Abortion

yes-g59fe19b84_640

I originally wrote this in early 2019. I have added to and deleted as current events on the topic have changed. I hadn’t published it before now because ABORTION, although always in the background, was not the HOT TOPIC that it is today. What you will read below has not been edited to any degree because my feelings about the subject are just as strong today as they were in 2019.

And for many, many years prior.

******************************** 

If every child could be born into a happy, well-adjusted, and loving family, then certainly those that oppose abortion would have a point. But this is NOT always the case. Hundreds of children are born into  situations where the parents are drug-addicts, too poor to care for the child, or one or both of them are mentally incapable of raising a child.

Banning abortion is more than “bafflingly unconstitutional” as the Center for Reproductive Rights put it. It is a pure and unadulterated attack on women! Or as one blogger put it, it’s a “Christo-fascist assault on abortion rights.”

Although I’ve written before on this topic, I feel just as strongly today as I did then. And the fact that it has (once again) been put into the hands of the Supreme Court has simply reignited all my feelings of anger and disgust. 

IMO, at its core, abortion is nothing more than an asinine action on the part of M.E.N.!!!

The male is NOT the one carrying the fetus. He is NOT the one who suffers through childbirth. Technically, the ONLY role he plays is providing the sperm. Certainly in a true and loving relationship, he can offer his thoughts, feelings, and opinions, but in the end, the final decision is — and always has been — the WOMAN‘s.

Further, in cases where an underage girl has been raped, the sex-craved male can show up after the birth and claim “fatherly” rights. How utterly sickening. Not to mention that by the time the baby reaches school age, the mother is often still a child herself. Is there ANY justifiable reason not to terminate such a pregnancy?

No, outside of medical/health considerations, there is absolutely NO justifiable reason for a forced birth. Abortion is never a pleasant decision for any woman to make. They are very well aware of what they are doing. But once again … it is and always should be HER decision.

If abortions are outlawed, there will still be women who, for various and personal reasons, do not want a child … and you can be assured they will take/do whatever steps are necessary to end the pregnancy. History has shown that such efforts have resulted in serious health problems for the woman. Even death.

One last thing and then I’m done. If anti-abortionists would be willing to adopt and/or care for the unwanted child after it’s born, there might be a joining of the minds. But as it is now, all they want is for the woman to have the child no matter what. This isn’t –and never will be– acceptable to the woman who needs (for whatever reason) to have an abortion.

Twitter comment: “If Republicans had to pay to raise the children they “saved” from abortion, Roe v. Wade would be safer than a Confederate flag in an Alabama courthouse.”

Former Republican congressman and current Texas gubernatorial candidate recently ranted that he will “vehemently crush anyone forcing vaccine mandates” in Texas and defended people’s bodies, which he called “our last sanctuary of liberty and freedom.” Yet this same logic is lost when it comes to the topic of abortion.

FINAL NOTE: If you are a women who is anti-abortion? There’s a very simple solution. DON’T HAVE ONE.

************************************
Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

24 thoughts on “Abortion

      • Answer: No, not at all. In fact, Richard Eliot Friedman does this topic much justice in one of his books. Abortion isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Bible, pretty much at all. A human being wasn’t even a “person” until they were born so if you ran into a pregnant woman and she lost her baby, there was a much smaller fine than if you killed her small child.

        Like

  1. I’m not a ‘fan’ of abortion (is anyone?), however one’s personal moral choices aren’t something to be legislated into a dictate for all. I don’t believe the decision to have an abortion is always a mature one, but we live in an imperfect world of imperfect human beings. Let’s not make it worse by giving “holier than thou” purists the power to ‘punish’ immaturity.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. No one is a fan of abortion, but most of us enjoy our rights as human beings. Allowing women to have a choice does not dictate anyone else make that choice, and it doesn’t cause women to want to get pregnant. Women don’t get pregnant because of bad decisions only. However they manage to get pregnant, there has been a sperm donor somewhere along the way. You know. That part of the problem that goes mostly without mention. When a woman is not allowed to abort the rapist’s baby, but the Rapist has the right to parental privileges while having no input or responsibility in raising the child, our world is upside-down.

    This is why men have absolutely no business denying women to make their own decisions. However immature or badly reasoned we may think that decision to be, it should never be ours. I think it’s probably not a pleasant experience for women, either.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. We are a divided household on this.

    I wonder why men would assume that this is not an emotionally draining thing for women.

    The hypocrisy of Republicans and their Christian managers! They hold life in the womb, no matter the circumstances, to the utmost value. However, once the baby is born that value drops instantly. Now, it is not worth feeding, it has no right to healthcare, shelter, education, or civic participation, and parents need not look for socialist assistance.

    Yet they always need a certain part of the male population to be 18-25, good health, average education, and intelligence. Just in case they determine that a little war would perk up the economy. Women? Yes. Women may serve. A grudging allowance. But the men are always their first choice. After all, see how much interest they had in the child once it escaped the womb.

    If this were not a religious agenda we would not have this problem. After the Civil Rights Act passed racism could no longer be the issue to win elections. Abortion did not become illegal because of the church. Originally, abortions were handled by mid-wives and birthers. Women. When the doctors saw how much money women were earning, they had the practice outlawed except by professionals. Men.

    I hope everyone heard Lawrence Tribe on “The Last Word” tonight. If not, go find that video.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. From my point of view it’s purely a personal-freedom issue. There can be no decision more personal than whether or not to have a child, no freedom more personal and basic than whether or not to allow the presence of another organism inside one’s own body.

    The personal-freedom issue renders other considerations irrelevant. Treating a fetus as the moral equivalent of a person is self-evidently absurd, but even if it were the moral equivalent of a person, it would make no difference. There is no obligation to allow another “person” to inhabit and exploit your own body for the sake of its survival — a slavery beyond slavery.

    It would make no difference if anti-abortionists were willing to adopt or financially support children born as a result of abortion being prohibited. The decision must still be up to the woman, and her personal autonomy must not be infringed just because the person forcing her to do something she doesn’t want to do is willing to make a financial sacrifice for the privilege.

    Nor do the taboos of the prohibitionists’ religion matter. Religious taboos are entirely arbitrary, and are irrelevant to people who are not members of the religion in question. If there were a religion which fervently believed that the act of watching TV constituted murder and that TV-watching should therefore be outlawed, the rest of us would be under no obligation to give them a hearing or submit to restrictions on TV-watching.

    Finally, it makes no difference what sex the person trying to interfere with one’s freedom is. Limits on abortion do not become less of an attack on personal self-determination even if the person imposing them is also female. By analogy, military conscription is a similar outrage against personal freedom which historically has almost always applied only to males, but the outrage is not any smaller just because most of the politicians imposing it have also been men. Anybody who supports military conscription or compulsory national service is my mortal enemy, whether it’s a man or a woman. And anyone who works to ban abortion is a mortal enemy of personal freedom, again, regardless of what sex they are.

    Liked by 7 people

  5. Jesus saw divorce laws as independent of God: ‘Dont separate what God has joined together.’ Same for abortion.
    And genocide, rape and slavery: God ordains this stuff to show the consequences of men doing without God.

    Like

    • Jesus saw divorce laws as independent of God: ‘Dont separate what God has joined together.’

      “You can’t do that because it’s against what God did” = a law independent of God. Snort.

      genocide, rape and slavery: God ordains this stuff to show the consequences of men doing without God

      “I will rape and kill you to show you how badly off you would be if I wasn’t here.”

      Religious logic, I guess. Yes, we should definitely surrender our most intimate personal freedoms to people whose minds work like this.

      Liked by 7 people

  6. “In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.”

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

    As for moral reasons, it has occurred to me that there’s a lot of hypocrisy ;;; or illogic … within the “Pro-life” group, Many who oppose abortion claim to believe that the innocent fetus must be protected. Many of these same people believe an infant must be baptized to wash away original sin. If both beliefs were true, when does the formerly innocent fetus become stained by original sin?

    Finally, there seem to be way too many “Christians” who seem to believe that the appropriate response to the question “What would Jesus do?” is to do just the opposite. I think “Hypochristian” is a better name for those people.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Hi Terry! Nice that you stopped by … and even nicer that you shared your thoughts on this VERY sensitive subject. Thank you! I hope you’ll stop by again … and often.

      Liked by 2 people

    • BTW, that article has some REALLY good information in it related to the origination of the anti-abortion movement. I particularly found the following quite interesting:

      In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

      (Emphasis added by me.)

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Nan,

    If I may beg your indulgence here Ma’am, I wrote a blog-series back in 2017 about Agnotology, or the study of human ignorance and knowledge throughout history. One particular scholar I utilized frequently was Dr. Nancy Tuana of Penn State University; a philosopher of science and of feminist science-studies and theory who specializes in issues of ethics and science, but more importantly for here: Dr. Tuana has several poignant scholarly publications about the epistemology of ignorance, especially regarding women’s treatment throughout human (male, patriarchal) history.

    In Part 2 of the series “Women’s Issues & Rights” I began with Emily Dickenson’s following poem (first stanza only, for brevity)…

    “Wild nights — Wild nights!
    Were I with thee
    Wild nights should be
    Our luxury!”

    Her publisher was horrified and distraught by her words and whether to publish those first four lines due to “social norms” of 1860’s patriarchal puritan America. A woman’s menstrual cycle—as you well know Nan—was commonly (ignorantly) diagnosed by male doctors as “hysteria.” Pfft! 🤦‍♂️

    Along women’s sexual bodily rights, Dr. Tuana closely examines seven subjects concerning women’s bodies and pleasures for a contemporary understanding: Epistemologies of Orgasms, Unveiling the Clitoris, Fingering Truth, The Issue of Pleasure, The Either/Or of Women’s Orgasms, Sisterhood Is Powerful, and finally Bodies and Pleasures.

    Along with many other profound lessons learned, here is what I found by Dr. Tuana to be utterly ASTOUNDING Nan in the domain of Abortifacients! Read on…

    It is as easy as sipping a cup of Pride of Barbados herbal tea and washing herself with the same herb/flower in a morning bath. Doing this shortly after intercourse, according to secret ancient medicine in the Caribbean islands, prevents conception safely and comfortably. In fact, a woman could do this repeatedly two or three days after intercourse accomplishing more assured results. Why has this profound medical knowledge NOT been circulated around the world, especially in European civilizations? That is literally the million-dollar question.

    Why? Civilizations over too many centuries have been male dominated, particularly from the pulpit, dictating what women can and cannot do with their own bodies! This NATURAL remedy (abortifacient) known botanically as the “Pride of Barbados” was well-known among indigenous tribes since the start of the 1500’s during the Era called the Age of Discover & Exploration—by the imperial powers of Spain, Portugal, France, and Great Britain. The U.S. would quickly emerge and follow.

    Maria Sibylla Merian, a 17th century German-born Naturalist and botany-entomologist illustrator, documented that both Amerindians and African slave-women used the abortifacient flower almost exclusively because they did not want their child born into the slave-trade for life.

    Nan, imagine what this world, its nations, and most importantly women around the world might actually be like had men of power and domination NOT stopped this knowledge from reaching those Empires (e.g. the USA) and causing such a MASSIVE ripple-effect of global ignorance. Condoms and birth-control pills might never had become the most common tools of undesired, unplanned births. It can be grown right in your own back garden!

    And yet, in the 21st-century something so very very simple for women to employ and we STILL can’t figure it out mostly because of ignorant, badly antiquated Abrahamic religions/churches and too many males in positions of political power whom they themselves have no such birthing organs, etc, to compare, much less understand!!! 😡

    Talk about a comprehensive cluster-f**k by male ignorance for at least SIX (6) CENTURIES! Sheesh.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Hello Nan. As most people here know and the forced birth people ignore, carrying a pregnancy to term is dangerous and takes a huge toll on the woman’s body. Not to mention the financial costs. In no other legal matter that I can think of is a person required to place themselves in harm to help or even save another. No one is legally required to give up a body part to save another’s life even if that other person is their child. You cannot be forced to give up a kidney to save your offspring. We are not even required to give blood to save others, even though our bodies replenish it.

    But one aspect of forced birth that hits me is the idea it is ownership, and has its roots in ownership of the woman. In religious traditions the woman’s father owns her and her reproductive rights until he passes her / them off to her husband. The husband owns the woman and her issue. In the days of chattel slavery in the US female slaves were often forced against their will to breed ( sorry it is a horrible way to write this ) and forced to carry to term the pregnancy as the offspring was the property of the owner. Sorry I don’t know how else to write this horrible thing but to say they were treated like livestock. The child born was more livestock for the slave owner to do with as they pleased. That is gone but another player has entered the argument.

    So today the religious organizations are involved. Why when as it has been pointed out Jesus never mentions the topic and the old testament was pro abortion. I think Cagjr mentioned the idea of get them young and have them forever that has been often repeated by religions. If a woman is forced to carry to term a pregnancy they will need a support system and money for supplies / prenatal care. This makes many poor women dependent on churches and their congregations. That creates a bond between church and woman and then between church and child. Puts seats in pews, tithes in the plate, and workers to spread the religion promoting ever more of the same.

    Hugs

    Liked by 6 people

    • As Christ said of divorce, ‘From the beginning it was not so.’ So with abortion. Things are not as they should be–men in religion and Christianity usurp God’s authority and ownership and the nonreligious ‘dissolve God by analysis.’ History shows humanity’s independence: I do what’s good for me.

      Like

      • As usual, your comment makes little sense. *sigh*

        However, there is substance in your last sentence … “I do what’s good for me” … in that this is exactly what WOMEN should do when it comes to the topic of abortion. NO law or bible scripture or God-believer or anti-abortionist has the authority to usurp HER rights in this matter.

        Liked by 5 people

  9. I do not know if you have heard of this, but a young woman died recently in Poland, because the doctors would not abort her pregnancy, that had turned lethal to her. The new Polish law set by their ultra conservative government dictates, that if there is a “heartbeat” an abortion is supposedly a murder of the “child”. People demonstrated all over Poland in protest to this unnecessary and actual murder of a woman by their government and the signs reminded, that the woman had a heartbeat too.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I had not heard of this incident, but it’s essentially what the Texas politicians have put into law in that state. And if the Republican-appointed members of the Supreme Court have their way, this law would remain in place.

      It’s been proven time and again that the anti-abortionists don’t care about the woman carrying the “child,” All they care about is bowing to the religious propaganda that’s comes from the pulpit.

      I applaud those demonstrators in Poland!!!

      Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.