The fight is on. Most of the Democrats and even some of the Republicans are pushing against the Supreme Court's ruling that abortion is not a constitutional right and the states can decide. Courts are shooting down states who have decided but "improperly" (read "not in the way we deem suitable"). There are suggestions that this topic might sway the previously sure thing that this midterm election would see a new shift to the GOP for Congress and beyond. It's a big deal ... which is somewhat surprising since apparently very, very few know what we're talking about.
"What? Yes, we do. Abortion. The termination of a pregnancy. We know." Well, if that's the abortion we're arguing over, then allow me to let you in on a secret. In no state in the Union is abortion banned. Not one. "Oh, we're quite sure it is." And you would be quite wrong. The unspecific term we use -- "abortion" -- includes miscarriage. (The medical term is "spontaneous abortion.") No state outlaws miscarriage. Further, if the life of a mother is actually in danger, every state allows doctors to save her life over the unborn. A popular canard is "ectopic pregnancy." An ectopic pregnancy occurs when an egg implants and grows outside of the uterus. The fertilized egg cannot survive in this environment. Most ectopic pregnancies result in miscarriage and the woman never knows she was pregnant. If not, there is no medical procedure available that will save the life of that child. They will not survive. Period. So this procedure is not banned in any state nor is it an abortion -- the termination of a normal pregnancy. From the other direction, almost all states (and all nations) prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling allowed limited elective abortion, ending often at 15 weeks on up to 24 weeks. Very few allowed unlimited abortion.
From 1973 until June, 2022, abortions were available but restricted. No one called that a "ban on abortion." Now some states have kept the same restrictions and some have shortened the time and it's called a ban. Some have restricted it to zero time but still allow life-saving efforts on behalf of the mother and it's called a ban. Clearly what is in view here is not "choice." Let me say this clearly. Women never had free choice. California and Maryland are both considering lengthening the time -- post-partum -- but no state allows women to choose to end the life of their child whenever they want. This is not about choice; it is about morality. All the other trappings -- "male control," "sexism," "it's not a baby," "choice," and on and on -- ignore the facts by mixing terms and adding coercive labels -- "white supremacist," "male control," "anti-choice," "ban on abortion," etc. -- and calling it "truth."
10 comments:
There you go again getting all worked up about Truth and accuracy and the like.
One of my many shortcomings.
Any rational person would necessarily come to the conclusion that abortion is way more than about simply my body my choice. There have been many women threatening that the overturning of Roe was the "end of hookup culture". That says it right there. We want to have sex with who we want, when we want, without consequences. But if you ask those same girls if a man should be allowed to opt out of being a father, they are wholly against that idea.
Indeed, David is correct about the true motivation behind the pro-abort position. It was always about sex without consequences. How could it be otherwise? All reasons given to abort are cheap rationalizations.
In this day and age, there is no reason to actively kill an unborn child for any reason. No woman's life would be saved by doing so in favor of other options. My understanding is that removing a child (even if it dies later for any number of reasons used to defend abortion) is an easier and safer process than any abortion procedure. Inducing labor, cesarean, etc., will get the job done in the same way as any birth of a child not so wickedly regarded as unworthy of consideration. Even the constantly referenced ectopic pregnancy...from my research on the subject...does not require actively killing the child to resolve the issue.
FYI, a fetus in an ectopic pregnancy can never survive. It isn't classified the same as an abortion since there is no way to save that child.
I agree with David that one of the main goals of the pro abortion movement is to keep the sexual revolution moving further and further along. As much as possible they want to separate the consequences of sex from the act of sex. It seems reasonable to conclude that ending hook up culture is a side effect of overturning Roe that is to be applauded. Yet in proclaiming that, they also acknowledge that women have virtually complete control over the entire process already. They control who they date, how they act, whether or not to have sex (rape excluded), and have many options for birth control that are readily available and at various price points. If women just started being more selective, this problem would go away overnight. But they believe the narrative that having promiscuous sex is empowering, and choose to act on the lie they've been fed.
Stan,
Of course you're right. I remember reading somewhere that it's a bad idea to use a tiny minority of circumstances as a basis to make rules for the vast majority. The fact that the pro abortion folks try to pretend that we should be making laws based on 2% of all abortions is simply trivializing and manipulating the women who actually suffer through these situations and then get used as political pawns.
Has anyone heard anything about the boyfriend who raped the 10 year old in Ohio, who's mom and Dr rushed her off for an abortion, and didn't report the rape? I know he got arrested, but any more news?
"FYI, a fetus in an ectopic pregnancy can never survive. It isn't classified the same as an abortion since there is no way to save that child."
To the extent that what you say is true, it still doesn't require actively killing the child, which is my point.
I also heard that Roe (the woman in the case) was sought out by lawyers, not that she was looking to make such a case. She was simply the easy pawn of the progressive agenda at the time.
And Roe herself recanted of the whole thing and became a pro-life advocate. But let's not talk about that, right?
Can't go against the narrative.
Post a Comment