WORDS: 2,254 — So, you think all this “noise” is just between pro-choice’ers and pro-life’ers? It sure seems like it. But in our usual human way of trying to solve (or resolve) social problems we always seem to have to make a law in order to compel (.. let’s call it “threaten with imprisonment”) anyone who engages in such “abhorrent” social behavior as a result of one side winning a debate in court or on some legislative floor on what defines as “abhorrent behavior”. We like to surrender to that very intentional human trait of imposing our collective will… dominance… over others who don’t think they way we do regarding how things should be run. We are all idiots and I am here as one idiot to straighten out the idiotic debate… which we all know will not happen.
To that you might declare… with smug indignation, “keeping the unborn from being murdered is idiotic??”. No.. the debate is, simply because of so many facets to it that tends to feed off of myth, disinformation, outdated information.. playing off religious belief and political agenda… along with the usual lack of understanding regarding human nature. I think the vast majority of humans on this planet will agree, an intentional abortion is something not generally wanted, any more than the unintentional abortion (miscarriage or other complications)… albeit from different emotional perspectives to be sure. To me the ultimate focus should be… for what reason would a woman even want an abortion? But to many, that is irrelevant when in fact, it’s all of it.
Everyone has an opinion on the abortion debate, particularly regarding the Supreme Court leak of a draft suggesting the Conservative Justices are likely backing away from the 50 year old decision regarding Roe vs. Wade. We won’t know the final determination until next month. But whether they keep it or not, GOP-dominated states have taken it upon themselves to do their own thing in skirting around the original decision. Hence, the great political and social vitriolic divide in this country continues raging like one of the many all-consuming and relentless wild fires that are now so common these days. We are burning ourselves up.. consuming ourselves with polarizing division. The abortion debate is just one of many “fuels” feeding this divide.
The Debate Is In The Least Multi-Faceted And Not Just About Killing The Unborn….
If you listen closely at the elements making up the abortion debate (most don’t) you can see the (alleged) reasoning falling on the process itself of destroying an unborn fetus as being direct murder. Then you can see another element falling on the political idea that individual states should determine any defined legality (or illegality) and not the Supreme Court. Then there’s the Constitutional argument that nowhere in that document does it say anything about abortion or any right of personal choice to support the process… thus challenging (allegedly) individual freedom to decide things relating to our own bodies. Let’s not forget the Roe decision led to government deciding that to make such abortion procedure available to all Americans equally by using tax dollars for the poor, thereby suggesting to some that it all amounted to sanctioned murder using public money provided by God-fearing, anti-abortion Christians. To add a bit more complex “color” to all this…. as of 2020, abortion pills became the most common way to terminate a pregnancy in the United States. That alone seems to nullify the former reasoning suggesting a risk to the life and health of the mother of back alley abortion OR a legal medical procedure. In order to regulate that kind of pill an attempt to regulate abortions by the states will now involve interstate intervention.. no mail, no transport across state borders, and how would any of that be enforced. The point here is that the abortion debate involves a bit more than simply saying “no” to the process itself and includes legal precedent settling law, not to mention the complexities of enforcement. If that’s not enough, the predictable (inevitable?) progression of imposing minority morality will be attacks on contraception.. coming soon to a state near you.
When I explore a particular problem I go for trying to understand the origins of the problem and then try and understand what has made it so important as to gain our attention to remedy. I’m hardly unique using that format because it’s a logical step in problem solving. But for me gauging the extent of the problem.. in other words, what is making it a problem, is generally all about data collection to determine a statistical understanding of a problem. Things like how many people are being affected… the demographics… the frequency of occurrence, etc. The abortion debate has been alive for the last 50+ years so there’s been a lot of myth, exaggeration, and changing tech over the years to pretty much mix up the entire argument. Of course one might say that “it’s all about killing an unborn human being”. But that’s way too broad a description of the issue (no pun intended). If someone tells me that abortions are on an increase in America then to me part of understanding that requires me to ask… why is that? Simply passing a law doesn’t end the reasons abortions are done to begin with. Humans adapt.. and if an abortion is desired then it’s back to the back alleys and people will risk illness or death… meaning the unborn AND the mother can die. Simply passing a law doesn’t seem a problem-solving wise solution to me.
Let’s Visit Some Of Those Stats
Consider these stats from the CDC, except for the Guttmacher graph below (one would think these folks would be about as credible as anyone can get).
I heard a number that something like 65 million abortions have occurred since Roe in 1973. Seeing this I ask, what led to the rise in 1980, and more important what has led to the decades of decline? Seems to me if one wants to reduce abortions we might want to know that to maybe enhance the success even further.
This rather blows up the idea that abortions are the sole remedy for young, promiscuous, single women choosing a life over motherhood.
This one rather suggests “the idea that one-time abortions lead to subsequent abortions because they become easier” as unfounded.
One wonders why all the new laws are trying to set “time limits” for aborting during the gestation process when apparently that’s not an issue.
So… most women seeking abortions are NOT juveniles??
Hmmm… this means that 54% of women seeking abortions ARE married??
Then choosing abortion is NOT only the purview of the poor and indigent??
Oh.. and those abortion pills? The following is from Associated Press via NBC News of Guttmacher stats…
More than half of U.S. abortions are now done with pills rather than surgery, an upward trend that spiked during the pandemic with the increase in telemedicine, a report released Thursday shows.
In 2020, pills accounted for 54 percent of all U.S. abortions, up from roughly 44 percent in 2019.
The preliminary numbers come from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. The group, by contacting providers, collects more comprehensive abortion data than the U.S. government.
So the stats would suggest that in spite of the decline in abortions there is indeed still an impactful number of people feeling as if they need to get an abortion over a wide demographic. I’ve presented the point that a huge part of the current abortion issue is far more about establishing some legal definition in order to permit or deny individual choice rather trying to solve a greater social problem. The same goes for drug use. All the laws in the land haven’t been able to stop drug use because laws do not make the reasons vanish. Making laws against the act of abortion will not remove abortions from being done.
The Hypocrisy Argument
Since abortion has had decades of debate, thought settled with the Roe decision, and now resurrected again, we are again hearing the word hypocrisy. One of the elements of any debate, abortion or otherwise, is generally accusing the other side of some level of hypocrisy. We generally think that’s an easy “gotcha” in any argument. In reality, when taken in context, one person’s hypocrisy is another person’s mile-wide difference. Recently I found myself surrendering into reading one female blogger’s opinion on the abortion debate, who was indeed presenting all the hypocrisy being displayed by the pro-choice reasoning, thereby asserting that the opposition’s hypocrisy alone suggests their argument for pro-choice was incorrect, faulty, and of course, incomprehensively wrong, morally and legally. While I don’t necessarily care to quote myself (easier to copy & paste than re-type it), here’s a part of my reply to that blogger’s post.
Well, first off, humans by nature all tend to live life in various forms of “hypocrisy” so to debate what comprises a hypocrisy on an issue like this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Both sides of this debate contain a myriad of definitions, perceptions, motivations, and convictions for how a person might feel on this subject. What makes the issue of “abortion, yes-or-no” is more about the debate itself than the actual act itself. So far we’ve been unable to separate the two.
I submit that the real debate here is not a debate at all. Consider a bit more of my reply.
The single common factor that both sides “should” be able to build upon is that in the broader sense I can’t imagine anyone actually WANTING an abortion. It’s a decision of choice based on extenuating circumstances of living life…. quite often a decision made under a conflicting set of emotions, creating a kind of duress-of-the-moment, playing entirely on, and against, a woman’s natural instinct to spawn and nurture offspring because this is how nature assures the continuation of our species.
This is the crux of my entire point. This entire issue.. to me, of course… is not about screaming and hollering Constitutional precedents and legal postulates to express freedom of choice or sending “murderers” to prison, but rather it’s all about attempting to deal with the origin of what constitutes a reason to abort an unborn fetus at the start. I think we can all agree that when such a decision is being considered it’s not a willy-nilly decision on a whim. Nature has ingrained into the human instinct for reproduction and nurturing our young to such a degree that intentional abortion can be just as traumatic as unintentional abortion (miscarriage). By nature such a decision is not a frivolous decision. Such decisions are quite obviously based on complex life situations for the mother-to-be, as I stated earlier, resulting in a bit of emotional duress. The idea of immense natural guilt for terminating a life they are carrying against something in their life forcing this decision to be made. I am not in the least suggesting my personal judging of the validity of any of those decisions as being good or bad when compared to terminating a pregnancy. Let me try to illustrate a comparison.
Back when we witnessed on live TV the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center one of my personal human takeaways of that day was trying to fathom the decision-making process of those office workers who went to work on a pleasant weather day, as any other day in their lives, maybe thinking of weekend plans, errands to run before going home at the end of the day, etc. Then within one hour of arriving at work some of them made a conscious decision to jump out the window from 90+ floors up to a certain death. Did some consider their decision “logical” given a conflagration was engulfing them to burn them alive? Did some react simply out of shock and trauma? Did some actually understand the futility their situation and decide to take away the decision to die from the event controlling their fate and make a personal choice as to when and how they end their life on their own terms? Did they find a like-minded associate to hold hands with in the jump for that last bit of human contact? One has to presume that making a decision to abort their pregnancy is a lot like jumping out of a window 90 floors up, wondering if your free fall will be a lifetime of guilt… never hitting the ground.
Of course one might point out the counterpoint to all that is… who considers the fetus being destroyed? Isn’t there a right to life? The point I was making with the comparison to jumping on 9/11 was assigning the typical emotional complexity in making a life-changing decision that is at an instinctually opposite direction. Again… one has to agree that in the vast majority of situations, no one, no woman, truly WANTS to abort their child. It’s a gut-wrenching decision for any woman. My perception in reducing the decisions to abort is to tackle the the reasons themselves for aborting. How can society assist a woman with personal reasons to abort, to not abort in the first place. Is it even society’s responsibility to tackle that? Well, seems to me trying to send people to prison for aborting a fetus, as a good portion of society wants to do, is a social attempt to get involved.
In Part Two to come…. “So… To Stop Abortions Without Threats Of Imprisonment For All Parties, What Then Do We Do?” we will discuss exactly that, and more.