Over the past 24 hours, chants of “bans off our bodies” and “my body, my choice” have been heard obsessively over the United States of America, following the Supreme Court leak that threatens to overturn the groundbreaking Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Effectively, preventing women across the country from getting legal and safe elective abortions.
Yet, as is often the case in our shock media feed, things are not so simple.
As more right-wing individuals rapidly pointed out, “bans off our bodies” is nothing but a crude and ironic fallacy, coming as it does in the wake of two deeply restrictive years. Only a few months ago, thousands were forced to choose between involuntarily inoculating themselves, and losing their livelihoods, under the now forgot vaccine mandates that rocked 2021.
And what is saying “undergo X medical procedure, or lose your rights”, if not a ban pertaining to one’s body? Yet, miraculously, you didn’t hear a peep out of either side now clamoring into the streets to protest the overthrow of Roe v. Wade.
The main argument for the vaccine mandates, of course, was that it shouldn’t be your decision, since vaccination would also protect others, and thus was not solely related to your existence, alone. But then, neither is abortion. In all objectivity here, having an abortion impacts another’s life. Well, if we’re being honest, it also impacts, in many cases, the father’s life, though that’s another can of worms, altogether.
So then, where was this “bans off our bodies” crowd a year ago? Suppose that’s all in the past, though. Funnily enough, the people now fighting for choice might be the same who were doing that last year, albeit for a different choice.
Because that’s what freedom is. It doesn’t just exist when someone else considers you’re making the right choices. Freedom is being permitted to cast your dice, and see where it lands. And most of all, to suffer the consequences.
Personally, I’m pro-choice, in that I think keeping abortion legal means keeping it safe. It’s silly to imagine abortions won’t happen if we make them illegal, and deeply delusional. Abortions have always been a thing, even in the most religious, Christian-centric societies of our past. Of course, back then, they often didn’t achieve their purpose, and placed the mother’s life in serious danger, as well. Now, if we decide to ban abortions, they will still happen, though don’t start picturing the backroom coat-hanger nitty-gritty just yet. Rather, we’re looking at small, private, very discreet, and very well-oiled clinics that will perform these procedures at thrice the price. We might not want to admit it, but it is, usually, all about money. Of course, those less fortunate who won’t afford the expensive medical stuff may resort to pills and coat-hangers. People may well die.
So there is that.
Why abortion should remain an option
Well, first, because it will be an option, as I was saying, legal or not.
Secondly, because it already entails its own set of grave and serious repercussions, which the mother will deal with. Studies suggest that many women struggle with depression, low self-esteem, promiscuous (and downright reckless) behavior, abusive relationships, and so many other serious issues post-abortion. While the press may talk of abortion breezily, there are serious moral and mental dangers to this procedure.
Knowing that you’ve chosen to end the life developing inside of you is a burden that many women never recover from bearing.
And so, no, it shouldn’t be up to someone else - be it the state, the Church, or random activists - to punish them. Though the effects of abortion will vary from woman to woman, those likely to be swayed by heartbeat rhetoric are likely to suffer and struggle, anyway.
Banning abortion paves the way to a totalitarian dictatorship of unprecedented proportions.
The central idea of Roe v. Wade was that it challenged another, far more caustic and dangerous idea - that the state knows best. And that it hides behind various trivialities to conceal this unfathomable and undeserved power.
It seems to me as mental now as it did last year, with the vaccines.
You’re not permitted to do this thing, because it will have consequences.
Well, of course, everything has consequences. Yet, as long as we don’t label abortion as murder, I don’t see how the state, God, or anyone else might be permitted to intervene. Even then, you should only be allowed to speak for an unborn life, if you’re prepared to take ownership of it, post-birth. If you, as the state, can viably support the woman through pregnancy, and offer the child, once it’s born, a good, stable home. Not an orphanage, not placement. Because those are solutions that do not work.
And if we were to consider for a moment, all the atrocious places that child may end up in - abused, malnourished, beaten, sodomized, sent to beg and prostitute himself, living in poverty and constant, mind-numbing hardship... who are you to say that’s preferable?
Of course, with that logic, the mother shouldn’t be allowed to speak for the child, either. Yet, assuming that, as is now the case, she will be responsible for the child over the next two decades, it seems to me hers is a more knowledgeable on-point opinion than yours.
Besides, banning abortions isn’t about the child’s welfare. Seriously, when has the state (or the Church, for that matter) cared about your well-being? Look around yourself, we live in a world where prices are rapidly spiraling out of our control, and forcing many of us into abject poverty, hardship, and debt. Where the platitude of the herd is preferable to the health of the individual. Where politicians lie, cheat, and manipulate your thoughts as a matter of course. And you really think these people are going to fight the good fight when it comes to innocent babies?
The only reason they’re getting involved are money and control. The only reason the Church is getting involved, surprise surprise, also money and control.
Personally, I don’t know what the resolution ought to be. Maybe it’s bad to keep abortions legal, maybe it’s disastrous to ban them. Maybe everyone should be left to do as they think best, at the time, and struggle with the consequences, afterwards. You know, as one might in a truly free society.
And just as a disclaimer, I'm not looking for an argument. I think it should be a choice, a legal choice. If you don't, that's fine. That's your right. I'm just trying to figure out my own thoughts on the subject.
My opinion on this subject stems from personal experience where a mother who was an addict had the choice of abortion, as it was legalized in SA in 1996. However, there were hardly any clinics performing it and of course the stigma of 'taking a life' was there.
We fostered her 2 children for a couple of years but it took its toll on my own children. The mother hardly ever made contact with them.
Her oldest now is an addict living on the streets, so to speak, just like his mother, whose life was ended after a beating by her 'boyfriend' .
She had no chance, her family turned their backs on her, even in death!
She was my ex-sister in law, that brother had/has no heart but that's another story!!!
My niece thankfully met a good kind man and is a good mother to her own children!
Right or wrong, it's a very difficult choice to make, but a child born from a mother who is not ready to take on the responsibility, doesn't have much of a chance in life!
I believe because of the stigma they often will not go for an abortion. Very difficult one, but at least give them the opportunity to make that choice!
I'm so sorry to hear about the struggles of these two kids (and their mother, of course), @lizelle. That's exactly it - you can't have an easy, blanket opinion on the matter, not when there are so many variables at play.
You're right, the stigma itself probably prevents a lot of women from doing this, even if the procedure itself might be legal. Though, who knows, maybe for some of them, that thought of how others will view them if they do this might be a reflection of how their own opinion of self would change, should they go through with it? I hope so.. Anyway, thank you so much for the thoughtful comment!
I agree, it's not an easy decision to make!
All this clammer about the overturn of RVW is very amusing since the people causing the clammer don't even understand WHAT the SCOTUS is deciding on. RVW is not being abolished it is being removed from FEDERAL status and being put back into the hands of the individual sovereign states where it should always have been. It has always been a question of overreach by the federal government. I live in a state where the majority of people are pro-life then we should not be forced to comply with a law we opposed to. Likewise, if I live in a state like California where the majority is pro-choice I should not be denied the right to a service I feel I should be able to have.
People live in different states for reasons, some are political, some are due to religious beliefs (being around others that believe the same) and some are for social-economical reasons. The problem we are having here in the United States today is with each group trying to force what it wants and believes in on those that don't think the same.
Texas recently came under fire for passing what some called an anti-abortion law. Texas did not abolish abortion, there were two main changes. One it prohibited the use of state and federal tax dollars from being used to fund abortions and secondly, it banned abortions during the third trimester of pregnancy. Personally, I can think of no reason for needing an abortion after the first six months other than procrastination on the mother's part. Many premature babies survive that are born during the last trimester.
Texas has always been in the heart of what we call the Bible belt here and the majority of people have deep religious convictions. If you want to live a life that is contrary to those beliefs feel free but don't try to make that majority conform to your lifestyle, that is not what freedom and America are about. Each one of us, whatever we believe, has a God-given right, as stated in the constitution, to the pursuit of happiness.
So I support the decision in the Supreme court in putting this power back into the hands of each individual state to decide as they may how to govern themselves. There are a number of areas the federal government should be put in check, this is just one of them. It is time we return to "government FOR the people, BY the people" and I think SCOTUS will make the decision to do just that.
Hopefully, we will see the issue of federal power over the education of our children being restricted and returned to the states next. Another area of overreach that needs to be dealt with.
Just my 2 cents.
Thank you for explaining that a little better! I admit I was not aware that's what it meant (the whole state autonomy thing has always been a bit tricky to follow for me, as a European). While I find your comment extremely thoughtful and well put together, I have a question:
But supposing the law in your state was that women were allowed to have abortions up to, I don't know, 12 weeks? How would that be harmful for the pro-life majority? I mean, wouldn't the people who are pro-life keep their baby anyway, regardless of the law? That's where the issue gets murky for me, because having abortion laws in place doesn't impose on the people who want to keep their babies...
That being said, I agree completely that abortion past six months is absurd and vicious. I mean, I looked over US abortion laws by state while writing this, and was astonished to find the very liberal abortion laws over there. In my own country, it's apparently 14 weeks. Personally, I think the heartbeat law is more than fair. While it can be tricky to detect pregnancy, six weeks is ample time to realize something's off, and nip to the chemist for a pregnancy test.
It affects pro-lifers in that the tax dollars they pay are used to fund these abortions by the federal government. Planned Parenthood, basically an abortion chain found in almost all states, receives millions of dollars from the government every year. My pro-life stance is based on my religious convictions that abortion is wrong in the sight of God so it is offensive to me that my tax dollars are used to fund something I am against (I don't approve much of anything they spend my tax money on these days though). Also, teenagers can get abortions at these places without parental consent. You also never hear about "botched" abortions that happen where women die or come close to it. These are not hospitals, they are abortion clinics, I would never let my daughter have a procedure there and it would break my heart to get a phone call from one of them informing me something had gone wrong after the fact. These are the ways it affects pro-lifers.
Why states? Why not county or even city level?
Only the states are sovereign with the right to self-govern, counties and cities do not hold that privilege.
oh goodie. That means I don't have to obey city or county ordanences, speed limits, or zoneing codes and I can ignore that pesky home owners assosication.
If the state chooses to hand down the abortion law to counties and cities then they can regulate them but it is not likely to happen, they can still "attempt" to pass their own laws but if challenged in court it most likely will not be upheld. And yes you still have to abide by your local laws since your state has allowed them to govern over those issues.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Correct, the "people" could take up the issue or the state could delegate it to counties and municipalities.
Repealing Roe V Wade will leave it to someone else besides the federal government to decide if abortion is acceptable or not. Presumeably the states...but maybe not.
Read the ninth and tenth amendments. It's conceiveable that regulating abortion might be a city level authority.