Abortion Debates 2019
This will be controversial and I'll get some pushback. So be it.
I doubt that when the Burger court decided in 1973 that the Fourth Amendment's guarantees against unlawful search and seizure meant we had a right to privacy that extended to terminating a pregnancy we would still be debating it even more vehemently 26 years later.
While abortion advocates (and I use that term fully, as pointed out below) like to say Roe is the established law of the land, so was the Dred Scott and the Korematsu decision and the Citizens United, which progressives hate. So they speak out of both sides of their mouths. (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of their citizenship--Wikipedia)
I say abortion advocates because I remember a time when abortion was considered a right but only because cases existed where a woman might, understandably, not want to go through with a pregnancy, or a young teenager had been a victim of incest and molestation. Now the advocates are so vocal that I think, "the lady does protest too much." Why so adamant that a baby should die? Now Atlantic Monthly (I know it's not called that any more, but when I read it, it was) says that more women die from giving birth than abortions. So I guess that means we should terminate all pregnancies in order to save lives?
(I question the methodology of that study, by the way. Women do, rarely, die from pregnancy, but those could be from underlying health causes the woman has that have nothing to do with the pregnancy, such as diabetes or heart conditions or probably, poor prenatal care, which is a public health problem in this country. I suspect it is a case of false analogy and causal/correlation fallacy.)
Now the Democratic party seems to have only two positions: Trump is evil (another subject for another day) and we need more abortions. I have to wonder about people who pre-emptively hate their offspring so much. My sense is that a lot of these women are post-abortive and experiencing trauma and cognitive dissonance they don't know how to deal with.
However, and it pains me to say this, I don't think the recent spate of extreme anti-abortion laws are helping. One, they will obviously be overturned. Even if the SCOTUS agrees to adjudicate one of them, I doubt the present court will completely overturn Roe. I would love to see it in lieu of a more reasonable policy on abortion (the U.S. position is just about the worst in the world, showing our narcissism).
Second, and this pains me to, there have to be some protections for extreme cases that really happen and can be documented. A thirteen-year-old raped by her wicked father should not be forced to have a baby--can you really demand that? Sure, I know, it's not the baby's fault. These are rare cases, just as the life of the mother cases. Rape, well, that's a tougher one. I don't think these states did themselves any favors by showing no compassion on a molested child.
I feel differently about the heart beat bills. Go for it on those.
Which brings me to the tired argument that conservatives don't want to help the mothers whom they demand have babies through strict abortion laws. I have worked at a pregancy helps center and they do connect families with local resources, have showers to donate items, etc. But at some point--and I think this is a core issue in the abortion debate--people have to become responsible for committing an act that brings a human being into existence. The government or church or pro-life organization cannot raise a child. It can help at key points, but not for 18 years. Plus, contraception is widely available for the sexually active.
The abortion debate over the last almost 50 years has changed from "there are cases when it's understandable that a woman shouldn't be forced to deliver the baby" to "I have no responsibility for the sexual acts I commit that might end in conception and I'm going to scream long and loud for the right to be irresponsible." But this applies more broadly: "I have no responsibility for a lot of things I might do, such as incurring high college debt by going to a ridiculously expensive college and then expecting someone else to bail me out."
(Sorry, my prejudice here. I teach at an access college and I would put our teaching up against just about any other college's--but not our funding.)
Again, this is controversial, and I doubt I will change anyone's mind. But I've reached an age where I'm tired of ignoring the elephant in the room and I'm tired of hiding my opinions because it might offend someone at my work or in my community. Even more, there is no issue, other than the gospel, about which I feel more strongly. Maybe it's because I suffer from a congenital disease that causes pretty irreversible infertility (although mine was reversed once) that it boggles my mind that women who can easily conceive don't take that as the precious gift it is and are willing to kill their children. "All politics are personal" we are told by the early feminists, or maybe "all personal things become political at some point." I just tremble for a society that feels the greatest good is to encourage women to despise their own fertility and womanhood.
I doubt that when the Burger court decided in 1973 that the Fourth Amendment's guarantees against unlawful search and seizure meant we had a right to privacy that extended to terminating a pregnancy we would still be debating it even more vehemently 26 years later.
While abortion advocates (and I use that term fully, as pointed out below) like to say Roe is the established law of the land, so was the Dred Scott and the Korematsu decision and the Citizens United, which progressives hate. So they speak out of both sides of their mouths. (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of their citizenship--Wikipedia)
I say abortion advocates because I remember a time when abortion was considered a right but only because cases existed where a woman might, understandably, not want to go through with a pregnancy, or a young teenager had been a victim of incest and molestation. Now the advocates are so vocal that I think, "the lady does protest too much." Why so adamant that a baby should die? Now Atlantic Monthly (I know it's not called that any more, but when I read it, it was) says that more women die from giving birth than abortions. So I guess that means we should terminate all pregnancies in order to save lives?
(I question the methodology of that study, by the way. Women do, rarely, die from pregnancy, but those could be from underlying health causes the woman has that have nothing to do with the pregnancy, such as diabetes or heart conditions or probably, poor prenatal care, which is a public health problem in this country. I suspect it is a case of false analogy and causal/correlation fallacy.)
Now the Democratic party seems to have only two positions: Trump is evil (another subject for another day) and we need more abortions. I have to wonder about people who pre-emptively hate their offspring so much. My sense is that a lot of these women are post-abortive and experiencing trauma and cognitive dissonance they don't know how to deal with.
However, and it pains me to say this, I don't think the recent spate of extreme anti-abortion laws are helping. One, they will obviously be overturned. Even if the SCOTUS agrees to adjudicate one of them, I doubt the present court will completely overturn Roe. I would love to see it in lieu of a more reasonable policy on abortion (the U.S. position is just about the worst in the world, showing our narcissism).
Second, and this pains me to, there have to be some protections for extreme cases that really happen and can be documented. A thirteen-year-old raped by her wicked father should not be forced to have a baby--can you really demand that? Sure, I know, it's not the baby's fault. These are rare cases, just as the life of the mother cases. Rape, well, that's a tougher one. I don't think these states did themselves any favors by showing no compassion on a molested child.
I feel differently about the heart beat bills. Go for it on those.
Which brings me to the tired argument that conservatives don't want to help the mothers whom they demand have babies through strict abortion laws. I have worked at a pregancy helps center and they do connect families with local resources, have showers to donate items, etc. But at some point--and I think this is a core issue in the abortion debate--people have to become responsible for committing an act that brings a human being into existence. The government or church or pro-life organization cannot raise a child. It can help at key points, but not for 18 years. Plus, contraception is widely available for the sexually active.
The abortion debate over the last almost 50 years has changed from "there are cases when it's understandable that a woman shouldn't be forced to deliver the baby" to "I have no responsibility for the sexual acts I commit that might end in conception and I'm going to scream long and loud for the right to be irresponsible." But this applies more broadly: "I have no responsibility for a lot of things I might do, such as incurring high college debt by going to a ridiculously expensive college and then expecting someone else to bail me out."
(Sorry, my prejudice here. I teach at an access college and I would put our teaching up against just about any other college's--but not our funding.)
Again, this is controversial, and I doubt I will change anyone's mind. But I've reached an age where I'm tired of ignoring the elephant in the room and I'm tired of hiding my opinions because it might offend someone at my work or in my community. Even more, there is no issue, other than the gospel, about which I feel more strongly. Maybe it's because I suffer from a congenital disease that causes pretty irreversible infertility (although mine was reversed once) that it boggles my mind that women who can easily conceive don't take that as the precious gift it is and are willing to kill their children. "All politics are personal" we are told by the early feminists, or maybe "all personal things become political at some point." I just tremble for a society that feels the greatest good is to encourage women to despise their own fertility and womanhood.
Comments