Abortion, angry women, and “choice”
I was walking in a certain town in New England this past Saturday and I happened on a pro-abortion demonstration. I heard it long before I saw it. There was a lot of yelling and honking, and a crowd composed mostly but not entirely of women, many of them carrying signs.
One that especially caught my eye was this: “ANGRY WOMEN WILL CHANGE THE WORLD.” My immediate thought was they already have, for the worse. What are they so all-fired angry about? What they see as the potential loss of the right to abortion? In most states, that right will remain, although some of the demonstrators probably aren’t even aware of what Alito’s draft actually said or what it actually meant, and are therefore highly susceptible to leftist propaganda about it.
Another large sign I saw read, “Impeach Alito.” For what? My guess is that the bearer of that sign probably neither knew nor cared what impeachment is supposed to be about. To her it may simply be a synonym for “removing someone whose decisions and policies I don’t like.”
The idea that any state could ban or severely limit abortion – not just their own state, but any state – is unconscionable to these demonstrators, both men and women. A leftist-favored “right” once created, however poorly-reasoned the opinion that creates it, can never be allowed to be taken away. The ratchet only works in one direction for leftists, and any reversal is an anathema.
I also noticed two posts at Legal Insurrection (this and this) in which people who are asked about abortion or outright killing of viable infants, even full-term infants, respond by repeating as a sort of mantra that women have the “right to choose.”
Here’s an example from that last one. The man being interviewed is New York’s mayor Eric Adams:
“Do you think there should be any limitation on abortions?”
NYC MAYOR ADAMS: “No, I do not.”
“None? Day of birth, totally fine?”
NYC MAYOR ADAMS: “No, I do not. Women should have a right to choose” pic.twitter.com/zvyIq4iLsQ
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 15, 2022
Right after that, he adds, “Men shouldn’t have the right to choose how women should treat their bodies” (see this video, which can’t be embedded here).
Eric Adams’ statement is both nonsensical and horrifically amoral. But that’s where the Democratic Party has arrived, whether all its voters realize that or not. And that’s what the “right to choose” and “pro-Choice” are meant to hide. Who isn’t for liberty, for the right to choose? But the right to choose is not absolute – in other words, we can choose to steal or murder or to assault someone, but those acts are unlawful and if the legal system was working correctly we would pay the price. Someone like Adams and the women demonstrating for unlimited abortion are saying that there should be no such limits on abortion even if states decide democratically to limit it. And to label the killing of a viable child “abortion” and “choice” is an assertion way way down the slippery slope to evil. Calling it “choice” does not mitigate the evil, although to some it hides that evil rather effectively.
But that’s why people defending abortion and especially late-term abortions keep repeating the word “choice.” It is a smokescreen employed to hide what they are actually saying. And adding the idea that men have no right to “choose how women should treat their bodies” introduces two absurdities. The first is that a person can only opine on and vote for or against a question that can directly affect that person. What about post-menopausal women? Do they still get a vote on this, or does their right to vote on it end with the cessation of menstruation? What about trans men; are they allowed to vote on it?
The second absurdity is, of course, the idea that a full-term baby is a part of a woman’s body and that she gets to choose to murder it if she so desires. And “absurdity” is a word that’s way too kind – it’s actually an abomination.
[NOTE: The other day the name Peter Singer came up the comments, because he is a “bioethicist” who advocates infanticide in some circumstances. I have written extensively about Singer in 2015, in a three-part series. Part I is here, Part II is here, and Part III is here.]
How far Democrats have fallen from “safe, legal, and rare!” And if large number of voters accept the idea that it’s okay to kill babies who are ready to be born, or who have just been born, then we have descended into the depths of barbarism.
There is no question that this issue, perhaps the most contentious of all in our polarized society, produces much anger, hysteria, and fractious protesting. Anyone with any interest in the history of this debate is encouraged to read the well-written and very moving book by the famous “abortion doctor” Bernard Nathanson, who died in 2011. His memoir, entitled The Hand of God, will reward any reader with the perspective of a highly intelligent and (once upon a time) highly involved participant in abortion who had a change of heart following much personal anguish and considerable soul-searching.
“Eric Adams’ statement is both nonsensical and horrifically amoral.”
Shouldn’t that be “immoral”? Yes, I understand the distinction. And I think “amoral” is the wrong term in this case. We call murder “immoral,” and late-late-term abortions, at the very least, are the same thing.
Not only are they angry but so many of them are just gross.
This delightful person was protesting in Seattle this weekend.
https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1525618831263080450
The one that stuck with me this weekend is that Maura Healey, who is running for governor here in Massachusetts, saying that she’ll fight any national ban on abortion. Of course there is no such thing and as a Harvard grad and a lawyer I know she knows what striking down Roe V. Wade actually means. It don’t know what’s more sad, that she has no problem bamboozling her constituency who obviously have no idea what this actually means or the fact they have no idea what the ruling actually means.(Since they think it means a ban on abortion.)
Women, and Trans, and Men that can give birth don’t have to worry here in CO. Abortion up to and including day of birth is OK here. Of course that could have an effect on our Gov and his spouse.
Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher, eugenics supporter, was recently invited and boycotted from St. Olaf, Institute of Freedom and Community
https://www.theolafmessenger.com/2022/st-olaf-responds-to-ifc-inviting-philosopher-peter-singer-to-campus/
Singer claims that “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.”
In the recent long thread, there was a joke about how pro-abortion folk should have been aborted. Well, they’re certainly having far fewer kids, as well as aborting far more of those kids who otherwise would be born to such pro-abortionists. Since this self-de-selection has been going on for 5 decades, it’s no surprise that every election there are fewer pro-abortion, born & raised, voters.
I did have a single child girlfriend like that, and another who did have one brother, but her mother has no grandkids.
I suspect one secret, or unconscious, cause of anger, is the knowledge that they are on the wrong side of demographic history. It is essentially inevitable that more kids will be born to pro-life parents.
Women with many grandkids will usually change the world more than angry women with few or none.
Adams is proving to be a consummate jackass.
Tangential to this topic:
It occurred to me yesterday that it reduces to creation vs. destruction. We humans are designed to create and the more one focuses her or his life on creating, multiplying one’s talents in the world; the more one will grow and develop.
If one focuses on destruction, tearing down creation, destroying life, stifling hope; one will devolve into bitterness, hatred and anger.
I also noticed two posts at Legal Insurrection . . . in which people who are asked about abortion or outright killing of viable infants, even full-term infants, respond by repeating as a sort of mantra that women have the “right to choose.”
Should Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden have had the “right to choose” in 1942?
Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray (who have formed a friendship, which is wonderful in itself) recently discussed Murray’s new book*: “The War on the West” in this podcast: https://youtu.be/fd5qf4pG-xg
At one point Murray says something brilliant that I will paraphrase here, much less wittily: “When one looks around one and is disappointed with one’s life it is so much more satisfying to blame any number of bogeymen. Almost no one wants to hear that the person most responsible for where they are is the person they see in the mirror.”
These people do not want to face that truth and will do almost anything to avoid examining that reality.
*Boy, it’s good. Well worth a listen. Murray sugarcoats nothing and pulls no punches. He dissects and devastates arguments of race hustlers and others with precision and does not hesitate to speak true facts, no matter how currently unpopular.
Rufus,
Douglas Murray is great. His last two books ‘The Strange Death Of Europe’ and ‘The Madness Of Crowds’ were also very good.
On the angry women topic:
British comedian John Cleese recently said: https://www.kunc.org/2020-07-31/funny-guy-john-cleese-riffs-on-why-there-is-no-hope-in-his-new-show
Another, Cleese quote:
It is an obvious thing, but the way Cleese expresses it in that quote; it is so logical and sensible. Everyone can understand it.
You cannot build a successful television show, business, society, culture, political party, religion… if it is built on the most fragile members of your audience, customer base, society, culture, electorate or congregation.
Imagine a football, soccer, hockey, basketball or baseball coach designing the team’s plays and strategy around the weakest, slowest, least athletic, least likely to score member of the team? How would that work out?
Feminism and abortion are linked. Here’s a picture of what feminism has wrought.
https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-08-at-9.30.05-PM.png?w=1160&ssl=1
The nourishing, mothering instinct has been kicked to the curb. It has been replaced with a selfishness and lack of empathy associated with unfeeling men. Sad.
FWIW, there was a lot speculation that since this was a Monday that SCOTUS was releasing new decisions that the Roe decision could come today but it apparently will not be today.
No idea what to make of that but it’s interesting.
“A leftist-favored “right” once created, however poorly-reasoned the opinion that creates it, can never be allowed to be taken away.” neo
They have a right to protest, we have a right to ignore them. If they escalate their protest, we have a right to respond proportionately.
New Yorkers deserve Mayor Adams.
Kate,
“if large number of voters accept the idea that it’s okay to kill babies who are ready to be born, or who have just been born, then we have descended into the depths of barbarism.”
Barbarians threaten civilization. History confirms and common sense makes obvious that societal survival requires their neutralization. Is the killing of babies less evil than the Nazis?
BigD,
Healey’s knowingly misleading the public is prima facie evidence of her unfitness for public office. We all know that the mass media prevents that unfitness from exposure.
The Left’s propaganda organs of which Healey is a member, have long acted to bring about hatred and contempt for the established order. English common law defines that as one quality of sedition.
“Almost no one wants to hear that the person most responsible for where they are is the person they see in the mirror.” Rufus paraphrasing Murray
That brought to mind the famous conclusion to Jimmy Buffet’s song “Margaritaville”. I suspect its popularity springs from the public’s approval when someone else accepts responsibility for their own actions.
JJ,
“Feminism and abortion are linked.”
Imagining that men are not needed and that perception determines physical reality will lead to great tragedy for any society whose majority embraces those illusions.
Nathanson even admitted that he had lied about the numbers of women who died in illegal abortions.
“I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws [against abortion] eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible,”
Sedition laws were tried in thus country, Geoffrey. But you know that?
The average IQ is a 100. I guess most of the protesters fall below this or they are people that have a affection for anger. This is a none issue. It is an issue of responsibility and the knowledge that abortions are not self care. I know many women who had an abortion that were never able to have a child afterwards. Late term abortions should be off the table, unless someone has major health issues.
The louder the protesters get, the uglier their ignorance gets.
The average IQ is a 100. –JHCorcoran
I don’t think IQ has a lot to do with this — though both the right and the left tend to believe the smart people are, of course, on their side.
I’ve been watching Elon Musk videos lately. On a Joe Rogan interview Musk was speculating about human brains. He explained the division between the neocortex, where our fancy human intelligence happens, and the limbic system, where the emotional-mammalian survival processing happens.
Musk flat stated that the neocortex works to make the limbic system “happy” — not the other way around. Which is to say, generally one’s reasoning works to reinforce one’s emotional biases.
We see this all the time.
Humans can, with great effort, self-reflection and honesty, use reason to overcome emotional biases, but that’s not the normal way humans work.
This is a more elegant way of stating the Planet of the Apes metaphor I have used frequently.
Huxley
Good points and true indeed.
Rufus
I have listened to every podcast with Douglas Murray the past few weeks reviewing his new book. He is very smart, a good interviewer, and great writer.
“…but that’s not the normal way humans work….”
I suspect that’s why everyone should have their Own Private Jester…
(Of course the problem “these days” is that comedy’s dead…or gasping for breath…. On the other hand, Bill Maher seems to be trying his very best, so high marks for him…)
If a woman has the choice as to whether to have a baby or not, shouldn’t the man have the choice (which he certainly does not have now) whether to devote much of his income to supporting them? Let’s be consistent one way or the other.
God has divided mankind into two groups:
1. Those who believe that the most powerful biological force is the tendency of a population to be dominated by its most quickly reproducing members. (the Darwinians)
2. Those who are actually reproducing. (the non-Darwinians)
Feminism and abortion are linked.
Like the Peter Principle and Murphy’s Law, there are short-form and long-form definitions of what feminism is. The short-form definition of ‘feminism’ is as follows: ‘the habit of assessing human relations with the assumption that women have options…and men have obligations’. The abortion discourse is not ‘linked’ to feminism. It exemplifies it.
}}} The average IQ is a 100. –JHCorcoran
I don’t think IQ has a lot to do with this — though both the right and the left tend to believe the smart people are, of course, on their side.
I assert my previously made observation, it’s Wisdom, not Intellect, that they are sorely lacking in.
Were there a WQ test to match the IQ test, the vast majority of self-identified “liberals” these days (or “progressives”, same thing), they would be almost uniformly be found to be in the bottom 1/3rd of the resulting “WQ” normal bell curve.
I cannot find it, but, a couple days back, probably when your spam filter was acting up, there was an abortion thread. I posted something to it, then tried posting another, and that was rejected, repeatedly. I’ve looked back, can’t see where there was a thread I had anything posted. So, not sure what the heck happened.
Meanwhile, I saved it — that first line is a quote from earlier in the thread, in my usual format.
}}} A human life is, by law, viable from her first to last heart beat
Mmmm. pretty sure that THAT is an utterly inaccurate statement of The Law. It can be argued it is moral, just, and ethical, but it certainly does NOT represent The Law as-is.
I believe, as always the issue is complex as fuck, and everyone on either side tries to reduce it to some simple platitudinal matter just to make their point “inviolable”.
1 — “I’ve seen an ultrasound. It looks human.”. Yeah, so does a wax figure at Mme Tussaud’s. I think we can agree that isn’t human. Q.E.D.: Appearance ain’t it, part 1.
2 — Horrific burn victim, also a quadriplegic, due to the burns and whatever burned them. Looks far more like a huge steak than a person. Human? Yeah, likely. Q.E.D.: Appearance ain’t it, part 2.
3a — Has human DNA. Really? So, a skin cell that flaked off your arm. It’s got human DNA. Is it a human? Duh, No.
3b — “Has human DNA, It can become a larger thing”. Pretty sure I can take something like a deeper skin cell, put it into a petri dish, then cultivate it to make more skin cells. Is the petri dish contents human? Duh, No.
3c — Fertilized ova. Is therefore a human being. Really? Why? I concur and do not dispute: it can become a human being. But at the moment of fertilization, it becomes one? You need a better argument.
3c(I) — At the moment it becomes fertilized, God put a soul attached to it. Ok, we have something here, but it’s a religious argument, cannot be verified without an appeal to religious beliefs, and generally cannot and should not be justified for use as a basis for The Law. If you do this, you open the argument for Muslims to put forth Sharia as a basis for The Law. No. No thank you.
3c(II) — The other problem with this claim is clear: If that is so, then God Himself aborts a lot of souls, because it’s fairly common for a fertilized egg to fail to bond to the lining of the womb, if it happens too early or too late in a woman’s menstrual cycle. Now, I concur, “God can make this decision, and Man cannot” is a reasonable assertion, but I really really have to ask: Why the heck would God do such a thing? Why would God attach a soul to something only to have it naturally abort as a matter of “random chance”? Q.E.D., So perhaps He does not do this, at all. Perhaps there is a point at which the soul gets attached to the fetus, when it moves from “something that might become a human being” to “something which IS a human being”. This fits reasonable sense more than the “fertilized ova” argument.
4 — so, we have a reasonable argument against the fertilized ova assertion, as well as the “it looks like a human” assertion. So what other criteria might be reasonable, preferably one which does not require an appeal to religious principles? I assert, baldly, that the clear point is the one in which the fetus develops independent brainwaves from the mother. If we have any indications of what represents individuality in a human, independent thoughts and ideas, it is brainwaves. Which, interestingly, begin to be uniquely unsynced from the mother @ ca. 12-16 weeks… which matches up to the point beyond which most people start to come to full agreement (except for liberal extremists) about the legality of an abortion.
This does not argue for that timeframe as being “abortion acceptable”, so much as it argues for what The Law should say, sans further studies and evidence, and/or a much clearer, less subjective definition of “What makes a human being a human and not just another living creature?”
I still think, socially, we should discourage outright abortion as a whole (I have no issue with the “day after pill” in any regard. That is clearly mimicking natural processes up to that point), and encourage bringing to term and adoption.
But it should still be mostly up to the mother about what to do (and: mind you — if the father wants the child, then the father should absolutely have the right to raise it over any other individual except the mother, and should have significant legal paternal rights even if she decides to raise it — but that’s part of an entirely different Pandora’s box of legal issues) — though, again, paternally, the father should be made aware of their paternity, if it is known, and should be allowed their input into the decision making process, even though, in the end, it is still up to the woman, who must bear the physical burden.
TL;DR:
Abortion probably should be legal, but socially discouraged, even strongly discouraged, up to the end of the 1st trimester. The fathers, if known, should be legally required to be made aware of it, and allowed their input into the choice, though the choice should still be in the hands of the mother (she should be allowed the presence of a psychologist of her choice, if she wishes, lest she feel browbeaten in the father’s preferential direction). In the event the child is born, to be put up for adoption, then the father’s paternal rights should have every first consideration subsequent to the mother’s. In general, if men are (rightly, no question) to be considered responsible for paternity, then there should be some commensurate authority, to balance that responsibility.
P.S., A friend who is in general agreement along similar lines with me brought up an argument which seems reasonable, too:
You cannot force someone to donate blood or organs to save another person.
Suppose I have an exceptionally rare blood type. Suppose PersonA has that same rare blood type. Neither of us can take a transfusion of blood from anyone else, due to that type. We are the only two known possessors of this type.
PersonA gets into an accident, and, without an immediate transfusion, will die.
I refuse. You cannot force me to provide blood. I am being a total dick, but, it’s still “my choice”.
In what manner is this different from a fetus with the mother?
She’s giving blood, use of her organs, etc., to keep the fetus alive until it can be removed (or birthed, but even “removed”) as viable.
How do you justify forcing her to do so? Given the blood transfusion argument, in particular? The situations are, if not identical, exceptionally similar in the moral and ethical issues they raise. You may be being a heartless, self-centered dick to allow the other to die, but it is within your rights and actual legal responsibility as a person to do so.
OBloody:
Here are the differences:
(1) An act of the mother caused the dependent person to exist in the first place, which changes her responsibility towards that person (as opposed to the blood transfusion situation).
(2) The mother has already been providing blood and the use of her body to keep the fetus alive (as opposed to the blood transfusion situation). She would like to stop doing so, thus killing the child. In the blood transfusion situation, one cannot compel the person to start doing so, but that’s not analogous to whether the mother can stop doing so.
neo:
Kaboom, but gently.
I assert my previously made observation, it’s Wisdom, not Intellect, that they are sorely lacking in.
Were there a WQ test to match the IQ test, the vast majority of self-identified “liberals” these days (or “progressives”, same thing), they would be almost uniformly be found to be in the bottom 1/3rd of the resulting “WQ” normal bell curve.
ObloodyHell:
However, many on the right and the left are pleased to make that distinction with the understanding that Wisdom is aligned with their particular beliefs and opinions.
I don’t say that all beliefs and opinions are equal, but sorting them out against capital-W Wisdom is less than straightforward.
Sixty million years ago we were tree shrews. We might evince some humility on that score. But humility generally doesn’t make us feel as good as moral certainty and righteous indignation towards those who disagree with us.
Abortion and outright infanticide have been with human civilization since the beginning. Here’s Aristotle, one of the foundational thinkers of Western Civilization, on abortion:
_____________________________
..when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.
Aristotle, Politics 7.16
For a mite bit further context — although insufficient context at that, given it’s Aristotle we’re dealing with — here’s a wider chunk of Politics 7, 1335b [20-39]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0057%3Abook%3D7%3Asection%3D1335b
huxley:
Somewhat relayed to wisdom and self satisfied assumptions (not addresses to anyone specifically):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rhCYhlxlp04
The strongest case for terminating a pregnancy (and I think the one most people accept) rests on the principal that the woman has sovereignty over her own body. It’s the most basic moral human right shared by all women and men: I own myself; my body; my mind.
But there’s a huge difference between legally allowing a woman to become “un-pregnant” by removing an embryo or fetus from her body, and saying that she also has an unlimited corresponding right to do whatever she wants to the separate body, the embryo/fetus/child, that is removed from her. THAT’S where things become morally muddled and potentially horrifying.
At some point in the second trimester, a fetus/child MUST, medically, be delivered in order to remove it from the woman’s body. This is true whether the woman is having an elective abortion, or whether there is a problem in the pregnancy involving a wanted (real) child. It’s a matter of whether the fetus is killed by injection before the delivery occurs, and also a matter of whether the woman’s cervix is medically dilated a few centimeters more or less. If less-dilated, then the fetus must be dismembered to pass through; a few centimeters more and the fetus can emerge intact and potentially alive.
It’s a simple question but one on which so much rests: does a woman have a right to terminate a pregnancy, or does she have an all-encompassing right to a dead baby up to the moment a full-term living infant is 100% emerged from her body? A right that would extend even AFTER the fetus is completely out of her body in those jurisdictions that refuse to enact “Born Alive” types of protections.
No one seems to ask this; no one is made to lay out the moral or ethical case for making the deliberate killing of a viable fetus entirely within a woman’s “right to choose” once the fetus is removed. Using the popular hypothetical where a woman is connected to another person for a transfusion, imagine that she wants to disconnect the tube and go her own independent way. She would have the right to do so, even if that meant that the other person would soon die. But what if the transfusion had been going on for so long that it was almost certain the other person could now be saved with appropriate medical care? In what way could the woman be entitled to “choose” to have doctors deny the other person that care?? She’s achieved her bodily autonomy. She doesn’t have to pay for the other person’s care, and she doesn’t have to assume the burden of continuing to care for that person because there are others who are eager to take on that responsibility.