Dobbs decision no victory for pro-lifers
For more than 50 years, pro-life advocates worked to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision in the belief that it mark the end of abortion on demand – and would save millions of lives. Well … Roe v. Wade got overturned.
Despite all the exaggerated claim of “lost rights” and millions of women being denied access to abortions as a result of the Court ruling – nothing has changed very much. All the caterwauling coming from the feminist left has been nothing but campaign propaganda … misinformation … and outright lies.
As a pro-lifer, I believe that the maturing human in the womb is essentially a person – and guaranteed a right to life – and eventually “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” My goal is to see abortions limited to saving the life of the mother, rape and incest. There are three instances in which the health and mental well-being of the woman takes precedence.
Such instances are very rare. Most abortions are necessitated by neither the health of the woman nor of the developing human in the woman. They are a matter of desire or convenience on the part of the woman – without consideration of the male partner or the emerging new life. They may be based on economic issues, lifestyle issues, or a desire not to have a child — but they are not health issues as the proponents allege. Pregnancy is not a disease.
Opposition to abortion is not just a matter of narrow religious doctrine – as abortion proponents allege. It is a matter of civil rights. The Bible is a subtext for many. But in the broader context, it is a matter of civic morality. It is a belief in the inalienable right to life as articulated in the Constitution. It is a fundamental human right that may coincide with some religious beliefs – but not dependent on them.
Abortion advocates claim that the overturning of Roe v. Wade has denied the vast majority of women access to abortion. The facts say otherwise. As I had previously reported, the number of abortions for the first full years following the Court decision was in excess of 1,000,000 cases. In other words, the overturning of Roe v. Wade did not even put a dent in the number of abortions despite limitations imposed in several states.
As with any issue involving large numbers of people, there will be unfortunate cases. Women die of complications in pregnancies and in potential abortions. They are usually caused by some failure or misjudgment in medical treatment – or simply a sad reality. Some folks survive complicated surgery while others die during routine operations. The point is, that the anecdotal cases used by abortion advocates to legalize abortion on demand may be tragic, they do not offset the overwhelming number of successful pregnancies.
Contrary to the general impression, the decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade did not end abortion-on-demand – or even reduce it. More of the unborn are being brutally terminated since the reversal by the Court than before.
As a pro-life who loves children and believes the right to life extends into the womb, I am both saddened and pessimistic that the right to life will be extended to the yet unborn for the foreseeable. Even as both sides debate the limits of abortion at the state level, it appears that abortion will continue to expand.
I recognize that I hold a minority opinion in America regarding abortion. I am in the same position as an abolitionist in Georgia prior to the Civil War with a fundamental morality confronting political popularity.
Having fought for the civil right of the unborn for most of my life, I understand that education is more powerful than legislation. Legislating against the public will – even for the most just causes – is a losing proposition.
The pro-abortion advocates are winning on a false claim that access to abortion no longer exists – or has been dramatically reduced. That is not the case. I personally believe that there should be a national ban on abortion-on-demand – just as we outlaw the arbitrary talking of human lives at other times in the life cycle.
But … I do believe that abortion-on-demand will one day go the way of slavery … human sacrifices … and Nazi genocide. It is just a matter of blind faith in even the most entrenched practices to yield to common sense and enlightenment.
We pro-lifers did not win as a result of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It did not change the outcomes for the millions of developing human beings whose life was taken in the operating rooms. The so-called victories at the state levels are illusionary. The simple fact is that abortion-on-demand continues unabated – and there is insufficient political gravitas for a change in the situation in the foreseeable future.
That does not lessen my commitment to the lives of the unborn. We pro-lifers just have to work harder to convince more folks.
So, there ‘tis.
The author won and he’s still whining about no victory. Guess we did not lose enough to satisfy his win-lose mentality.
The author’s need for win-lose never works. You got what you wanted and you still aren’t satisfied that you have made us lose enough.
He falsely claims we are abortion advocates to demean and belittle us with full knowledge that no one advocates abortion. No one. Win-lose to call us that. We advocate the personal right of choice. Freedom of choice. Abortion as a viable choice. Not a Stat’s right, but a personal right. He advocates taking that choice away. Banning the choice. He wins, others wanting to exercise God’s gift of free will lose.
Frank Danger …. No one advocates abortion? Have you completely lost your mind? And “no”, we pro-lifers did NOT get what we wanted from the overturning of Roe v. Wade — as my commentary explains with the facts. In terms of abortion, their are those who oppose laws that allow for abortion-on-demand and those who are PROponents of such laws. Every time you protest being properly labeled as pro-abortion, you seem to be admitting that it is not something you want to be associated with. You seem ashamed of your own position on the issue. You are certainly not a proud advocate.
Thank you for saying I have a mind. Mind you, yes NO ONE calls themselves an ABORTION ADVOCATE. There are no cheerleaders, fan clubs, either. As I have attempted to verbally beat into your noggin is that we are Pro Choice. It’s about choice. Your the one that twists it into some kind of love affair with abortion — the concept. I cannot read your mind, but this is twisted and you do it to put off those debating the actual points. As I have said, a number here have confirmed, we are not pro-abortion either. No one is.
It’s just a stupid way to put people off center and on guard trying to get an emotional rise because you cannot meet them on a level field of debate.
Didn’t get what you want? Gee, a whole fucking story and —– where does it say what you actually want?
Yeah, you say “seem ashamed” and “not a proud advocate” as you once again read my mind…. And, take a deep breadth, listen, and actually thing about it: NO ONE IS A PROUCT ADVOCATE of abortion. So, OF COURSE, I am not. Have you been listening? Of course you have, you just like to get a rise because you feel you win in your continuing quest to win-lose where you have to beat your opponent. Just being right, proper, in finding the truth will never be OK with you. You must win, win, and they must lose, lose.
Frankie … you are REALLY upset to be associated with abortions. I know lots of folks who are pro-abortion and you are almost unique in getting your hair on fire for being called what you are. I do not use it as a pejorative … just a description of your position on the issue. I know you want to hide behind the mushy euphemism “pro-choice” that avoids mentioning exactly what you are “pro” of. The issue is abortion, not some vague concept of freedom. Hell, I am more pro-choice than you on a full range of issues. I am pro-choice in the tradition of Milton Friedman’s book It is the word “abortion” that makes you cringe. All you gobbledygook does not change the FACT that you are among the abortion-on-demand advocates … pro abortion. And if you want to label me as anti-abortion, I am okay with it.
Horistie: Upset about abortions? Are you reading my mind, because I am clearly not upset about abortions but very upset about your red state laws and less so about your spin. I note that you offer zero pushback to the facts I presented that extend your story to a more truthful place. To reach closure, you could agree, but NOOOOOO: you deflect and defer to other ideas having NOTHING to do with the facts you and I presented. I will get to them but laugh, ha ha, how you can never stand up and even say: ‘hey, thanks for the good info,” as that is all it was.
You know no one who calls themselves pro-abortion, and if you call them that and they do not pushback, then they are just avoiding confrontation and don’t want to deal with being called “hair on fire, mushy, hiding, avoiding, and being less pro-choice than you. The term has been disappearing since the 1970’s, snarky comment about Larry’s heyday too being unsaid. But I almost digress.
Friedman, ha, my father was his student I think; masters level. I myself am a blend of Keynes and Friedman at my father’s instruction. But also Mr. Aronson, sire of Ronson lighters, and a pretty neat economist on his own. Rich guy that wanted to give back by filling our minds. I have troubles with the concepts and Aronson opened some doors for me. But beyond WTF did that even mean, no, the word abortion does not bother me. The term pro-abortion is wrong and not descriptive at all but pejorative instead. And THAT is your real intent, right? Isn’t that why you double down, you think it’s a winning moment, you have me on the ropes. NBL.
From WIKI on the history, you know: facts. “The term pro-life began to be used by opponents of legal abortion around the early 1970s.” Yeah, high school, man. And retirement for you, right?
“The term pro-choice entered currency after pro-life and was coined by those who supported legal abortion as a response to the success of the pro-life branding.” You see, credit where credit due, but losers just can’t take the win sometimes. Not that you are a loser, but only a loser would use a word to purposely belittle another just to make a point.
“In the years before pro-choice became widely adopted, the qualifier pro-abortion was commonly used by those advocating for legal abortion. For example, a representative of Planned Parenthood referred to “pro-abortion” legislation in a 1975 statement to The Wall Street Journal. When abortion was legalized in the United States, the term fell out of fashion, seen as distracting or inaccurate because many people support legal access to abortion without arguing that it is the right choice.” And there’s the point: we don’t love the act of abortion or are pro-abortion, rah, rah, rah, but we understand and support the need for choice. And we get really pissy when the choice is diminished or banned like many red states.
Here’s a fun fact: “Planned Parenthood announced in 2013 that it would no longer use the label pro-choice.” But they offered no replacement.
Another fun idea: “No pro-life parent or teacher would ever strike a child. No pro-life citizen would tolerate our penal code, our hangings, our punishment of homosexuals, our attitude toward bastardy.” Yeah, where is your angst on that?
“Many press style guides, including those used by NPR and the Associated Press,[13] advise against using the terms pro-choice and pro-life, except in cases where those terms occur in the name of an organization or in a quote. NPR’s policy recommends alternative constructions such as “abortion rights supporters” and “abortion rights opponents”. It permits the qualifier “anti-abortion”, but not “pro-abortion rights”. The style guide of The Guardian recommends the terms “anti-abortion” (rather than “pro-life”) and “pro-choice” (rather than “pro-abortion.” The times they are a changing, the changing it ain’t free, but it’s better to be nice than nasty. I should know and endeavor to do better. Give it a shot; this one is ez. You lose absolutely nothing.
So, if you want to continue being out-of-date, behind the times, fire away, use the pejorative. If you think it’s descriptive when told by your targets that it’s not and exactly why, then fire away, use the pejorative. But realize I will push back and my conclusion is: bite me.
Frank Danger … You write, “You know no one who calls themselves pro-abortion, and if you call them that and they do not pushback, then they are just avoiding confrontation and don’t want to deal with being called “hair on fire, mushy, hiding, avoiding, and being less pro-choice than you.” That, Frank, is pure bs. I do know many who are pro-abortion and have never objected to the term. Some even use it themselves. And your claim that they do not object because they feel intimidated is pure invention on your part. You can read all the minds of folks I have spoken with on the subject??? You are just making up shit to satisfy your own argument in your own mind — where facts seldom reside.
I posted the history and the rationale proving you wrong.
More important, as a person. I am asking you not to call me by a name I find pejorative, no matter what my reason. The choice is yours.
Frank Danger .. a rose by any other name. And your sensitivity is laughable since you are among the more aggressive users of pejoratives, insults, sarcasms and nasty remarks on PBP.
Surprised and disappointed when returning to PBP after entering my own Reply comment in reference to this issue, I discovered it was missing. Surprised, I can’t think PBP would censor a comment.
Disappointed, that any comments pro or con on abortion legality in this country are not included in PBP free speech code.
,
I do not see where Larry was whining. He was reporting an article for us to read. We all have our private understandings, thoughts about topics. I do not believe Larry lies. We all learn from others, articles, videos. We all have the right to come to our own beliefs and conclusions. Larry wins? Really? Is this a game you play every day, Stetson? A game where you need, absolutely have to need to hurt anyone and everyone, especially all the (authors) (editors)? What I do see is that every day when you post, you are the one who is whining. Constantly. Without fail. Every single post you make. You are busted. But I will say, I am against abortion. It is murder. Are you an advocate of murder, Stetson? Seems by your post above, you are for murder. Busted! I have no tolerance for criminals.
How dare you say the overturn of Roe was not a win. It was at the time, wasn’t it. Pro-lifer groups spent 50 years accomplishing nothing, until Roe was overturned. The enemy is more active and more clever, so that means Catholics must pray more and work harder, and that doesn’t mean teaming up with people claiming to be pro-life and at the same time support a woke agenda. I know of pro life groups who rejected having an American flag displayed during their demonstration, as they did not want it to “offend” anyone. If pro-lifers are afraid of offending the enemy or the misguided, or the opposition, they will never win.
monica … I agree that at the time we pro-lifers all thought overturning Roe v. Wade was a victory. But since the primary purpose of the pro-life movement is to save lives by ending abortion-on-demand, the statistics show that we did not gain much in terms of that goal. The number of annual abortions has actually increased since Roe v. wade was overturned. That is hardly something to celebrate in my judgment.
I dunno Larry. I thought you said we would still have access and that would not change. It was up to the states. And now you are saying it’s not enough? You need to force even more to have babies than State’s rights makes possible? Maybe tie them down and not let them leave the state. Your Florida will have less abortions soon just like Texas has 50% less now. Call it a day and quit whining. You got your dream.
And abortions up since dobs but have been rising since Trump. And they began falling in 1990, well before Trump. Matter of fact, the current stat is lower than 1990 to 2012. I posted that well before your response above.
You got your intended results at the state level. Are you looking for more now? Gee, didn’t see that coming he said sarcastically.
Why do men up their big opinion fists and punch the abortion bag and defy anyone to try and convince them otherwise. I get that the act of aborting a healthy fetus growing in heathy woman’s womb is contrary to all I personally believe is morally right. It is a deplorable act that I wish no one would think they had no other choice but to terminate their pregnancy.
But, given what my opinion is and my opposition to anyone choosing abortion no matter their why. I don’t believe It’s my right or every pro-lifer’s right that women be denied by law from that choice. I will not ever think or say that women choose abortion because they personally are bad, immoral, inhumane, and every negative description pro-lifers’ have stored up as ready ammunition pro-lifers’ believe its use advanced the cause.
You, I expect, won’t believe that anyone could or would be of an opinion which maintains that both Pro-life and Pro-choice are compatible in one opinion. It’s how each circumstance real women, couples, and families find themselves confronted with.
Your and my opinion on abortion can be highly charged personally and we are firmly convicted in our belief. And, that is all well and good for you and the many others who have the same belief. Then, that all being said, what do you say and how do you treat women who choose to abort and terminate their current pregnancy and similarly the great number of women who have abortion in their own personal medical history. Are they judged poor and awful because they chose as they did.
I know what my opinion has always been on this issue. However, I have developed a respectful empathy with women who choose what I believe is an unthinkable choice.
At times in my life my career included counseling women, single, engaged, or married who had already made the choice to terminate and the many more women alone or with a partner are living with abortion regret. It’s an emotion of sorrow that lingers long after the abortion event.
I want to have Pro-lifers at least know there are stories out there that would soften the hardest hearted Pro-life advocate. A thriving propaganda industry of misinformation, made up tales, and context denial. In my experience it’s the gossip generated and passed along in the Pro-life ranks that produces and implants hate in those seeing themselves in the right, so, then righteous as well.
Again, if Pro-life as a policy truly is the high moral ground, then its advocates are required to live in humility. It’s a heavy responsibility that’s laid on those in the right and the morally upright status. Maintaining the high ground and walking the righteous talk is an endurance test.
Those of us being mere mortals are prone to slip and fall every now and again, we expect consistency out of those august enough for their claim on the high ground.
Isn’t the truth told that those individuals whose purpose is in always claiming that their opinions are perfection in every detail.
Then, taking on a spirit of humility must be unfamiliar territory into which the always correct won’t venture.
Larry, do have the opinion that Trump can pull off his current confidence scheme and manage the largest grift in America’s History. And, through it all in four years time this nation will yet be a nation of the people, for the people, by the people a true democracy still.
What I see in America during the the last decade and continuing iim my projection past Trump’s demolition term is a worse theft than an election. The top 1% to maybe 10% of America’s wealthiest population has been commandeering more privilege rights to this nation’s supposedly shared assets and natural resources than is due them relative to the amount that the wealthy invest back into this country. The country makes possible every advantage that they use and profit from in excess.
Assessing a just and appropriate tax on wealthy individuals, Corporations, and owners of large land holdings could begin a leveling of the income playing field. More than income but a great impact on income has been an erosion of equality of rights talked about in the U.S. Constitution. Namely the right to enjoy life, liberty, and be free to pursue happiness.
Trump won the election by a slim margin, but he did actually win it, close like in horse shoes. Voters turned to him because what he rallied on was the same as Trump’s pie in the sky promises. Most of which he can not come up with given the national debt, interest on that debt, and willingness of the wealthy to contribute. In addition, presidential power is great, yet not enough for every whim coming through his mouth.
Abortion rights, liberty through equality, life rights in America, as well as the freedom to pursue happiness are all summed in an equation that should equal benefits for us all without exceptions subtracted for personal opinion differences.
AC… I have two take-aways from you comments. You are okay with terminating the life of a healthy developing human being. You think it is immoral. You do not personally approve, but you leave that choice to others. You would have done well in the days of slavery ,,, seeing it as a moral low ground but the choice to own slaves to others. Some folks actually believe that it is okay to have sex with young children. Would you personally be opposed,, but leave the choice to others in the name of free choice? Some parents believe in “honor killing. I am sure you would be opposed, but would you say it is okay for those who believe otherwise? Once you really believe that abortion is an assault on a human life, it is moral coward ace to just wash your hands of the issues. And you do what pro-abortion folks do … you make the woman the only factor. No consideration for the father or developing human being.
On the second point, you seem to believe that Trump only won because millions of voters are stupid. I would never take that position. The American people are smart — smarter than the elitist who think otherwise.
Here is an Idea, Frank, I hope everyone you care about or have cared about gets an abortion.
This is the the same as wanting Kamikazes fighting a war!
Eventually, you will run out of people, Voters, fighters, ect!
Have you ever spoke to your parents , if alive that is, about why they did not get an Abortion?
The answer might create some sense of self awareness!
Darren, where the fuck did those ideas come from. Do you really have that much hate for a stranger and fellow citizen? My father’s first wife died from a backdoor abortion giving her sepsis. He was in France at the time, wounded, becoming a hero, protecting your freedom.
Got some other stupid comment about how that makes you joyful?
I hope only the best for you and yours. I care about you and yours and hope your dream that anyone I care about gets an abortion remains unfulfilled.. Hard to believe you are so sheltered not to encounter. Maybe they just don’t tell you because you are you.
And may your kind thoughts be returned in kind, ten fold.
Never said it made me joy full. In fact I am very sorry for your loss.
I hope only the best for you and the people around you.
This horrible set of events does help answer questions.
Sorry again for your loss.
“I hope everyone you care about or have cared about gets an abortion.” If you have hope, and your hope is realized, does that not make you happy? You were achieving your own goal.
Fact: by the age of 45, 25% of all woman have an abortion. THESE are the people you hate. A quarter of the women in our world. Estimates are that 15% of all women will be raped, not necessarily ending up in a pregnancy. The majority of them are under 30. And 15% of all women face incest, although that’s probably a real shaky statistic, no one really knows.
Sorry Darren, it’s certainly an emotional issue. It certainly changed my life by creating my life. Then again, if she hadn’t got the abortion, had not died, I would not be here. If Hitler did not exist, my Father would have been there, she would not have been raped, and they would be together. My mother, Katherine Hepburn incarnate, put my Father back together again, rain the roost, and the rest is my family history. My FIL too, lost his new wife, when he returned home to Italy to care for Mom and five sisters. They too, were raped, some got abortions, and his wife declared him dead and moved on with her life. Yes, my wife too would not be here, yet for Hitler. Her mother, again Katherine Hepburn incarnate, was actually rescued from a spinster life by him, she too ran the roost as an educated, professional female manager in the 50’s.
This “horrible set of events” did indeed answer my question and the answer is: stay the fuck out of my life, quit forcing me to your will, and leave the women in my life to make their own decisions, have choice, and be left alone. In THIS instance, your fucking laws don’t matter to my will, my needs, and its’ my life, I will do what I want. FYI: it was not my loss. It was my Father’s and his loss made my life, and made my life tough. It was my FILs choice too, his losses, and he grew stronger from it, but never talked about it, except once.
My FIL and I were perhaps better friends than my own Father and this has a lot to do with that. But many have a similar story, just as many decided to keep the pregnancy for a different story. It’s a choice. Always will be even in the new bondage states.
I say abortions will happen no matter what you fucking legislate. We had reached a modicum of safety, less risk, and while as Larry indicates, you have not stopped abortions, you have made it riskier and less safe. And stories of horror over what you have done abound. Larry says they are in the noise and, currently, statistically they are. But they are increasing and to the individuals affected, I am sure they are of a FUCK YOU attitude about you and what you have done to them. You can’t stop love, you can’t stop sex, and sometimes unplanned things happen.
In Larry’s spin, he misses that abortions became legal in the 70’s. The numbers rose, partly because we were out of the closet, far less backdoor abortions, and we could count. They continued to rise until 1990 and then, a magical thing happened. After close to 20 years, the messaging worked, your message worked, and abortions began to fall. They continued to fall until 2017, the year Trump took office although I doubt he had anything to do with it. By 2023, they peaked, but the number, while higher than previous years, is equal to 2012 and lower than 1990 to 2012. IE — you were actually winning until you changed the game and forced your will on women taking away their choice and polluting the message with your mandates, bans, and making choice a crime. Those are some facts, Jack.
I thought murder is a crime and did old Moses with his tablets of the Ten Commandments say thou shall not kill # 5 I am not religious But abortion is murder and in our justice and prison system just the same as killing any human and do not give the lie that a fetus is not a human or not alive in the womb. Just another way way twisting the truth to make it legal if indeed there is a god people who commit murder will be punished in the end and just because you may argue rape makes it ok no You people do not know how that potential life will turn out it may become a genius just as many born today are turn out to be criminals environment beats genetics 4 to 1 so quit making rationalizations as an excuse to say murder is legal in the justice system as well as the religious system.
Hey, everyone, Stranger just pulled a Joe Biden.
Let’s face it Larry, you and I will never agree on this, but we can agree on the facts. Also, we are pro-choice, as I have often told you Larry. We are not pro-abortion or abortion advocates. That’s an made-up name by you and others meant to brand us, demean us and belittle us. Worse yet, you have been told we do not like the name, please use pro-choice, but you continue because you need to gain power through these name games. We do not call you pro bondage, although you are, forcing women to you will, taking away their freedom and free will just like the slave masters of old forced breeding on their human properties. But no, you call yourselves pro-life even though you are dealing with the unborn and your actions do kill some of the living, physically harming others. So, let’s stick to the facts and avoid nasty name calling and branding of others to make you feel superior.
Be a gentleman, Larry, have some class. I have told you no on pro-abortion, the same applies to abortion-advocate. I am your reader, perhaps your closest reader, and I have feelings, I have emotions. When I, in YOUR mind, crossed the line with you, and you blew up, I apologized and never repeated. You don’t have to apologize, but you should be a gentleman and do the right thing. You argue for the unborn, I am born, I am right here, and I am telling you stop. Be the better man that I know you are. Sidenote: for this article I use “bondage” which I will drop as a gentleman, with class, when appropriate in response to Larry’s response.
Back to the facts, Jack. The author concludes “nothing has changed very much” by spinning stats to prove his point. He offers national average to prove folks in red bondage states like Texas and Alabama are facing little changes as abortions are banned and people can be arrested just for helping these folks get to healthcare services banned in their States. In two states, you can be arrested for giving a ride with the purpose of getting an abortion. Three states have the same law in process of being voted on.
Is the author really saying: “we used State’s rights and it did not matter?” What’s the remedy for thart? I can see a day where the author recommends a national abortion ban to satisfy his need to enslave others to his will. He can say “never happen,” but he said we could travel to get an abortion too, and that’s not true in a number of states already, and increasing. Bondage.
The author says: “As a pro-lifer, I believe that the maturing human in the womb is essentially a person – and guaranteed a right to life – and eventually “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And to reach his goal, he is willing to force others to his desires, while his side does very little beyond a ban, to help and support these folks. Where are the added support organizations? The only new ones I see are those helping bondage state women get to free states for health care services meeting their needs. The Abortion Underground Railroad has been created to provide what the author does not: help.
Not that the author has not personally reached out and helped a number of kids, not originally his, mature. He is special in that for sure. And unusual. BUT — he is probably not helping folks today in the bondage states; he probably has not opened or funded any single-mom support organizations, or adoption services. Could be wrong, but hard to find any expanded or new efforts there by anyone on his side of the aisle. Just forcing other people to their wiill but not helping them through it at all. But for those of us that do want to help, there’s Hey Jane which is an underground abortion service in the author’s Chicago or Military Women, a network of women in the military who help each other navigate abortion restrictions or Haven that helps women travel to states where they can get an abortion, Brigid Alliance, funded by donations, that helps low-income women travel to where they can get an abortion. We have started many support groups to compensate for the author’s “nothing has changed much.” We see much as changing and while some of these groups existed before Dobbs, there is much expansion now.
The author has the goal to allow abortions for health, rape and incest. Great to have a goal. What a guy. Too bad many are not listening. What about these folks today? What is the author doing about that? FYI: I donate to a few of the groups above and have ridden shotgun on a few abortions for support of women having made their choice. It has never been easy for them. Not one of them.
As to the statistical spin, here it is: “ As I had previously reported, the number of abortions for the first full years following the Court decision was in excess of 1,000,000 cases. In other words, the overturning of Roe v. Wade did not even put a dent in the number of abortions despite limitations imposed in several states.” This is not wrong, not a lie, but not the full story either and, in that, it’s statistical spin to support his opinion.
The author is correct that, by leaving out other salient statistics, that is the story. No change. Or is there? First, at the macro national level that Mr. State’s Rights, now operates, abortions have been falling since 1990. They began to rise again in 2017, the year King Trump took the throne. By 2020, the year of covid and Trump leaving, there hit 930,160 and by 2023 – 1,026,960 so yes, they are up. However, that statistic is equal to 2012 and lower that every year from 1990 to 2012. And FYI: since chemical abortions can be telemedicine’d, ordered by mail, in close to 20 States, chance are the abortion statistics are low. That’s right, Mr. Horist, women can now seek medical health via telemedicine and chems. About 60% of all abortions are chem-based now. Try Hey Jane for help folks, or help Hey Jane help others with your donation.
Yes, the author is correct and abortions are up, probably a post covid phenomena, but then again, they began to go up when Trump hit office; guess more did not want to have their kid see that. And they are still at 2012 levels and below everything from 2012 back to 1990.
Abortions are down over 50% in Texas. Think Texans are getting less abortions? Or just increasing the risk of complications due to extreme travel. Most bondage states show similar statistics and since the statistic is up for the nation, we know where they go. With increased health risk. In the author’s FL, abortions are up 2% in 2023. While I could spin how impotent the author is in his own state, the truth is FL abortion increases come from states like GA and AL and rated about 9% of all FL abortions. Given that FL just increased the bondage in early 2024, these abortion imports will decline as will abortions in FL. But as the author says: Floridians will get the same or even more abortions, just not in FL. And the health risks will increase.
Yes, the author is correct, nationally, but ignores the affect on so many people, his own neighbors, that adds health risks to the equation. He also says the horrific anecdotes we hear are statistical chump change. Perhaps true, but not to the individuals and their friends and families. Statistically, maternal deaths began increasing when Trump took office; they skyrocketed in 2021, falling in 2022, but still much higher than when Trump took office. As the author stats, a low number, but yet a low number that rises under the bondage states. Of course, the highest maternity deaths occur in red states, bondage states, and the South. So, more chump change there than in blue states where abortion is legal.
Personally, if I was the author, and had those beliefs, and cared so much about life that I felt the need to mandate other people’s choices, I think I would focus on the bondage states he created and doing better for the folks having to use the abortion underground railroad, or facing much higher risks of maternity death right in his own backyard.
“More of the unborn are being brutally terminated since the reversal by the Court than before.” Brutal? More than 60% are chemical abortions. A pill, a lump of clay, no heartbeat up to six weeks, it’s done. I am sorry, but brutal? You have chosen to draw the line at fertilization with that comment. Beyond the fact you are ending what you don’t even know will be, you are ending something up to week six without a heartbeat, brutal? And to end your perceived “brutality,” you mandate is forcing what they clearly do not want to do, as if once this lump of clay becomes a human, all will work out as if it was the want from the very beginning.
“It did not change the outcomes for the millions of developing human beings whose life was taken in the operating rooms.” Uh, 1M abortions, over 60% chemical based, but MILLIONS, not million, but MILLIONS in operating rooms? Well, he’s only off on his own statistic by over 100%. How’s that macro stat?
And you readily admit your total failure. What’s next?
The funny part is that you were winning, abortions were waaaaaaay down, until Trump and the Trump SCOTUS or SCROTUM (Supreme Court Republican Only Territory for United MAGA). I know, weak SCOTUM joke, not enough coffee, hohoho.
Again, we will never agree, but we can agree on the facts. Your facts were solid, as are mine. Now, what is the story, did it change? Only slightly I bet.
Frank Danger … You say we can at least agree on the facts. but you do not deal with the facts. Let us see if we can agree with these FACTS. Abortion advocacy is base on several fictions and the avoidance of some FACTS.
1. Abortion involves the killing of a developing human being in which all the DNA traits are in place. It is the total package — a human life form according to the science
2. Abortion is not a health issue since the fast majority of abortions involved a healthy woman and and health developing human being..
3. The life in the womb is on an intrinsic part of a woman’s body — not standard equipment, not her body — but the creation of TWO individuals.
4. Pregnancy involves three humans … the mother, the father and the new life. Fathers have no rights unless it is financial support for a child not aborted. Fathers have responsibilities, but no rights.
5. Many many more new lives — developing human beings — are intentionally killed than women having abortions, legal or illegal. Pro-life is about saving lives.
6. The difference between a protect life and an abortable life is an arbitrary political decision– and changes over time and location based on legislation, not biology
7. There is no scientific evidence — no identifiable biological change — to distinguish between the abortable life on one day and the protectable life the very next day.
8. Viability outside the womb — one of the conditions that opposes abortions — is earlier and earlier in the gestation period. Yet the abortion-on-demand advocates disregard that fact.
9. Support for abortion is limited. Laws that allow abortion-on-demand at any time — especially late term –are opposed by most people. Pro -abortion advocates sill want abortion at any time.
So, can we agree on those FACTS?
Why would I waste my time with your screed when you cannot return the favor as I was on first.
I will, it takes a moment, you will be enlightened with my conclusions on life, and there’s many opinions here that I cannot refute yet have a different opinion.
But later skater, it’s way too long a core dump.
Frank Danger …. I can hardly wait. LOL
In all of this, your first question is the most important and most difficult. Scientifically I will say you are right: conception. Hell, I’ll even say the egg. But there’s more to it than just the science on when LIFE begins. You must also ask, when does life BECOME a person. When do feelings, like pain, begin. And more. So, another time, another tome for that one. As I said, it starts with: “Larry is right.”
2. Abortion, by definition, is a medical procedure and, as such, is a health issue. Even chemical abortions, which are now around 60%, I think require at least a telemedicine session to get a script. My take is old school, I still believe there should be mandatory consultation leaning towards the pro-life aspects. But yes, most are not sick, per se, in a physical sense. But people are not sick when they address many physical conditions requiring medical procedures, medicines, etc.
3. So what? And no, it is standard equipment, almost all women have the equipment at birth, and she usually creates, with the help of dad, one individual, unless twins, trips, etc. The law contends it’s hers and hers alone.
4. Opinion, to which I strongly disagree. However, legally he has no rights until birth AS IF the unborn is not a person. Legally. Go figure. To the father, legally not a person until birth. In all 50 states, I think. But men mostly make the laws. Go figure again.
5. Please clarify, I do not understand how many more developing humans are killed than women having abortions?
6. As you well know, the law is mostly about restrictions. What you can’t do. So, of course. So what? And hopefully, legislation is not “arbitrary.” Again, so what?
7. So what? But no, there are biological changes every day to the unborn as well as the born until the die we are no more. Change is the very nature of all things, living and not.
8. Yeah, and I can clone you in a petri dish, so what? What’s next, protect life by grabbing all eggs and making them people in petri dishes? I think it’s telling that a pro-lifer looks at how early he can grab the unborn and force birth. Actually, I am not sure it tells anything or why you even mention it.
9. “Currently, 63% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.” *https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/*
OK, my turn.
1. Why do so many pro-lifers support the death penalty? Do you? How can one be pro-life when you request death so often?
2. Why do so many pro-lifers avoid vaccines for themselves and their children? Studies show folks in these areas have a higher covid death rate than vaccinated areas.
3. Why are so many pro-lifers, pro gun? There’s over 30,000 deaths by gun every year. More than auto accidents. Why do pro-life states have higher gun death rates, both murder and suicide?
4. Why do so many pro-lifers want to cut Federal programs that support life? Why do they argue so strongly for the unborn and then just as strongly against supporting the born?
5. How can you be pro-life and continue to call for us to escalate a number of wars? Is killing people to save people, OK? Sort of like having an abortion to save your own life? In this case, the life you imagine without a child?
6. Why do pro-life states with the strongest anti-abortion laws have the highest maternal death rates? How do pro-lifers rationalize the additional maternal deaths caused by their bans in favor of the unborn?
7. Do pro-lifers not believe in everlasting life for the unborn? If they do believe, then why take that away from the unborn? Skip this one, I need coffee.
I still see no pushback on the facts I presented illuminating your national averages from other angles, like regional, historical and such. I have to take away that you have no contradictions or inaccuracies noted so far.
Here’s a response to your first statement where you said: “Abortion involves the killing of a developing human being in which all the DNA traits are in place. It is the total package — a human life form according to the science.” Your own statement belies the difficulty of the issue. “Developing human being.” “DNA traits in place.” “a human life form.” I can do this exact same thing to create life in much higher numbers in a petri dish. More life than you can ever imagine. But should I just do that to advance the pro-life cause? As much live as we can muster? Extreme pro-life?
Your definition really says protected life begins when the egg changes to a new, individual, set of cells unique in the Universe. That’s the scientific definition of the creation of life. A status change in the egg. It’s half Mom, half Dad, and all new. But it is not a person. And it is half Mom, half Dad, so really not new, but an extension of the same old thing. There are no thoughts, no feelings, no pain. No dreams, no self-awareness. Can’t breathe, cry, or open it’s eyes. It has none. And many of your fellow pro-lifers acknowledge that with their laws that pick a later date for when life begins that is beyond contraception. And therein, lies the rub. If you truly believe life begins at conception, that a zygote is a person, then why the buffer dates allowing abortion. Why do only a handful of states agree with you? Sidenote: most doctors support legalized abortions. Most scientists too. Science and medicine has spoken but you can’t here that.
Yes, science says LIFE starts at conception. Scientifically you are correct. Yet pro-lifers already often deny that and a number of pro-life states favor abortion legality up to six weeks, the time of a beating heart. “If I only had a heart.” Why believe that a heartbeat means life and not the fertilized egg, a zygote. Remember, “if I only had a brain?” A zygote don’t. Other states, including pro-life favoring states allow 24-28 weeks considered by scientists as the point the embryo might feel pain, although no one really knows. And IF you believe LIFE begins with a heartbeat, or when pain might be present, then why not go all the way out to when personhood is established, whenever that is? Isn’t anything before personhood less than a person? Or get more extreme and go backwards to the egg and potential life? Some religions feel personhood begins at the first breadth and therefore abortion up to the time of delivery is not a sin.
While science says life begins at conception, no one has a firm handle on when personhood begins. Do you? Even pro-lifers have an issue determining where to put the stake in: day one, six weeks, or 24-weeks. or even late term (explanation for assholes: late term is only for protection of the life of the mother, live babies are not killed unless a terrible error.)
“I really can’t tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there’s no consensus among scientists. Some scientists will say it begins at fertilization, where the zygote gets a new genome, where the sperm and egg combine, their nuclear materials, which actually is a long process ending with a two cell stage. Some scientists will say it’s at implantation, where you get a pregnancy. Other scientists will say it’s at day 14, gastrulation, where the embryo becomes an individual, where you can no longer form twins and triplets, so that you have one embryo giving rise to, at best, only one adult. Some scientists will say it’s at week 24 to 28 when you see the beginnings of the human specific electroencephalogram, and saying if we’re willing to say that death is the loss of the EEG, perhaps personhood is the acquisition of the EEG. Still others say it’s at birth or during the perinatal period where a successful birth is possible.” Professor Scott Gilbet, Swarthmore, my father’s undergrad.
This is the conclusion of “THE FACTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN LIFE AND PERSONALITY”
“Self-awareness is, one of the fundamental possibility, the most fundamental characteristic of the human species. This characteristic is an evaluation novelty; the biological species form which mankind has descended had only rudiments of self-awareness has however, brought in its train somber companions- fear, anxiety and death awareness” T. Dobzhansky
The question when a human life begins and how to define it could be answered only through the inner-connecting pathways of history, philosophy and medical science. It has not been easy to determine where to draw the fine line between the competence of science and metaphysics in this delicate philosophical field. To a large extent, the drawing of this line depends on one’s fundamental philosophical outlook.” Some heavy shit, eh Horist?
Now, many of your pro-life States draw the line at six weeks. Why there? Heartbeat. Why not 24 weeks? Point of pain. Why not birth itself? According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), fetuses are not able to experience pain until at least 24–25 weeks of gestation. This is because the brain structures required to process pain signals and to consciously recognize a noxious stimulus don’t develop until this time.
13 states have a total abortion ban, I guess they agree with Larry.
28 states have abortion bans based on gestational duration.
27 states ban abortion at or before 24 weeks’ gestation.
8 states have late term as in no restriction, yea NJ!
I can’t speak to the “no restriction” for other states, but in NJ, it only happens for protection of the life of the mother and it’s extremely rare. Less than 1% nationally after 21 weeks which includes many gestational duration restriction states
So what’s up with America? You said State’s rights is the way and now you say them State’s got it wrong. A plucky 13 agree with you about conception and the other 37 say you’re totally fucked up. That includes a number of pro-life states too. They add a date post conception where abortions are legal. If you say that’s a loser, are you really saying that nothing except a national abortion ban with satisfy you and your ilk? Come on, either the states got it right or not; you say it’s not better, so WTF do you really want?
The bottom-line Larry: America has spoken and we still don’t know. But I know I want you to keep your hands, your laws, your lawmen, out of the womb of all the women I know, and then some. I want you quit forcing people to take an interstate journey to get a safe and legal procedure. I want you to quit arresting people just for helping them. Bugger off and let US take the personal responsibility for our lives, our bodies. You support personal responsibility, a cause you also support, except not in this case, where you lobby for a lump of clay because someday it might be a statue. I have co-piloted a few abortions, not one was frivolous, done for convenience, and there were costs to the individual. I have interviewed many, of all ages, for the same result. I have no issue flushing a lump of clay even if someday it would be a statue. There is no person, no feelings, no pain in most, if not all, abortions, up to 24-28 weeks, according to science.
And you just figured out that you can’t stop the demand no matter what you do. So maybe we just make it as safe as possible and you continue with the messaging that brought abortions down staring in 1990 all the way until 2017, when you forced the bans. You say today, no difference, so why the ban? Why make it more risky, dangerous, expensive, than providing safe, healthy, service in Florida for example. Or do you want to continue to restrict until you get a national ban at conception?
Frank Danger … Yes… when does it become a person.
1. We make a life and death arbitrary political decision on personhood. On which day does it change from non-person to person — and on what developmental basis? The only scientifically notable event is the merging of the DNA at which time all traits of the person are established. Neither the female egg or the sperm are a developing human on their own.
2. It is a medical procedure, but not a health issues. It is necessitated by an injury, disease or visibility. Cosmetic surgery is a medical procedure, but would you call a face lift a health issue?
3. Your answer is just silly. The woman produced the egg, but the fetus is NOT standard equipment — many women never have a fetus inside. It does not come along with a woman’s kidney or liver.
4. Factually wrong. In many cases men are obligated to contribution tot he cost of an abortion. And regardless, it is still a creation in which the father was the equal contributing party. It is virtually the only place in laws where contributing liability is not considered. IF you and I purchase a car together but we park it in my garage, do I exclusively own it?
5. It is in the numbers. Some… very few … women die due to abortions. millions of developing humans are terminated every year.
6. The point is that currently laws allow abortions that most folks disapprove of. And you see no problem in making arbitrary decision when a human can live or not. What if we pass a law that parents could terminate a child within six months of birth if they change their mind? In your thinking, that would not matter. Arbitrary is okay.
7. We change a bit every day, but it is critical is you want to determine when a developing human is to be granted personhood. Any scientific justification on one day would be just as valid the previous day.
8. I mention it because it is one of the major factors in discussion about when personhood or protectable life begin.
9. You make my point. Most folks do not above of an limited abortion on demand — but that is how the left want the laws to be written. Many states with restrictions are in line with the majority view.
To you …
1. I am conflicted on the death penalty ..mostly opposed. But it is based on a judicial process. It is not applied universally to all prisoners. Abortion is universal. It is also irrelevant to the abortion issue .. a distraction.
2. I do not know ..and do not believe that most pro-lifers are anti vaccines.
3. Owning a gun does not give you a right to kill people. Come on, Frank, You can do better than this as a rebuttal on abortion. Or maybe you can’t.
4. Another distraction issue … and wrong. Pro-lifers do a lot to support the born. in addition to supporting some daycare measure, pro-lifers are more likely to adopt .. to support charities supporting single mothers. You betray you liberal leanings in believing good things can only come from government.
5. Another total distraction and wrong again. i support swift and effective military action to stop aggressors like Russia, Hamas and others from killing people. We did not enter WW II in order to kill people, but to stop the killing.
6. That should be obvious. A certain number of pregnancies will tragically end with the death of the mother or child. This compared to the millions of lives terminated every day.
7. Irrelevant. I do not believe in pro-life as a religious issue.
Because I feel very strongly about abortion, I have engaged you. But this is the last round. And I did not re-read so excuse the typos, if any.