It is Not Easy to be Pro-Life…But Necessary
Polling and recent elections clearly establish that the majority of the American people favor legalized abortion to some degree. Axiomatically, that makes it unpopular to be pro-life.
It is not fun to have one cast as some sort of anti-democratic, woman-hating misogynist. But that does not mean the pro-life minority is wrong, however. Pro-life is founded on a fundamental moral, legal, scientific, and constitutional foundation – currently contested as it may be.
The statistics
It is first imperative to understand that pro-lifers are not a monolithic community. Some believe that there should be no exceptions. Others believe in only one exception – the life of the mother. Most believe in exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. Some would allow abortions for very young girls.
Likewise, the pro-abortion community is not monolithic. Some believe in abortion at the will of the mother at any time short of birth – and in the extreme, they believe in “abortion” at partial birth or even any time before the umbilical cord is severed. Support for abortion drops as pregnancy advances. Most Americans believe it should be illegal in the third trimester.
Pew Research shows an interesting merging of pro-life and pro-abortion opinions. Thirty-Seven percent of pro-abortion folks believe that abortion should have limits, and 27 percent of pro-lifers believe in abortion only in “most cases.” That puts the “no limits” and the “no exceptions” people in a clear minority.
Majority opinion does not make it right
History is filled with examples of a majority opinion being wrong on the matter of humanness or personhood. In ancient Egypt, among Mayans and others, human sacrifice was widely accepted among the public. Humans who would otherwise enjoy the benefits of citizenship were reduced to sacrificial property. They were de-humanized.
Slavery was an institutional de-humanization – claiming the enslaved as property. They were denied personhood by the majority opinion at the time. Negroes were dehumanized as ape-ish creatures during the era of segregation in the South by regimes supported by a majority of the populace. Arguably, the majority of the German people accepted the inferiority of Jews – often depicting them as deformed imbecilic creatures.
For pro-lifers, the idea of de-humanizing – or denying the personhood – of the fetus is yet another widely embraced immorality. And there can be no mistake that the pro-abortion position is to de-humanize the developing human while in the womb.
The question of personhood
The question of personhood is the only valid issue between the pro-life and the pro-abortion communities. All other arguments are either irrelevant or a distraction – or both.
There can be no debate that from the time of conception, we have a developing human being. That is beyond question if you believe in science and biology. The issue that separates is civic personhood.
We know by culture and law that at some point in the gestation process, the developing human being is considered a person by all sides – entitled to the rights of an American citizen. But when in the ongoing process of gestation does that happen?
We grant citizenship – personhood — status even to babies birthed on American soil by foreigners. We legally protect the life and well-being of the child in the womb at some point before birth. The fact that one child in the womb can be aborted as a non-person while another at the same point of development can be legally protected from harm or death is a major conundrum of the pro-abortion community – although that dialogue is ignored for obvious reasons.
Personhood is a subject the pro-abortion community refuses to debate with any specificity – and any opinions expressed are widely diverse. There is no consensus among abortion advocates on a question that demands a coherent answer.
The bogus political arguments
One of the reasons that there is very little intelligent dialogue between the pro-life and pro-abortion communities is because the pro-abortion arguments are not the central points. Rather, they are capricious political arguments that focus only on the woman’s desire at the expense of the father, the unborn, and natural law.
According to the abortion advocates, it is a “woman’s health issue.” In terms of relevancy to the pro-life position, that is nonsense. Being pregnant is NOT a disease or an automatic threat to the physical well-being of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy women who are at no particular health risk at the time — or throughout the pregnancy. The issue is largely one of convenience, NOT health.
Pro-abortion advocates call it a “reproductive rights” issue. They assume that their position – and only their position — is the exclusive “reproductive right.” In fact, fathers have a right to reproduce – and above all, the unborn has a right to live under any fair and rational concept of reproductive rights. What abortion advocates are asserting is a faux “right” to terminate the life of a developing human being in the womb at will – a right NOT to reproduce at the mortal expense of the unborn and the nullification of the rights of the father.
The second most common claim is that the fetus is part of a woman’s body – over which she has an exclusive right to have the fetus – the developing human being – terminated. Of course, it is NOT an intrinsic part of a woman’s body. It is NOT standard equipment. It is a unique human creation of a woman AND a man – a FACT that is ignored by abortion advocates. Though the father bears half the responsibility for the creation of the developing human being – and financial obligations if the unborn is birthed — he is given no rights over the survival of his offspring in the pro-abortion world.
The pro-abortion world views the unborn human as a discardable piece of flesh despite the FACT that it IS a developing human being – just as the newborn baby is a yet developing human being in need of nurturing to survive. The significant difference is that the two parents of a newborn are morally and legally responsible for the nurturing of well-being of the infant. Birth is only a stage of human maturation – just as is the fertilized egg … the embryo … the zygote … the fetus. It is not biologically, legally or morally the transition point into personhood.
Though pro-life is often cast as a sexist or racist issue, it is not a gender or a race issue at all. The lives terminated or saved represent the full diversity of mankind. The purpose of pro-life is to save all lives regardless of gender or race. Pro-life is also blind to the future – making no arrogant assumptions or claims as to the future quality of life of the new human beings – nor of the contributions they will make to society, good or bad.
No consideration for the developing human … the unborn
The pro-abortion side of the debate gives no … zero … consideration to the developing human being. They declare it a non-person in defiance of logic and biology – giving it the equivalency of a cyst, wart, or mole. Rather than determine personhood based on science and civic morality, they express a confused, irrational, and inconsistent political judgment as to when that developing human transforms from an extraneous piece of flesh to a person with all the rights of personhood and citizenship – most fundamentally, the right to life.
De-humanizing the developing human being is essential to pro-abortion thinking because they well understand that acceptance of the obvious completely crushes their position on the issue. To admit that the developing human IS a developing human eradicates any semblance of moral justification for abortion. It is the termination of a human life … full stop.
Moral confusion
This commentary started by pointing out how cultures have had horrific beliefs regarding classes of human beings, but I have always rejected the moral claim that those who believe in abortion-on-demand are necessarily immoral or evil people. Rather they are influenced by the zeitgeist of the times.
In my judgment, the response of the pro-life community is not the harsh accusatory finger, but serious civil dialogue. Abortion advocates may be egregiously wrong, in my opinion, but they are not evil – any more than pro-life individuals are women haters.
Conclusion
The entire abortion debate comes down to personhood – and when and how that occurs. Unfortunately, it is a subject abortion activists fear and oppose above all others. When does that developing human being attain all the moral, legal, and constitutional rights of a person? Until there is consensus on that central issue, the abortion debate will continue to stagnate over irrelevant endless-loop political arguments.
I do believe that there will come a day when mankind looks back on the culture of abortion the same way we now look back on human sacrifice and slavery. Unfortunately, I will not live to see that day.
So, there ‘tis.
Since June of 2022, abortion bans have been born in different ways in different States across the land.
You have 15 States with TOTAL Abortion bans. But across the country, since June of 2022, you have:
total bans, 4 states with Constitutional bans
viability bans
6, 15, 20, 22, 24, 25-week bans
rape, no rape, incest, no incest bans
Across the US, only 17 States protect abortion, 3 Constitutionally.
You told us it was a State’s issue and we could always find facilities in another State, it’s not that difficult. Then you made it more difficult.
So, 50 States and 50 ways to address the most important question in humanity: life. In the Spring of 2023, the next step was taken. Idaho bans travelling out of state to get an abortion and that includes drivers or other assistance. You have Federal Judges overriding the FDA and banning day-after pills across the nation. You have States restrictions on contraception protections. It’s difficult, confusing, possibly criminal jail sentences and worse, and no additional support whatsoever.
You may talk about a diversified field of pro-lifers, a virtual rainbow of ideas, but the bottom line is the same: you have banned abortions, day after pills, and even helping folks get abortions, legally, across State lines. There is little conformity, each State can be radically different in it’s bans. You have even made interstate travel potentially illegal for the pregnant. Sure seems that you are ruining as many, or more, lives than you are protecting.
Iowa bars abortion clinics from public contraception funds. Over 16 states have contraception control restrictions, including Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. All I can say is in this poke-her game, the cards are strongly stacked against the woman.
And in your zeal to protect as much life as possible, even banning contraception avoidance medicines and devices, you have done precious little for additional support for all these unwed, single, mothers and their unwanted babies. Nothing that I can find, in any State. Don’t tell me how you are warriors for life. You are warriors for more miserable lives that you just walk away from, forever.
If you don’t have to wear a mask, that’s your individual right, one worth fighting for, then why should they be forced to produce unwanted babies? Isn’t that an individual right worth fighting for? And if you feel you’re a victim and it’s not easy to ban abortions, restrict contraception, force rape and incest babies upon mothers, what do you think a mother of an unwanted child feels?
I applaud your personal decisions, how you put your support into action in your own life, but Larry, you should leave these people alone unless you are continuing to offer the support you have throughout your life. But quit trampling their rights by telling them how to live like you.
Frank Stetson … You miss the point. Pro-lifes see the developing human being as a person in the early state of development. It is the killing of a human being. Hypothetically, if there was a religious cult in American that believed in human sacrifice — killing five year olds. Would you say it is a matter of choice Maybe you and I would not kill a five year old, but we should allow it as a matter of personal choice.. Maybe under you theory, we should have allowed the southern states to keep their slaves. Pro-life means abortion — with a few extreme exceptions — is morally wrong. And that is not necessarily a religious opinion any more than protection the life of the five year old is exclusively a religious issue. You can call abortion a right, but that does not make it so. The most fundamental right is a right to live. I say that puts the rights issue on the side of the developing human being. The human fetus is not a monkey … or a fish … and certainly not a lifeless gob of extraneous flesh. You ducked the central question … when in the gestation process does the “piece of flesh” become a person with rights? What is the exceptional moment when that happens? What is that biological change that makes all the difference? If you are like most abortion advocates, you will avoid an answer — or hedge some political answer devoid of science and biology.
Don’t talk, don’t talk, don’t talk so close to me….. What happened here, you suddenly got chatty? I am glad you opted for a decent discourse, thanks. Let’s do this more often :>)
Your article was about the pressures of being pro-life, and poor you, poor you. Guess you been losing for so long that you didn’t realize you have been winning a lot lately on this issue and it’s actually the pro-choice folks feeling the pain. And a whole lot of men and women stuck in the wrong geography by chance, not by choice. But, of course, we are a bit off that target, yet it seems a healthy discussion, if not one that’s impossible to resolve.
Life is precious and I understand your desire to save as much as you possibly can. Yet, creating life and supporting life are very different things. You focus on creation, but offer precious little in regards to additional support as you force more and more women to create the unwanted, unsupportable, and ultimately, unloved. Where’s the support, where’s the love.
You and I ain’t gonna change. I have no problem with your desire to hardly ever terminate anything. Seems very noble. Have at it and hopefully you can convince many to term, with love and support. BUT NOT forced delivery by jack-booted government thugs and unAmerican laws. I draw the line there. It’s my desire to only give birth to loved, wanted, and financially supportable children, whenever possible, and support when needed if folks want to carry to term.
Worse than jack-booted government thugs forcing people to have babies, and not just ooops babies, but rape babies, incest babies, brain-dead babies, crack babies, yech. You have demanded, by law, that we do this 50-different ways which pleases no lovers. What? You think this is some kind of grand experiment that you need 50-differest tests for success? Now on top of everything else, women need to become lawyers to determine what form of birth slavery is being offered in their State. Even well-educated doctors are having issues in these legal interpretations and don’t know how to proceed to save life but stay out of jail.
Larry; I have said here that as far as I am personally concerned, life starts with a wink of the eye as she says: “sure, I’d love a glass of wine.” We all know that God knows what’s gonna happen. That’s life too. And IMO, it’s murder even before the first date. And yet, I say — get out of her womb, let her decide, make it safe, and let’s move on. It’s terrible, it’s tragic, it’s life too.
On the other hand, I also know that there is no life until you take your first breadth. Before that, it’s just incubation. That’s my personal, medical, rationale. The fact it can become human does not make it human. Otherwise, you’d be forced to save those spent seeds too.
I also know that the life of an unwanted child can be worse than being born.
So yeah, I admit I make a tough choice, a terrible choice — Roe V. Wade parameters are my choice, I could live with more or less severe, just that there’s a viable choice for men and women in these circumstances and we don’t return to unsafe, illegal, abortions which brought us to Roe V. Wade in the first place.
I abhor the holier-than-thou pretending they cling to the sanctity of life, that all viable fetuses must reach term, while at the same time not offering one piece of additional support as they force more and more women into forced deliveries. Larry, based on your life, your actions, you have the right to throw stones here; you have already saved a number of kids over the years. But you are unusual, most focus on force, not support as you have.
You throwing slavery, human sacrifice, hey – you missed Hitler, at me does not change my viewpoint which is stay the fuck out of women’s wombs; they are not yours to control.
Abortion is morally wrong: stay the fuck out of women’s wombs they are not yours to judge morality.
As to your question; I said it before, I said it above, I will say it again: life starts when God says so and that’s well before conception. And stay the hell out of women’s wombs anyways; it’s theirs and they can do what they want. NOW — let’s make it all as safe as we can, let’s provide all the support that we can. Meanwhile, you pro-lifers can feel free to try to get folks to keep those babies, perhaps including more support than flapping you lips about saving all those lives of unwanted kids that you did nothing except pass a law that forces delivery. I would even love to see tax dollars used to support you in your efforts. And I will feel free to support Planned Parenthood, contraception, and safe sex practices —- which includes the availability of abortion — nationwide and easily accessible. But man, whatever we are doing here, this is not right. This is crazy. When you say you will imprison someone for driving a prego across State lines to abort an impaired fetus, something is wrong. When you say you will ban day-after pills nationally, something is wrong. When you say that all babies must be born, but don’t provide one-extra cent for support of said babies you forced into the world, something is wrong.
Early in my life, in the early 70’s, I reported on an abortion clinic, the women going there. While in High School, this caused much personal pain as the administration came down on me, it hit the city papers and got some air. My story covered a typical day — druggy abortion, young kids “in love,” and an old couple too old to do it one more time. It focused on the whole process then —- waiting period, consultation, the whole nine yards. Later in life I took a few folks through the process as well as I knew first hand how important support was. In every case, I saw great remorse, sorrow, and pain. These were never casual decisions and were life altering. Sorry it happened, glad they could get the support and love they needed. And they moved on. This was the life they chose, this is the life they will meet their maker with, and who am I to judge; I was there to provide whatever support they needed. I am still there today. As are you. My take is it should not change for either of us —- just let it be, let us be. OR — support what you have created with your laws.
I agree Frank. Those of us who are the older guys know exactly the horrors you speak of when you say, “we don’t return to unsafe, illegal, abortions which brought us to Roe V. Wade in the first place.”
I think this is the greatest problem with the issue, we are straddling the fence wrestling with the question of which is the greater immorality, terminating a pregnancy before it is born, or allowing it to be born and then abandoning it to poverty and a life of misery. This is why I am a big believer in contraception measures. And I really do not think the morality question we struggle with will ever be answered which is why I advocate to put the morality question aside and as I said in my previous post to focus on the most successful and compassionate outcome for women. There is no doubt in my mind that women are caught in the crossfire here and around 70% of them do choose to have a choice of carrying the pregnancy or not to carry. I don’t think they want to return to pre-Row v Wade illegal abortions either. This is also why I made those eight questions. Both your position and Larry’s position begs an answer to the same single question, “Resources?”. You Frank at least appear willing to create taxes to supply the resources necessary for Larry’s position. I am wondering if Larry is willing to come off of his position to create taxes and allow free contraception as well as limited abortion to facilitate your position?
You had an interesting comment when you said “if it hasn’t taken a breath yet, it is not human life.” Believe it or not, this is a very Old Testament / Torah view of Judaism. They believe life starts after the child’s head is out of the womb. And then we can look at Exodus 21: 22-25 and it says about a pregnant woman losing her child by being struck by a man not her husband, “….On this interpretation the death of the unborn child merits a ‘fine’ but further harm to the mother merits ‘life for life’. In favour of this interpretation is the witness of Josephus in the first century AD: He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money… as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb…but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death.
So even in Judaism, the life inside the womb does not have the same value as the life outside the womb that is living and breathing – which gets back to your point. :>)
One last thing, sorry Frank, but I do think your correction of me in the statement where I use “pro-abortion” and you corrected it to “pro-choice” is a bit of what my Irish friends call “malarkey”. All the “pro-choice’ side does is protest for the right to abortion. They never protest for the other things you speak of such as free contraceptives for all, child support beginning at conception, better support services, better and easier adoption services, etc. And what did Jesus say, “A tree is known by its fruit.” This tree is by Jesus’s standard, pro-abortion and could only be considered pro-choice if it elevated all of the other choices to the same status as it elevates abortion.
And lets also be brutally honest in that Planned Parenthood has been involved in the sale of aborted fetuses and placentas for stem cell research and harvesting. That is why I have a certificate from my knee stem cell therapy that states the stem cells I received were not from abortions.
And let me be more brutally honest in that sex has become so casual, hook up sites so common, immorality so widespread, that even I get ten emails a day about it. And lets face it, hook ups and casual sex, escort services, all facilitated by the internet has been a big money maker for college age women. And lets face it, these women want abortions so that they can continue making money by sex. They have made themselves glorified sex workers.
By the way, I did like your point about men staying out of a women’s womb, and I assume that also means men just wanting sex and having no second thought about the possibility of pregnancy and supporting a child for 18-21 years? Maybe we need to be talking more to men too?
Tom: Pro-abortion is a pro-life terminology meant to demean others. It’s like calling you Unaffiliated Voter; sure, it’s accurate, but takes the Independent right out of it with a less positive connotation. Almost like me labelling DeSantis as DeSanctimonious — and you know why I do that, it’s not accuracy. Also, for any of these demeaning terms like pro-abortion, the target would never use the term to describe themselves, it’s not on any of their literature, it only exists with the opposition, enablers, and useful idiots.
Who is Pro-abortion Tom? No one probably. Folks who get abortions are not fans or pro-abortion. I take the trash to the curb: am I pro-trash. I have an abortion; was it because I favor it and are pro-abortion?
Frankly, it’s the pro-life version of the n-word as applied to folks who are pro-choice.
Really Frank? People use terms that demean other people in politics? How “Deplorable”
Joe,
My point exactly.
When you call someone “deplorable,” it’s pretty much right-in-your-face demeaning.
When you say “pro-abortion,” you weasel-word your way to the same place in a backhanded manner.
But sure — both are name calling and not accurate. Thanks for the clarification.
Actually Frank, I will accept your “pro-abortion” comment in the case of rape, incest, poor pregnancies that die in the womb etc., cases where there were life circumstances that the person never asked for, nor did anything to be blamed for, they are the victims. But there are many people that use abortion as a way of maintaining a sexually carefree life, maintain a career and high earnings, maintain a college life and pursuit, maintaining escort income and sex website participation, etc. These people are not victims of anything bu their “poor-choice” to have unprotected sex.
In these aforementioned cases we will have to agree to disagree because each of these cases has two options: 1) between carrying the pregnancy to term which will alter lifestyle, or, 2) terminating the pregnancy and maintaining lifestyle. So in these cases, the individual has chosen abortion and abortion is the “pro” decision for their “choice” of lifestyle between the two life circumstance choices.
So yes, they are “pro-choice” as far as lifestyle, but they are also “pro-abortion” as their solution of choice on how they will achieve that lifestyle. And Planned Parenthood has become the poster child for those that wish to not alter or change their life style as part of their business model.
You can keep putting lipstick on that pig, but we all still know at the end of the day, when we stare at it, it is a pig buddy! :>P
Tom, using your logic, how many have died from pro-life decisions? Their bans of procedures, medicines, and even giving someone a ride, will cause death.
Tom, even in your example, no one is pro abortion, lifestyle and other poor choices not withstanding. You are judging them by a lifestyle choice, you really don’t know.
Hey, I release my story about interviewing folks at an abortion clinic, one couple was older, and just did not think they could handle this at their age. They had plenty of money, they were healthy enough, they just could not go through this one more time; that part of their life was done. they were not pro abortion, they were not cavalier, but I think they fit your description of people who are pro abortion. They were not. I just don’t think he will find a single person having an abortion saying “yippee.“
What is a real bottom line is that the term is meant to mean, it is not meant to describe, and that one person who is in the camp, whatever self describe themselves with the term that you think they should. It is not an objective term to cover the pro-choice demographic.
Frank, I think you are making my point. IF saying the term “pro-abortion” is said to be mean to someone, then the process known as abortion must be a mean and undesirable process – hence I am back to my previous assertion that those providing abortion want to be called “pro-choice” so that their packaging of an ugly process is prettier. I guess one person;s mean is another person’s truth. I noticed you are not arguing the truth of “pro-abortion”, you are arguing the way it sounds.
On a side note, calling me an Unaffiliated voter does not wipe out the fact that I am also independent. Unaffiliated to me means that I do not have any party loyalty. Independent means I make up my own mind on the issue, not bowing to the group think notions on an issue. That is why I use both terms.
Actually I have plenty of experience in knowing people who chose abortion to preserve their current lifestyle. If you are not ready for children, then do not have penetrative sex! They all think the same, abortion is just a tool to help them maintain their life style. I am telling you what I have been told several times, not being judgemental.
But, having said all of this, I believe we need to shift the dialogue and process to :How to create a positive, safe, and successful outcome for women in all situations. I think if we had a unifying title for the dialogue, and if both sides could give a little, I think you would find much agreement. Right now, it is a shit show, and women are in the crossfire of it all.
By the way, I was one of those fathers Larry talked about, back in 1975.
Tom, not clear on Larry’s 75 father, but I am pretty sure you will be hard pressed to find someone identifying as pro abortion.
Yes, abortion can preserve lifestyle. But I really doubt those choices are to support abortion.
You are projecting your opinion onto someone else who is doing something you disagree with.
Whatever, free speech, go ahead. Just realize you’ve already put off the majority of America who are pro choice and find YOUR choice of terms demeaning; as intended.
I am pro choice but not pro abortion because there is no such thing as pro-abortion. .
Yes you are very correct Frank, I agree that it will be hard (but not as impossible as you say) to find someone that is “pro-abortion” because that is an ugly sounding package. That is why they say “pro-choice”, its prettier. LOL
I am not judging anyone. I am telling you what I have been told by women. I personally am in favor of successful outcomes using many options and choices for women, but do not identify myself as “pro-choice” because all those folks do is talk abortion, and all their clinics do is recommend abortion. That’s the problem. There are many choices but it seems like only the binary situation (stay pregnant or get abortion) grab all of the attention. And just as you said, there is a failing system in place that is not only lacking in resources and commitment, it is also terribly under-developed and archaic. So why can’t the “pro-choice people” march for a better system and fuller development of the system to be more compassionate and supportive of many choices? Why can’t they march for a better adoption system and better adoption rules? Why can’t they march for free over the counter contraceptives and programs to learn of uses? Why can’t they march for alternative sexual pleasures such as oral sex, co-masterbation? Why do they destroy Catholic pregnancy crisis centers and other crisis centers that do offer supports and other choices besides abortion?
No, all they march for is to have the right to an abortion, all the other choices are left behind with little to no advocacy.
This is why I believe (and advocate for) we need to shift the dialogue from ideology to process to :How to create a positive, safe, and successful outcome for women in all situations. This would include and treat ALL of the choices equally. I think if we had a unifying title for the dialogue, and if both sides could give a little, I think you would find much agreement. Right now, it is a shit show, and women are in the crossfire of it all.
Lets call it “The Successful Outcomes for Women Act” and equally weight and fund all of the choices, and lets make it law that all of the choices have to be equally presented with literature up front. And all of this may mean tax hikes for which I am in favor. :>)
Again, it’s not that it’s an ugly term, it’s that it’s incorrect.
RE: “because all those folks do is talk abortion, and all their clinics do is recommend abortion.”
Admittedly, I am not current but find your statement implausible. In my time, the 70’a in the case, you would be wrong based on my experience at the clinics. I even thought it law to provide consultation and alternatives, at least back then it was, in Maryland and DC.
I agree let’s stress alternatives, make finding/signing up alternatives easier than having sex, I have indicated my support for tax dollar funding in some of this.
BUT — currently, my focus is on making pro-choice the law of the land. After that, I am all for going where conservatives fear to tread: WIN-WIN SOLUTIONS like the alternatives you mention.
Hope you tossed the words from your lexicon —- being woke ain’t hard to do. Some just call it being polite. In this case, the PR campaign by pro-lifers worked and you became a useful idiot promoting a vision rather than an objective description.
Now, about NC Congressional Representative Jeff Jackson — is this your guy? Very impressive. I think he’s on tic toc and other trendy communication spots. Hope he works out, might even be the bridge we all desire.
And did you catch Marijuana Taylor Pork Roll Greene’s performance in committee yesterday? https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-silenced-house-republicans/index.html
If you can find the clip, it’s priceless. Greene with her BA in Business from a State School, work in Daddy’s construction company doing nothing, against Dan Goldman, Yale BA, Standford JD, Assistant US Attorney for a decade with scads of big-time wins. BUT the fun is Greene just waltzes in, probably never has even opened a document relating to procedure in her three years in Congress meets Goldman, who has been there 5 months and probably cracked the books the day after his election. Greene calls for a ruling where there isn’t a rule, gets corrected, and has all her comments erased, is told to stand down, but not stand ready cuz you lost your time by being stupid. And that was the Republican Committee Chair taking those actions.
It is really funny, enjoy.
Horrendously wrong. People want to have children and will have as many children as feel appropriate, so all abortion does is allow them to delay having to raise children, until they can better afford it and have the home they need.
All making abortion illegal does is keep people poor and never being able to afford their own home. It is the most evil government over reach one can possibly imagine. Only a total dictatorship would ever try to define life and family, against the wishes of the individuals involved.
A fetus is LESS than a monkey or fish. It has no brain or any sentience yet at all. It is no more human than an ovum or sperm. You are not “saving” any child by preventing abortion. You are reducing the number of children a family will be able to afford, by saddling them with the high cost of children, before they can afford it. Preventing abort causes there to be fewer children.
I’m waiting for the inevitable consequence of women wanting to have children in anti-abortion states then discovering that the laws enacted by these states had the unintended consequence of there are no doctors to handle birth, let alone abortion. It will take a while to play out, very similar to the hospital in northern Idaho that is closing it’s maternity ward very soon. Looked it up to make sure of my dates, ran across this:
A second Idaho hospital announced it would stop delivering babies on June 1. The move comes two weeks after a hospital in northern Idaho announced they would close their labor and delivery unit citing “doctor shortages” and the state’s “political climate.”
I can just see the landscape five years out. Blue states have babies, red states have VERY ANGRY people.
Andy,
I think you will find all sorts of maternity, obgyn, types of doctors fleeing abortion ban states to migrate to friendly women’s health states to avoid draconian laws requiring doctors to be lawyers to be able to navigate the new maze of bans, many of which include steep fines and jail time, even just for giving someone a ride or trying to protect a pregnant rape victim from a life of hell.
It’s just become too difficult to practice in many places for what you have trained for.
It really does not matter WHY any woman wants to have an abortion. There simply is no one else who gets ANY say. It government can prevent abortions, than it can also insist on mandated pregnancy. And any state that tries to over rule the woman on such personal issues, is an authoritarian dictatorship that needs to be utterly destroyed.
Acknowledgements to Larry for a brave attempt at tackling the most inflammatory issue of the past fifty years, including father’s rights.
Acknowledgements to Frank for pointing out the lack of systemic supports and abandonment of life once that life has been born fully human.
I would like to acknowledge both Larry and Frank for their intellectual discourse on this issue without a single unpleasant name or slur being used. You have both expressed your party’s political position with excellence. Now lets see how an Independent/Unaffiliated voter would view the issue:
So there appears to be two central issues here: 1) When does human life begin and when is it murder, a moral position. 2) Total lack of any support system that would preserve the dignity of the mother and successfully direct the pregnancy to its most compassionate outcome, a resources position. And compounding any hope of settlement of both issues is the desire of many pro-life folks to also be pro limited government / lower taxation advocates thus creating budget shortfalls that undermines the possibility of any system development due to financial constrictions juxtaposed against a government cost benefit position of welfare support costs for 18 years of an unwanted life versus prevention and if necessary, termination, of the life as a form of cost reduction / cost control for government in a dwindling resources environment.
In order to have any hope of unanimity of thought on a solution, we must first agree to a common problem statement that all political views can work together on. So here is my first offering of a problem statement: We have a morality versus resources problem embedded in a tumultuous politically uncertain and supportively non-existent environment where women and the unborn they carry are caught in the crossfire.
Can we all agree on the problem?
I am not going to pretend to have a solution but I do have some questions that might yield a foundation to a solution:
1) Would the pro-life and pro-abortion sides agree to a tax rate hike to cover the cost of free access pregnancy preventive measures such as condoms, birth control pills, morning after pills, (all pills over the counter access in drug stores) voluntary sterilizations such as tubal ligation and vasectomies? (there is plenty of medical and pharmaceutical science to stop pregnancies, and, an ounce of prevention is worth many pounds of cure)
2) Would both pro-life and pro-abortion sides be willing to support a tax rate hike for free early pregnancy detection (before a human is formed) for all sexually active women and couples that do not want a pregnancy?
2A Would both pro-life and pro-abortion sides be willing to support a free and accessible abortion pill and medical monitoring to terminate a pregnancy while the pregnancy is in the cell stage before human form and heart beat can be detected, say up to 8 weeks?
3) IF the pro-abortion side agrees to sensible restrictions that allow time for a woman to know/test that she is pregnant and get early abortion help for any reason, would the pro-life side agree to at least first trimester abortions before a human form is evident before 8-12 weeks?
3A) Do the pro-life and pro-abortion sides agree that a tubal (ectopic) pregnancy is a high risk to the mother and should be terminated upon discovery at any stage?
4) For pregnancies ranging from 12 to 40 weeks, if the pregnancy is determined to be unwanted, malformed, would the pro-life and abortion sides agree to tax rate hikes for institutional care, adoption system overhaul to make adoption easier, and the creation of orphanages to include up to K-12 public school, and two year technical training support, and/or if education is not possible, then to their natural death?
5) Would the pro-life and pro-abortion sides agree to tax law changes to allow tax payers full and/or partial credit for dependent care deductions for children in the orphanage system in exchange for funding an orphan child at least 50% of national average cost?
6) If a pregnancy is determined to have died in the womb or will be still born, would the pro-life side agree to an abortion at any time once the developing pregnancy has been determined non-functional?
7) Do pro-life and pro-abortion sides agree that InVitro (IV) pregnancy is a legitimate process for pregnancy?
8) If IV is used, will pro-life agree to harvesting before six weeks if pro-abortion side agrees to sensible restrictions on IV harvesting?
I would really like Larry and Frank to both answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no” and let me put together a composite picture. Lets see just how close both sides can get in a simple strawman exercise.
Remember, Independents are very much issues focused, and for systems that work, positive results, and we avoid party loyalty. So my Independent/Unaffiliated answers are as follows:
I agree on the problem statement as written.
1 = Yes
2 = Yes
2A = Yes
3 = Yes
3A = Yes
4 = Yes
5 = Yes
6= Yes
7 = Yes
8 = Yes
I would really like for everyone answering this blog to answer these questions. I will collate the answers.
Again, thank you Larry and Frank for your excellent work on this blog.
Sorry, Tom, don’t want to play mostly because the result means nothing. Sorry.
FYI — there is no pro-abortion side; no one is pro abortion. Some are pro-choice. Pro-abortion is a name made up by pro-lifers who want to demean us for choosing choice. I have no problems with tax hikes where they make sense and/or turn a profit, even said as much above. No issue with day-after pill support as an insurance requirement as well as any other medical procedure or pill, but on contraceptives —- I waffle. It’s a privilege, not a right.
I have said it in the past, although there is no middle ground, both sides push
to hard for extreme’s. No one on either side is ever to the point were they are pleased.
One side wanted to abort even after the child was born. The other side wants NO exceptions.
Religion! Science! Common sense! The Government can pass what they please to get votes.
The states can pass what they want to get votes. In the end it will take the path of naturality
and people will do what they wish no matter what is legal. Does making murder illegal stop it from happening?
Crime? Does the government pass any law were all the people obey.
People are People, they will find a way to do what ever they feel is in their best interest.
If they ever start teaching it again, you can see it in the history books.
You have a good point there Darren. Our laws on the books do not stop people from committing homicide. As a matter of a fact, no law has ever stopped anyone from doing what they want to do if they really want to do it. What laws do is to create a system of boundaries so that a person can determine what is good behavior and what is bad behavior. But a person must still choose their path.
And kudos to your writing on this one. Six paragraphs and many more than twenty words, and it is a well thought out line of reasoning. I am sure Frank is proud of you.
Darren, while both groups have their extremes, and while most fall within those edges, I can see your point here and makes sense to me.