slope slippery, it’s iced, greased, and covered with banana peels and ball bearings.
The Democrats in my state are using abortion as the #1, often only, issue this year.
“even with a wanted pregnancy there is a sense of being taken over by something alien to your entire previous experience, and the physical and emotional discomfort that goes with it can be quite intense, as well as fear of the unknown. The woman’s entire body undergoes a change that is far-reaching and encompasses profound hormonal and emotional upheaval, the re-arrangements of her visceral organs, and then a childbirth that usually is very painful.”
_______
Doesn’t that imply that a pregnant woman is the least qualified to make a judgement here? Seriously, what you are saying is that it messes up your mind.
So far as I can see there are only two consistent views:
1. We are talking about a human being, so abortion should be permitted only when homicide would normally be.
2. We are not talking about a human being, so it should be regulated as we regulate how we regulate the treatment of animals.
All else is sentimental.
Neo’s summation is spot on; there are valid reasons why abortion is such an important issue to some women. Does the left incessantly fear monger and exploiting these womens’ concerns and worries? Yes. But the worries and concerns are valid and visceral. Very personal. More so than any economic issue.
I say that as someone who is mildly pro-life, but who respects the arguments for legalized abortion (in the first trimester). I just find the arguments against slightly more persuasive.
All that being said, I understand where Peter Sells is coming from. It can be exasperating to encounter people (and I know a couple) who abortion as the single issue voters. Granted many of them are liberal/left wing in general and would never vote Republican even if abortion disappeared for good. But, I personally know a few people are relatively moderate otherwise, even conservative on certain issues (such as gun rights, crime, immigration), but invariably vote Democrat because of abortion. It does get a bit maddening.
Of note, the reverse is largely no longer true. When I first started paying attention to politics (in the late 80s): there were plenty of voters (often working or middle class Catholics) who were FDR type liberals on most issues but voted GOP because of abortion. That continued throughout the 90s and into the 2000s a little. But it’s gone now. Those voters have moved right in general and are just Republicans
Here Comes the Equestrian Statue
The Democrats/Left are using access to abortion to scaremonger on the fence voters to vote for Kamala and other Democrats this cycle. Even in my home state of Maine, which has among the most liberal pro-abortion laws on the books, this tactic is deployed. The people that promote it as the top issue know full well that access to abortion is not threatened and that Donald Trump has vowed to oppose any sort of Federal ban. They are, cynically, using this non-issue as a get out the vote scheme.
I can’t speak to a woman’s feelings while pregnant, but I can say that the appropriate time for those considerations to be at the forefront of their minds is BEFORE engaging in the activity which is commonly associated with that particular side effect.
With that said I agree completely with Peter’s point regardless of how fearful they are of pregnancy.
People who’s number one priority is the “freedom” to end a life that they created in order to avoid the consequences of their actions have a pretty screwed up sense of priorities. If being able to get abortions on demand is the most important political issue in your life, I’m thinking you need to find another hobby.
“Yes, the Democrat policies have meant that I can’t afford rent or food, that the power is only on for two or three hours a day…even if I could afford to pay the electric bill, the money I earned and saved for retirement when I actually had a job has been confiscated and if I complain about any of this in public I’m going to be ostracized and possibly even prosecuted…but at least I can still get an abortion whenever I want.”
plus there is an inconvenient detail that there is an interval in which abortion can be performed,
“Super easy, barely an invonvienience.”
Abortion solves so many of the plot problems in a woman’s life?
No.
My experience is embarrassing. We were expecting our first and I was anxiously awaiting the DNA tests as I was quite afraid of having a Downs Syndrome child. I was willing to abort in that case. Pure selfishness on my part. 12 years later that child of mine is friends with DS girl who taught me what an absolute ahole I was.
So how many more selfish aholes like my previous self contribute to the abortion industry? I’m so grateful to know Shannon and how she turned me prolife and didn’t even know what she did.
House down and around the corner besides the Marxist candidates signs has before put out to Roe Roe Roe sign. A very oxymoron that I notice here has a American Flag as well out. My observations is a flag and Marxist candidates don’t often cross the same yard.
Re fear and discomfort over body changes, I’ve noticed a new point of discussion lately as well: I’m 38 and 7 months pregnant with our last child. There are facebook groups by due dates, suffice to say I’m among the oldest in this group, and this group has far, far more moms-to-be concerned about dying in childbirth than I’ve ever seen in a group like this– to the point of making concrete plans with husband/baby-daddy about things like “who he should save”.
What is also concerning these women but seems not to concern the medical establishment as much is the significant increase in preemie babies over the past decade. (The rates plummeted in 2020-21, but have since resumed their rise.) Lots of advice in discussion about NICU stays, which seems odd to me to be an everyday conversation.)
Curious as to what folks here think of Benjamin Dierker’s argument. Writing for the Federalist he likened the idea of abortion being left up to the states to Stephen Douglas’s argument that slavery should be left up to the states.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/02/im-not-pro-abortion-wouldnt-outlaw-parallels-stephen-douglass-argument-slavery/
I realize this is a bit off-topic, not exactly what our host was getting at, but this essay has haunted me a bit since I read it in 2018.
“. . .there is a sense of being taken over by something alien to your entire previous experience. . .” It’s being host to a parasite, for sure. That parasite is how we perpetuate our species. It is also a natural result of a process (act?) that is pleasurable and (based on very old memories) about which we are petty compulsive.
I have talked to several women about abortions. A good friend of ours was hitch-hiking across the Sahara with her husband when she realized she was pregnant. They were not planning to return to the US for several months, so decided to terminate her pregnancy. They never found a “convenient” time and eventually divorced. She went to her grave without ever having a child, something she always regretted.
Someone else I knew, a young woman the age of my daughters, told me she had two abortions before she was 22. That struck me as irresponsible, but perhaps I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt and she was just more “compulsive”/young.
Another woman I spoke with about her abortion had two sons when she discovered she was carrying a daughter. Her husband insisted she terminate the pregnancy, something she regretted as she wanted a daughter. It was a major regret.
And finally, a woman who was in her late thirties, married, and acknowledged having multiple partners, terminated a pregnancy because it was inconvenient and (she suspected) not her husband’s. Last I talked to her she regretted her childlessness but had been widowed young enough she could probably have remarried and given birth. I don’t know if she ever did.
The common theme through all these stories was regret at having terminated a pregnancy even though the circumstances were wildly different. Another theme is than none of these women was ignorant of the possible result of coitus. I didn’t ask them why they didn’t use protection, but I inferred (perhaps incorrectly) it was just inconvenient.
Other commenters here probably have similar stories they could tell. Does inconvenience figure in those stories? Am I wrong here?
There is no mystery that sex and pregnancy go together like a horse and carriage. That said, under current homicide statutes, a woman still has six weeks to legally abort her “burden”, and she maintains a right to self-defense through reconciliation. Furthermore, even in progressive sects, with less than liberal carve-outs, a woman is compelled to give birth at the time of viability. In Stork They Trust
In WA state, abortion is the only issue– almost no Harris ads on the tele, but the Republican (liberal Republican) candidate for Governor highlights his anti-abortion votes 10 years ago when he was in Congress. This, in a state that legalized abortion before the Roe v Wade decision.
The Democrats have very cleverly twisted the argument, IMO. “Banning abortion” in every instance does not mean a total ban with no exceptions. In every state that bans abortion allows abortions at minimum for the life and most often health of the mother. But the headlines always refer to it as banning abortion.
Here’s a Guttmacher headline: Six Months Post-Roe, 24 US States Have Banned Abortion or Are Likely to Do So: A Roundup
The reality is 24 states have restrictions on abortion. No state 100% prohibits abortion.
*Sigh*
I have no idea of how the free availability of abortion got to be such a huge thing with the big-name, capital-F Feminists. What with the Pill, and so many methods of birth control available …
I am of an age when a startlingly large number of women had them. I remember sitting around a table in the female barracks in the late 1970s, and of the six of us opening up about our lives … four of the six had had abortions, and one woman had two or three. She had medical issues, couldn’t carry to term, and the doctors told her she was too young to qualify for getting her tubes tied.
I was mildly horrified – but I could understand, under the limits of what was available for a woman, and how difficult it was to be a single parent.
Sometime later, I became pregnant, and it turned out that my long-term boyfriend had decided that he wanted out of the picture… and there I was, raising a daughter myself. It made a radical change to my life, possibly damaged the career that I might have had, otherwise. I didn’t hesitate for a moment when the nurse who broke the news to me that I was pregnant told me that the clinic could arrange for an abortion, if I wanted it.
So, I understand – understand that it is a tragic and difficult situation, all the way around. But what with birth control availability, and the morning-after pill – why does it have to be? Shouldn’t it be rare?
Roe, Roe, Roe your baby down the river Styx, is an apt analogy, and unprecedented religious crime wave, second only to Carhart and other Planned Parenthood corporate enterprises. To think that ancient cults performed human rites for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress… and they still do.
That said, keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable, and the carbon-based “burden” of evidence sequestered in sanctuary states.
Strikes me that reasonable–defined conservatively–exceptions to a total ban would be easier to implement than reasonable restrictions to complete freedom.
So I vote for the former.
As I say, the results of crappy voting decisions rarely come home to the AWFL with a personal note, even if the women in question are actually affected. It wouldn’t be Kamala’s stupid policies ramping up prices, it would be price-gouging. Nothing to do with K.
I think the post-Dobbs “abortion laws kill women” canard is a also a big factor. If one believes that Republicans pass laws that literally result in the death of women who experience complications during pregnancy, I can see how that would be a #1 issue, especially for women who are or might become pregnant.
Of course, the “abortion laws kill women” narrative is not only false, but objectively ridiculous. Abortion laws clearly do not cover pregnancy complications such as ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, or emergency c-sections. No one has ever, anywhere been charged under an abortion law for anything related to a pregnancy complication or situation where the mother’s life or limb was in danger or thought to be in danger. That includes pre-Roe and post-Dobbs.
But the ridiculousness of the narrative hasn’t stopped pro-abort lawyers from arguing that pro-life prosecutors are poised to start charging doctors and women over ectopic pregnancies and the like, and people believe them. (Including hospitals and doctors who are actually causing harm to women by delaying care because of a ridiculous fear of being prosecuted under an abortion law.)
I suspect that some of this is like the fear of airliner crashes…if someone has a sufficiently nightmarish scenario in their mind, arguments about how unlikely they are–even very solid arguments–are likely to fall on deaf ears.
Re: #2 “We are not talking about a human being…”
Here’s the thing, we don’t get to decide that ‘its’ not a human being because that’s abrogating to ourselves what amounts to omniscience and that, inescapably leads to monstrous evil.
My sense has always been that for the left, abortion is less about terminating unwanted pregnancies than it is having an issue – along with civilian disarmament – to fund raise off of.
One of the more thoughtful and intelligent analyses of seen of the psychology of why abortion is such a potent political issue:
https://x.com/WindDustStars/status/1841663553876721876
F:
I know many women who had abortions. I would not say that for ANY of them the reason was that pregnancy was an “inconvenience.” Some regretted it and some did not.
Almost all of them were using some form of birth control when they got pregnant. Birth control method failure is a very real thing. Two or three of them got pregnant with IUDs, by the way.
In between her pregnancies with my brother and me, my mother got pregnant while using a diaphragm. She had a natural miscarriage in the third month.
Contraception failure is and especially was (with older methods) very common. It still happens with some frequency.
Neo, I would like to believe that the majority of women would find it a difficult choice but when I look into our current culture I see so many lies that have been told to girls and young women and men too.
The big lie is all of the deflections from what is actually happening in a abortion. I have been watching a lot of political YouTube videos many of which touch on abortion. YouTube automatically attaches this text with a link to a government website medlineplus.gov.
“Procedural abortion, a procedure to remove the pregnancy from the uterus.”
The pregnancy is removed not even a fetus.
I hear women say things like “fetus deletus” which is dark humor but also dismissive and callous.
We no longer live in the world where this was illegal and considered immoral by a vast majority of people. Now it is merely a choice. One that often the culture at large would be upset if a woman didn’t chose. I believe that a rape victim, a woman I would have great sympathy for in wanting to abort, that chose not to abort would be seen as making a bad choice by many if not most in our society.
Kristen:
Fascinating. I didn’t think death in childbirth rates had increased at all, so my guess as to why women nowadays are that worried about it is that there’s a lot more worry in general. But looking it up, I see that although deaths in childbirth have decreased greatly since a century ago, in the last two decades they have risen somewhat – although they’re still very rare.
Premature births have been rising, however. Here’s an article about that. The rise has been slow but it’s been going on for a long time.
Congratulations on your own pregnancy and good wishes for a healthy and happy one!
Neo: Brava.
I read an interesting essay a number of years ago that summarized the differences between the political left and right. That difference is personal responsibility. Basically, the right believes you should be held responsible for your own actions; the left does NOT believe that you are responsible for your own actions. The debate over abortion is the best example of this. Most, meaning about 98% of all abortions, are used as “birth control after the fact,” where the mother doesn’t want to be “inconvenienced” by her own actions. The left now rails that the right wants to ban abortions even in cases of rape or incest, but even Planned Parenthood admitted to only about 2% of abortions being due to those causes. I would also say that if want an abortion because you were raped, there damn well better be a police report on file at the time you were “raped.”
This lack of responsibility by the left permeates all of their opinions. If someone is poor, for example, we on the right will say it is because they are lazy and don’t want to work. Folks on the left will not blame the lazy-ass, but will instead claim the lazy-ass is poor because other folks are conspiring to keep him poor! Etc.
Back in the Reagan years (too bad we can’t bring back those good times), I remember one time when what sounded like an older black woman called into the Rush Limbaugh show. This woman was complaining about how Reagan and Bush (the then VP) were conspiring to keep the inner-city communities in the grip of drug addiction. She actually blamed Reagan and Bush for pushing drugs in those communities. But then Rush had her speechless when he responded, “Ma’am, I don’t believe for a minute that Reagan and Bush are pushing drugs in the inner-city, but even if it were true, why don’t those folks foil their plans by NOT DOING DRUGS!?” In other words, take some personal responsibility!
I had the misfortune to meet Gary Peters a number of years ago. For those that don’t know, he is one of the Democrat senators from Michigan. I asked him if he was for equal rights for women, and he said he was. I then asked him if he was for equal rights for ALL women, and he said he was. I then asked him if he was for equal rights for UNBORN women, and he just gave me a dirty look. I then told him to go and perform a certain act on himself.
Basically, the right believes you should be held responsible for your own actions; the left does NOT believe that you are responsible for your own actions.
==
Waal, what they believe is that they should be the ones to reallocate culpability and costs. The J6 defendents and Derek Chauvin et al exemplify this.
==
The head case who invaded Paul Pelosi’s home has been convicted in federal and state court and given life without parole. Posit a case like that prosecuted under the New York Penal Law. What he did would be in sum a class E felony, a class D felony, and a class B felony (assuming no plea bargain). Even if they’d sentenced him to consecutive terms (and in New York, a judge is not compelled to) and given him the maximum on each charge, he’d have been eligible for parole after 12 years. Our judges and prosecutors are a scandal.
This lack of responsibility by the left permeates all of their opinions. If someone is poor, for example, we on the right will say it is because they are lazy and don’t want to work.
==
Only if you’re a blockhead. People’s skill set is the most intense influence on their earnings, not their working hours. (BTW, about 85% of the working population is employed > 2,000 per annum). Adding to your skill set is challenging and about 1/4 of the available jobs in the economy at any one time consist of hire-off-the-street jobs where the training is in site-specific procedures.
By the way, I learned a new word.
Tokophobia – an extreme fear of childbirth. The condition causes some people to take excessive measures to avoid getting pregnant. People who do become pregnant may dread each week of pregnancy instead of enjoying it. With therapy and extra support, this condition can be overcome.
I think I have it, and I don’t even have to worry about getting pregnant.
The guttmacher institute is not an impartial source
Sorry, Neo. No sell. The people who are most vocal are calling for unfettered abortion. That has nothing to do with fear of an unwanted pregnancy.
To anyone who objects to any limits on abortion, define for me at what moment in a pregnancy a fetus changes from a mass to a viable human. If you cannot do that, then due caution is the only moral recourse. Most states have ‘compromised’ to allow abortion at some point in the term which negates the argument of fear of an unwanted pregnancy, and also provides relief from rape or incest, yet hopefully, avoids infanticide.
If particular states have restrictions that abortion advocates consider unreasonable, they need to make their case to the voters in those states.
Actually, I seldom see them making a case. They simply shout an assertion. An assertion that I do not accept.. The argument, ‘a woman’s right to choose’ is spurious at best; because it ignores the possibility of other’s rights. The ‘others’ could involve a helpless human, and also the potential father in some cases. Except in the case of rape, actual or statutory, a woman chose to take a known risk. I know of no innate right to be excused from the consequences of risky behavior. People who indulge in risky behavior of various types pay the consequences every day. But, never mind that. I repeat, in most venues, compromise is offered–and rejected.
If one method of birth control is not so reliable, women have the option to use more reliable methods instead, or use multiple compatible methods. But sex always carries some risk of pregnancy (which is is not new or esoteric knowledge) and the use of birth control doesn’t change the rightness or wrongness of abortion.
There are any number of behaviors for which one can take precautions which have some non-zero failure rate; when you choose the behavior you also choose the consequence. But a lot of Americans want to transfer the consequences of their choices to others who had no agency in the matter, and abortion is not the only issue where that is true, certainly.
Art Deco…”People’s skill set is the most intense influence on their earnings, not their working hours”
Also, willingness to take responsibility. For example, I visited a factory owned by an early-stage company in which I’m an investor. While the ops manager was showing me around, he mentioned that they found it difficult to get workers to take supervisory positions. I’ve heard about this phenomenon before: sometimes, people fear that becoming one of the ‘bosses’ will destroy their relationship with their friends who are now co-workers…sometimes, it’s just not wanting to have to worry about anything other than one’s single task.
Well, I don’t know what this naughty interloper named ‘Peter Sells’ thinks he’s about here, but I’ll venture to speak for him. 🙂 I’ve seen this guy try to take credit for my work before….
Neo, that is an illuminating explanation and I thank you for it. Be it understood, however, that in my – or rather, ‘Peter’s’ – comment the other day, the “annoying” descriptor was meant to cover broadly such ground as the physical bodily changes, not directed at mere nuisance factors. That I can understand as a harassing form of burden, at least until delivery, obviously. Similar with the “when they decide it’s time” – that doesn’t have to mean a casual decision, can also include bad news on a genetic screening or something.
Your point about detaching the assortment of other possible external scenarios from voting (D) is also worth weighing.
Maybe it’s indeed about that feeling of loss of autonomy, ultimately. Proposition 1 in NY State this year speaks to that in its proposal of a requirement of non-discrimination on the basis of “reproductive autonomy”. (Of course, one is encouraged by the establishment to overlook the fact that, strictly speaking, “reproductive autonomy” = parthenogenesis, which is not a human ability. And I assume the state constitution is silent on the rights of snakes.)
It’s a kind of social/civic experiment: how far can the principle of self-determination be stretched?
as a physician of almost 40 years , I can recall participating in abortions in medical school. As the student I was given the thankless jib of measuring the fetal foot. If abortion isn’t murder it sure comes close. that being said im a legal safe and rare guy. I think France has got it right. However I have also seen the pro-abortionist attitude change from a painful last resort to an in your face ” Im gonna get pregnant just to get an abortion”. Nobody would have supported late term abortion 35 years ago.
I remember having a patient who aspirated and went comatose during her 17th abortion. why so many? she was a junkie who ran out of arm veins and got pregnant to enlarge her breast veins to allow needle access.
Another issue is I resent the focus group termed ” Pro-choice”. the most ardent pro-abortionists are fascistic in that they are not for choice on any other issue-i.e. school sconce, parental notification of trans grooming etc…
This is why I frequent the Boss’ space…great minds wrestling with wisdom…
Let me throw a spanner in the works then… 😉
I’d agree with Oldflyer to a large degree…
“The people who are most vocal are calling for unfettered abortion.”
Many of the most strident voices (& votes) don’t allow even for “failed” abortions where the baby is born alive. In those cases they demand the provider (I struggle to call them Drs) kill the living post-abortion birthed infant. This is a deeper sort of thing than inconvenience or fear of repercussions…physical, emotional, social, economic, etc…
I’ve known women who became pregnant in untimely circumstances & some of those regretted the decision to abort…but those I know who are single-issue-abortion proponents…are not those women. And the reasoning is often grossly out of touch with real life experience…Ben Shapiro’s last series of “debates” with lefties had some really bizarre women who kept trying to change the definition of “abortion,” & calling it “reproductive rights” is just lying in the first order.
But I believe what’s really at stake is the eternal issue of control, mastery, autonomy…however you want to say it. With the advent of birth control pills & access to other forms of birth control and the incumbent relaxed standards around women exercising their sex drives more for pleasure or power than procreation, I reckon some women “bit the apple” all over again & are not about to relinquish that godlike status in their own lives.
With the wider openness in society to women in historically male vocations & the access to education & status along with that shift, more women have had more choices than their mothers, grandmothers & so on. The last bastion of self-determination seems to be the uterus…so they fight to retain control over that which is most intimately “theirs.”
So…maybe it is a spiritual issue at its core (of course I’d say it is)…What I hear in those “abortion by any means at any time” voices is, “If I can have final veto over “be fruitful multiply & fill the earth,” then by all means I will…and everyone else can go hang.” Or something like that.
I’m against it. Period. It’s one of the aspects of being Catholic in which I am devoutly Catholic. A person becomes a person (human) at the instant of conception, abortion is murder, etc. I understand and am sympathetic to pro-choice arguments of every degree, i.e. the extremists, the moderates, the everywhere in-betweens. But still. Fortunately for the pro-choice people of every stripe my beliefs are utterly and quite literally wholly inconsequential. I have known plenty of women who had abortions because they weren’t “prepared” to have a child at that stage in their lives. In other words having a child was, for them, an inconvenience. How many abortions have been performed in the U.S. since 1973? The number is vast, in the tens of millions. That’s a holocaust of truly epic proportions. I dunno, but I think God may one day punish us for it. But it doesn’t matter what I think. And there’s nothing I can do about it. So there you have it.
I would call it the number one non-issue. Trump is willing to let the states decide as they see fit. Democrats want a national abortion law, but they get votes saying that Trump wants a national abortion ban. It’s a manufactured controversy.
My mother aborted her first pregnancy, which was just before me. It scarred her for the rest of her life.
I was complicit in my younger sister’s abortion of her first pregnancy. She was a mildly retarded teenager, and some horrible young man started having sex with her, then moved in with my mother and sister. He terrorized them both. My mother was suicidally depressed and incapable of fighting the guy off.
My other sister and I caught wind. We flew back to our hometown and told the guy we were the new sheriffs in town. He got the hell out.
Frankly I don’t regret helping my younger sister get an abortion. I feel a bit guilty but not much.
It’s a complicated issue.
@Abraxas:It’s a manufactured controversy.
It is, and I wonder if it’s not being used as a flag of convenience for establishment GOP types who are tired of having to pretend they care what their base thinks about abortion. It didn’t take very long after Dobbs to see the trial balloons go up.
When the media just lies about what Republicans want to do, there’s no point in trying to change positions to respond to that, especially when it alienates the most loyal core of the base. The media will continue their lies, or move on to other lies; they will get what they want, and the GOP will be most likely worse off in terms of voters, and definitely more left-wing.
I don’t think “Democrats but 20 years later” is a long-term winning strategy for accomplishing any goals of conservatives; it does let some GOPe types feed at the troughs though.
It’s a complicated issue.
It would take the wisdom of Solomon.
I interact with many Democrats, many of whom are over 60 years old, clearly of the age and/or sex in which having or raising new kids is out of the question. So, inconvenience of pregnancy or struggle of raising an unwanted child is of no personal concern to these 60+ year olds. Some of them have no children at all, so no worries of a daughter having an unwanted child.
Still, almost uniformly, abortion is a number 1 issue for these 60+ year olds, even those who are Jewish and pro-Israel. And, I know the real reason abortion is number 1:
They think abortion is the only issue, if it were the only issue that separated Kamala from Trump, about which Kamala could in an election prevail over Trump.
I remember how on The Good Wife Christine Baranski’s character was presented as a liberal idealist, and she would never represent the pro-life side of an abortion case. However, she was willing to represent people she knew were murderers and organized crime bosses.
A real person who has principles like this is either messed up, or has fake principles and is primarily thinking of sources of revenue that would dry up if she took the wrong side on abortion. The murderers and organized crime bosses always paid, of course.
It bothers me that Democrats are campaigning as though it were a common occurrence that every woman, every voter’s female friend or relation, is at risk of dying because she couldn’t get an abortion.
That’s a rare situation.
And nonexistent as along as one can buy a bus ticket to California, Massachusetts or any other Dem voting state. Or purchase an abortifacient pill by mail.
Fair enough, but it is despicable that the Democratic Party is lying to the public about abortion to win, for example stating that “Trump abortion bans” (which don’t exist, as Trump hasn’t been governor of any state) are “killing women” or that pro-life laws don’t allow women to receive lifesaving care. They’re telling blatant and really quite dangerous lies in order to win an election, which is disgusting.
Shadow:
Are we disagreeing about how despicable Democrats are?
Women who don’t want the child should abort it long before the abortionist has to take it out piece by piece – limb by limb. Kamala wants abortion legal to the day of birth. This is murder.
The elephant in the room is that the Communists and Socialists in Congress use abortion and guns as fund raisers. They have no intention of ever resolving the issues: too much money goes into their back pockets.
Compare the feelz about abortion versus an unwated litter of kittens or puppies.
It seems to me that it’s really about Liberty, and these women feel more acutely the True Threat of having the State heavy-handedly control what they do with their bodies. It’s almost irrelevant that they’re being hypocritical by not also being concerned about others’ libety to avoid things like the Covid vaccine.
The Supreme Court should have recognized our personal Bodily Autonomy rights in Roe v Wade. But that would have meant they’d also have to let those damned kids smoke pot. So, instead, they gave us Qualified Immunity.
I say all this as a deeply devoted, conservative, pro-life Christian. It’s admirable to want to save lives, especially those most innocent. But if the cost is oppressing their mothers, it’s not worth it. People should control their bodies, even if doing so causes collateral damage to another. If possible, save the child – that is, never let the mother choose to kill the child when it’s not necessary – but never let the State try to control our bodies like that – Bind the Strongman!
The Supreme Court should have recognized our personal Bodily Autonomy rights in Roe v Wade.
I say all this as a deeply devoted, conservative, pro-life Christian.
Nihimon
One of these things is not like the other. Hmmmmm…..
I so wish the abortion issue would go away. Ever since President Nixon was talked into going “pro life” by Pat Buchanan in 1973 it has been an albatross around the necks of the Republican Party. This idea of a ban on all abortions is ridiculous. I think the vast majority of Americans are fine with legal abortion up to 16-18 weeks and after that only if there is a threat to the life of the mother.
the way they go the wall for carhart for gosnell and other butchers (thanks a lot tom ridge) suggests there is something else going on,
do I need to refer back to how they reacted 16 years, to a mother whose son had down syndrome, who had no policy prescription
there’s nearly no place that has a ban, but go ahead and humor the moloch worshipers,
@Nihimon:the State heavy-handedly control what they do with their bodies….I say all this as a deeply devoted, conservative, pro-life Christian.
A conservative pro-life Christian thinks the True Threat is having the mother heavy-handedly control the unborn baby’s body.
When you accept the Left’s framing and use the Left’s language, you are on the Left, and when you are on the Left and pretend to be on the Right, you are a moby:
“It’s really about social justice and about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the working class. I say all this as a deeply devoted, free-market, lifelong Republican.”
If you’re not sure what a “moby” is, you might look up “shibboleth” for a clue. People who pretend to be one thing, but are deeply steeped in something else, are not aware they betray themselves by how and what they say.
@Brooklyn Boy:This idea of a ban on all abortions is ridiculous… I think the vast majority of Americans are fine with legal abortion up to 16-18 weeks
No doubt they are; at one time they were okay with seven- and fourteen-year terms of indentured servitude, too. Didn’t end there. And of course the wishes of the slaves were not consulted.
But no one running for President is proposing a “ban” on “all abortions”, and no state run by Republicans has such a “ban”.
the dems ran on abortion, amnesty and acid, in 1972, as Nixon famously phrased it, thats still their platform half a century later,
with Prop ! in New York, with Prop 4 in Florida, and other variants in states across the country, they want no restriction, at any time, without apology,
it fits their general antinatalist position as espoused by the World Economic Forum,
Thanks, neo, for sharing your personal experience carrying a human life to term.
And thanks to those of you who have shared your thoughts and/or experiences.
I hate to look at this politically, but regarding the politics around the issue; Conservatives do a terrible job of messaging on the subject of abortion. In their defense, the media makes it very difficult to get well reasoned conversation out.
Roe vs. Wade was lousy law. Liberals should be just as glad as Conservatives the precedent of finding rights in penumbrae of the Constitution was struck down.
Barring passage of a Constitutional amendment (impossible in today’s culture), Liberals should be glad states can regulate and legislate the issue freely.
Aside from that, using the law to address abortion is like using a chainsaw to address childcare; the law is not a remedy for the actual issue; a woman is scared/ill/impoverished/overwhelmed/alone/uninformed/addicted… and pregnant. Each individual woman in this circumstance needs help.
Everyone wants to fix the world but few want to fix their cousin, their co-worker, their neighbor. I’ve written this before; but if your society, your culture, is at a point where a significant percentage of people are celebrating the damage done by abortion and want more of it, your culture is deeply damaged. Passing a law is not going to change that.
We used to live in a country where 90+% of the citizens would have agreed with 2/3 of Bill Clinton’s, “safe, legal and rare” statement and probably 80% agreed on “legal” in certain situations; mother’s health, rape, incest. We no longer live in that country and we can’t legislate our way back.
Neo:
The “inconvenience” I was referring to was the inconvenience of using birth control, not any implied inconvenience of having a child. I did not make that clear. My bad.
I don’t mean to imply that having an abortion is more convenient than carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child or putting it up for adoption.
All of that said, the number of replies to this post indicates abortion is a matter of passionately held belief for many people. Not a bad thing.
@F:I don’t mean to imply that having an abortion is more convenient than carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child or putting it up for adoption.
You can select a different word if people think “convenience” makes light of it, but there is no plausible world in which abortion is more effort than carrying a child to term, much less raising it.
Think of all the reasons given by people here in support of legal abortion, they all acknowledge this reality; the mother may be too poor, too ill, too unprepared, what have you. If an abortion was HARDER for the mother than not having one, then why would women in those situations seek an abortion? If something is too hard for you to do you don’t seek an even HARDER alternative.
Mike Plaiss on October 30, 2024 at 4:25 pm:
That 2018 Federalist article is a great and serious criticism of the “pro-choice” stance. The analogy to abolitioning slavery is very close when [Douglas] “wanted choice.
We rightly view this today as egregious. It is not choice if the slave has no say! The slave is a distinct, living, and whole human being.” And so many/most of us also view the gestating embryo/ fetus as a dinstinct and living “human entity”. The crucial different resides in the fertilized egg/ embryo/ fetus as a “potential human being” and perhaps not yet a “whole human being”. When and where do we [not God] decide on the legality of personhood (and the sanctions againt murder that go with that definition)? This factor of potentiality as the point of legal humanity is the crux of the issue for me and it is too little discussed or debated in the abortion related realm (except Oldflyer does cite it below).
Oldflyer on October 30, 2024 at 6:28 pm said:
“To anyone who objects to any limits on abortion, define for me at what moment in a pregnancy a fetus changes from a mass to a viable human.” Exactly!! Whether going forward in time from the joining* of the male and female pronuclii (23 chromosomes each) to form the fully single human 46 chromosome zygote on to implantation as blastocyst, embryo, and fetus, and birth; or going backward from birth to that joining “instant” [??*] there is no point at which that 46 chromosome combination that defines a unique human being in not in evidence.
*Some time ago I came across a YouTube video asserting that the time scale from when the sperm penetrates the egg wall and the two sets of DNA combine is several hours, not the seconds to minutes I might have thought from other discussions/ portrayals I had seen. I was not able to re-find that video with a modest search, but did find this 6 minute animation exlaining close to that sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5OvgQW6FG4 .
In particular, minutes 4 to 5 show male pronucleus forming and female pronucleus forming, after the sperm has penetrated the egg exterior; then moving towards each other via microtubules; but no info on the time span for this step after the egg envelopes the sperm cell. Presumably it is not instantaneous, as time is required for the dispersed male and female DNA strands to form chromosomes and pronuclii, and then transit towards each other through what is presumably a semi-viscous cytoplasm. You might then say that “ensoulation” occurs at whatever microsecond that the full 46 chromosomes come together.
Mike Plaiss on October 30, 2024 at 6:09 pm: seeing your new word and definition [Tokophobia – an extreme fear of childbirth], I went looking for its opposite, as I knew of a young wife and mother with two children who “liked being pregnant”. She sought or at least agreed to carry another couple’s embryo to term as a surrogate. While she was paid for this generous service, her gyn said that 3rd pregancy was probably the last she should have for medical reasons. I did not find any specific word for the opposite of tokophobia. Perhaps tokophilia?
Rusty on October 30, 2024 at 5:29 pm: ” I then asked him if he was for equal rights for UNBORN women…” When we say an aborted fetus is the loss of that potential human, when that fetus is female, we are also losing all of the children she might have birthed. I don’t recall the exact numbers and timing, and can’t afford the time to confirm this, but somewhere I read that during gestation the female fetus develops several million [?] “egg buds” in her ovaries, and that while by birth a large number of them have been re-absorbed, at birth she retains some large number in the 400,000 range. As the girl grows that number reduces by puberty to the 400 range we normally associate with adult women. Of course, this argument can apply on the male side as well, as millions of sperm are lost, but perhaps not developed (or “pre-assigned”) during fetal life.
Niketas Choniates on October 30, 2024 at 6:32 pm said:
“There are any number of behaviors for which one can take precautions which have some non-zero failure rate; when you choose the behavior you also choose the consequence.” Perhaps one of the most prominent of these is our joint willingness to accept approx. 40,000 auto related deaths per year, in exchange for the many millions of person-miles of travel liberty that our society enjoys via extensive availability of such vehicles and of the infrastructure to use them.
Rufus T. Firefly on October 31, 2024 at 11:47 am said:
“Liberals should be just as glad as Conservatives the precedent of finding rights in penumbrae of the Constitution was struck down.” But if their goal is a “living constitution”, then I would think their strong preference would be for nebulous penumbrae from which to extract their liberty and rights constraining ideas.
The issue is not [elective] abortion, but rather human rights (e.g. right to life, cruel and unusual punishment). We already have homicide statutes that characterize the viability of a human life. The complication, as with most homicides, is that demos-cracy dies in darkness. Under law, a woman has six weeks to abort her child’s life for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. She retains rhe right of self-defense through reconciliation. I don’t think that people want to liberalize the scope of self-defense to accommodate the wicked solution adopted in progressive sects, or maybe they do a la Capitol punishment.
Planned Parenthood is not the sole #1 issue. There are diverse issues that are codependent, and cannot be considered separately.
“The Supreme Court should have recognized our personal Bodily Autonomy rights in Roe v Wade.”
They did, kinda. They imposed a three trimester sliding standard, that gave the mother maximum bodily autonomy rights using the first trimester, and the baby the maximum right to life during the third trimester. It was later abortion decisions that whittled down the latter to almost nothing.
The other problem was that your right to Bodily Autonomy was never well established in the Constitution. It came out of a Right to Privacy, and depended on penumbras and emanations from the Bill of Rights. In other words, it was a made up right, with very little real Constitutional support. The Bill of Rights protects a lot of things, like free speech, keeping and bearing arms, unwarranted searches and seizures. Just nothing about Bodily Autonomy. Meanwhile, the Declaration of Independence calls out the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness, but nothing explains why the mother’s right to Liberty and Happiness should trump the baby’s right to Life.
Niketas:
It depends what you mean by “effort.” Certainly I don’t think anyone would disagree with the idea that childbirth and childrearing are FAR more labor-intensive (after all, we do call childbirth “labor”). But for someone with a conscience – and there are many many such people – abortion carries with it a very different burden, and that is sometimes-lifelong and severe guilt and regret. The woman doesn’t always know – and in fact often doesn’t know – how she will react psychologically after an abortion, but I think most people are well aware of the huge guilt and regret possibilities.
@neo:I think most people are well aware of the huge guilt and regret possibilities.
Sure, and there are many other activities for which this is also true, some legal and some not. Millions of women choose to risk the regret instead of taking on the effort (however characterized) of pregnancy, childbirth, and raising the child, and something like 500K to 1 million women exhibit this revealed preference annually.
@Bruce Hayden:The other problem was that your right to Bodily Autonomy was never well established in the Constitution.
Suicide is not illegal in any state, but if you attempt it the state will revoke your bodily autonomy until a medical professional checks a box somewhere saying you’re not at immediate risk for doing it. And minors don’t have bodily autonomy in most states regarding tattoos, piercings, or even tanning beds–yet for abortion an exception is made, and funded at taxpayer expense too, and without the consent or even notification of parents in some states.
NIketas:
I fail to see your point.
My point has to do with the relative “effort” involved in abortion vs childbirth, and I also brought up a possible psychological cost of abortion to take into consideration. Of course some people have abortions despite whatever cost is involved, and some don’t even have any regret.
@neo:My point has to do with the relative “effort” involved in abortion vs childbirth, and I also brought up a possible psychological cost of abortion to take into consideration.
This is exactly why I used the term “revealed preference”. Whatever weight potential regret has in the scale of costs or effort, hundreds of thousands of women reveal annually, by their actions, that this potential regret is less important to them than whatever effort or costs they avoid by termination of the pregnancy.
In addition this potential regret is also revealed, by their actions, to be less important to them than the effort or cost involved in doing whatever is necessary to not get pregnant in the first place: whether that’s better birth control, multiple methods of birth control, or abstinence.
It’s not me sitting in judgment on them, it’s revealed preference. Same thing is true of me getting in a car and driving, for example; clearly I prefer to forgo the cost and effort of not driving over the small probability that I will kill someone and the guilt and regret I will experience for doing so. Even if I drive sensibly and follow rules and take precautions, it’s not non-zero, and my having done those things wouldn’t make my potential victim less dead.
Abortions are at least ten times as frequent as auto-related fatalities these days, partly because cars are safer and partly because abortions are so easy to get.
Niketas:
Of course they do. Why would I disagree with you? But it has nothing to do with my point, which is that (a) plenty of women decide not to have abortions because of feeling that that potential cost would be greater than the cost of having a baby; and (2) many women think the psychological cost of the abortion won’t be all that great and discover otherwise afterwards.
This is truly a thing of human existence that is not “fair” and cannot be made fair. Due to the nature of human biology (and most all mammalian biology) the female of the species has a mandatory, biological burden. Only men truly have a choice.
We want to pass a law to grant women the “right to choose,” but codifying those words into law will not change biology.
It is a tremendous responsibility borne by women, as neo indicates in her post. A healthy culture also raises up its boys and develops them into men who will assist women and their offspring to the point of laying down their own lives for their spouse and children. This is why so many stories in so many cultures focus on “the hero’s journey;” tales of young men taking on a difficult task and not giving up in the face of arduous challenges. Boys have to be taught to take on the responsibility of sacrificing for the next generation. With girls it is in the very nature of their bodies.
The fundamental work of every species is getting DNA to the next generation of the species. Somehow humanity has devolved to a state where that is at risk. The cause has nothing to do with the Law.
Difficult topic. neo has pointed out some points from a woman’s point of view that I never considered.
Seeing this post hit 75+ comments in a day shows that abortion is not only a Top Topic with women, but also with men.
Some 58 years ago mom asked me if I would marry a woman with a kid. I said no. I look back at that day now (after this post) and think that mom was hoping for a “yes” answer from me.
Dad was an Elder in a Christian church, and the other Elder in same church had experienced his daughter getting pregnant. The other Elder had suggested that there was some kind of Christian home that took in pregnant girls, helping them during that time, and then putting the children up for adoption.
Hey, I was just 19 or 20 and just found out my sister was pregnant—AND my mom asking me if I would marry a woman with a kid!?!
Mom said many years later she regretted that decision more than anyone she had made in her life. Not sure what she had meant, but now thinking she would’ve adopted that kid herself—except for two Elders, and older son suggesting to put that kid up for adoption.
Yeah, all kinds of angles involved in pregnancies. Even adoptions can be traumatic…
@ Karmi > “The other Elder had suggested that there was some kind of Christian home that took in pregnant girls, helping them during that time, and then putting the children up for adoption.”
The LDS Church did that for many decades, up until about 10 years ago.
One couple in our ward got both their children that way, because the wife couldn’t have kids, and they always taught their children to honor and respect the hard choices made by their birth mothers.
I also knew women who were the “foster aunts” of the pregnant girls, who were living away from their own families until the babies were born.
When I was in high school, a couple of girls “went to visit” their distant relatives for awhile, but we all eventually found out why.
In my own adult life, I have also known women who carried babies that the world would have encouraged them to abort. Two kept the children with their families’ support, and later married men who quite happily accepted their ready-made family (Karmi is correct, however: that is a hard question to put to a young man, and the reflex answer is probably no for most of them even more so in that era).
One was a divorced mom who already had 4 children; they all loved their baby sister, even though she could not walk, and they had to carry her — or more usually, pull her around the neighborhood in their little red wagon.
One sadly gave up the child for adoption, because she had been severely traumatized by the abusive behavior of her husband.
Maybe they aren’t representative of a world where the mothers-to-be don’t have a support network of family and church friends.
You can’t legislate those kind of situations INTO existence, but you can legislate them OUT, with the rising tide of anti-family laws that constrain religious organizations and even punish parents for what we used to consider normal child-rearing practices.
Our church still offers counseling and referrals to agencies that do have adoption services.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/lds-family-services-no-longer-operating-as-adoption-agency?lang=eng
@ Kristen > “I’m 38 and 7 months pregnant with our last child. There are facebook groups by due dates, suffice to say I’m among the oldest in this group, and this group has far, far more moms-to-be concerned about dying in childbirth than I’ve ever seen in a group like this– to the point of making concrete plans with husband/baby-daddy about things like “who he should save”.”
First, congratulations and best wishes for a successful and safe delivery.
Keep us posted on how you are doing!
Second, that’s a new one on this old mom!
Through 5 pregnancies & births (1977-1986), not a single Ob/Gyn suggested I needed to worry about dying in the process. Granted, I wasn’t a particularly high-risk patient, and we (women of my age in that era) were probably told that there was no such thing as zero-risk childbirth (duh), but we certainly weren’t encouraged to focus on that aspect.
So what’s driving the angst?
Neo’s citation was full of data with informative analysis, and was very much just-the-facts, but it did raise the alarm.
(1) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7377107/#S2
“The rising trend in pregnancy-related deaths during the past 2 decades in the United States stands out among other high-income countries where pregnancy-related deaths are declining.”
A lot of nuances and caveats follow, and the article is dense and full of medical-speak. A more public-facing source is also more strident.
(2) https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/what-s-behind-spike-us-maternal-mortality
“What’s behind the spike in U.S. maternal mortality.
U.S. maternal deaths are on a worrisome trajectory. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that mortality rose from 861 maternal deaths in 2020 to 1,205 maternal deaths in 2021, a 40% overall increase.”
That’s TOTAL maternal deaths, in one year, in a huge country.
Imagine if all you “heard” was that there had been a “spike” — an increase of 40% — which sounds much worse than the absolute numbers, and is a much-used tactic of “panic!! propaganda.”
(Fake news example: “Deaths from alligator attacks in Florida streets doubled since 2024!” — from 1 to 2.)
That was deliberate editorializing by the AMA.
While every death is a tragedy, the numbers are not a reason to suddenly go into hyper-anxiety about having a baby. (See link 3 below).
By comparison, the top ten causes of death in 2022 have totals that range from 702,880 to 54,803. (Link 4)
One 2021 ranking of pregnancy-related deaths puts them at 90-91 on the list of 113. (Link 5)
It’s always good practice to prepare for low-probability but high-impact events.
It is NOT necessary to frighten people by pretending that the probability is unrealistically high.
Gee, I wonder if there’s some agenda that includes discouraging women from having babies.
******************************
Source of the AMA article:
(3) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm
“In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes in the United States compared with 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019. The maternal mortality rate for 2021 was 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with a rate of 23.8 in 2020 and 20.1 in 2019.”
Doing the math, that “spike” reflects the number of mothers who died per 3,662,613 live births in 2021, and 3,617,647 in 2020.
(4) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
Data are for the U.S. (2022)
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 702,880
Cancer: 608,371
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 227,039
COVID-19: 186,552
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 165,393
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,382
Alzheimer’s disease: 120,122
Diabetes: 101,209
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 57,937
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: 54,803
Source: Mortality in the United States, 2022, data table for figure 4
(5) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr73/nvsr73-04.pdf
90 Pregnancy with abortive outcome
91 Other complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium
****************
NOTE: Going into the source data from Neo’s link and a web search including the other 4 I cited, I couldn’t readily locate a lot of information I wanted. I am leaving those questions to another comment that may or may not get posted, as they don’t really affect my reflections in this one.
Anyway, you get the idea.
Anyway, you get the idea.
I believe David was replying to Bauxite’s comment about fear of prosecution for participating in an abortion, but it applies equally well to the “having a baby is going to kill me” trope.
David+Foster on October 30, 2024 at 5:14 pm said:
I suspect that some of this is like the fear of airliner crashes…if someone has a sufficiently nightmarish scenario in their mind, arguments about how unlikely they are–even very solid arguments–are likely to fall on deaf ears.
@ Mike Plaiss > “People who do become pregnant may dread each week of pregnancy instead of enjoying it. With therapy and extra support, this condition can be overcome.”
If some people would quit demonizing the “parasite in the womb” and start emphasizing the joys of parenthood, that might be all the therapy that’s needed.
Society used to support having babies, and that buttressed family support; not much “extra” support was needed when raising children was considered necessary and important.
There seems to me to be a logical inconsistency in simultaneously advocating the reduction of the population through abortion AND importing non-citizens because there aren’t enough people to do the work.
Which is how you know that “doing the work” is NOT the driving agenda.
as if one couldn’t tell.
“Tokophobia….I think I have it, and I don’t even have to worry about getting pregnant.”
That was funny, but it’s possible that, with so many people pretending that men-with-uteruses and women-with-penises exist, tokophobia is a rational response.
I have four sons, and we lost other three during the pregnancy.
I think the real problem is precisely we live in a culture where pregnancy is approached so easily only, or primarily, as a hard choice. It did not use to be the case.
If I look at any of my sons I simply cannot think: “We had the moral justification to possibly stop his life”.
This does not mean the event is without difficulties, pain, fear and uncertainty: both me and my wife were without a job when our first child was born, and I experienced that this condition is deeply humiliating and cause of anxiety for a father. But in the end what makes the difference is the meaning – or mission – you discern in your life as a mother, as a husband and, above all, together.
AesopFan…”I believe David was replying to Bauxite’s comment about fear of prosecution for participating in an abortion, but it applies equally well to the “having a baby is going to kill me” trope.” Both of the above, and more.
Related, this post at X about excessive fear of improbable events. The writer seems to see this as a strictly female phenomenon: I think it may be more common among women, but is not unique to them.
https://x.com/DrInsensitive/status/1852292346437648533
they aren’t getting prosecuted in florida, or any other places
now in pennsylvania after many years they did prosecute gosnell but not after many women were butchered,
remember their hat trick, we only want acceptance (of x or y practice), then tolerance, then whol e hearted approval,
then compliance,
not to go theological, but it explains more than conventional analyst,
You must worship the Beast, the Old Gods if you must,
so no it’s not about humanitarian considerations at all
otherwise they wouldn’t prosecute abortion protesters harsher than rioters and rapists
miguel,
In your progression “compliance” should be “participation.” You must participate in their evil.
yes you understand it goes from ‘love triumphs over hate’ to ‘bake the cake, jack phillips has prevailed but probably at the cost of all his life savings, same with the demonic trangenderism, this heresy sponsored by criminal miscreants in part,
the drug legalization, that will lead to a irrational stoned populace, thats prop 3, down here, look at how oblivious people are in New York and California, as long as they have their lethe
Ah yes, the grand Prohibitoons! Let’s grow Uncle Sam’s Big Ol’ Gov machine, make it gigantissimo, and set it loose on those reefer-lovers! Puff, puff, panic, and BOOM—no more smoky-smokies! Just like the speakeasy days, but this time, it’s all mellow-yellow greens they’re after. Bigger rules, bigger locks, and just as many secret stashes waiting to be found. Nuthin’ says progress like makin’ smoke a crime n’ crankin’ up da G-men on da green leaf scene! Bigger da better, baby!
Miguel and Karmi: on the FL constitution votes, I voted against 3 and 4 because I felt they were not wise to support, but also because these kinds of things should not be in a constitution where their later repeal is very difficult. They should be handled via normal legislation instead. Plus my copy of the issues flyer on the amendments (found via my FL House rep’s email) indicated there were no legal restraints on these two amendments that would not allow simple legislation to address them. Not sure how much out-of-state money was flooding in to promote these, but probably a lot.
I voted for or against a couple of the 1,2,5,6 set, but I was confused why a few of them supposedly had to be addressed via a state constitutional change rather than regular legislation.
I am under the impression that a proper constitution should really mostly address “how” a government is to operate, not so much on “what” it is allowed or compelled to do. Even where the US constitution follows that pattern fairly well, it already tops out at over 4000 words.
@ David > “Related, this post at X about excessive fear of improbable events”
Thanks for the link.
I’ve seen books written over the years about the phenomenon of expending more time and money worrying about & guarding against improbable events, than on the ones that are statistically more likely.
Reasons vary, but the “if it saves one life” group NEVER does any studies to find out how many lives are lost because of their rules.
And so many of the political and economic policies of the people in this group (IMO they overlap bigly with Democrats in general) are also internally contradictory. Save the Eagles! & Build Wind Farms! is one such contradictory set of beliefs that too many “environmentalists” hold simultaneously, despite evidence of eagle deaths continuing to pile up — pun intended.