Sunday, August 18, 2019

The Seven Stupid States


This is an expansion on a post I made years ago, so let me repeat that one first:


ON ABORTION
by Leslie Fish

One of the not-so-minor points in the recent presidential race was the abortion question.  Obama stated that he believed in a woman's right to abortion.  McCain and Palin announced that they didn’t personally believe in abortion but, if elected, they would not make a federal case of it but would leave the legality of abortion to the individual states.  Still, the word went out: “If McCain gets elected, you can kiss Roe vs. Wade goodbye.”  That helped tip the balance toward Obama.  It’s pretty obvious that, no matter what the Family Values crowd may think, a vast number of Americans – particularly women –  want to keep abortion legal.  Those who don’t had best consider the following facts.

First, abortion can take place only during the first trimester of pregnancy.  After that it becomes dangerous to the mother, and no doctor will do it for anything less than a direct threat to the mother’s life.  Now, during the first trimester of pregnancy the object in a woman’s uterus is certainly not a “baby”;  it won’t become that until the last trimester.  It isn’t even properly called a “fetus”;  it won’t be that until the second trimester.  The proper scientific name for it is “embryo” – as in “embryonic” – and it is absolutely not a human being.  It does not have a human heart or a human spine or human lungs, and it certainly does not have a human brain.  For the religious-minded, consider that without a brain you cannot grow a mind, and without a mind, how can there be a soul?

Yes, an embryo is made of human tissue, but then, so are your toenails. Yes, it’s technically alive, but then, so is a virus.  Yes, it will eventually develop to become a human being, but then, given enough time, so will whole species of monkeys;  the only difference is time – six months versus six million years.  The physical condition of an embryo is somewhere between that of a primitive worm and a salamander.  Its life is certainly not worth the life, or health, or freedom, of a real human being – such as a woman – not unless you’re going to claim that women are not really human beings.

Now, on the question of the “value of life”…  Ask: whose life?

No man has ever died in childbirth, but countless hundreds of millions of women have.  Childbirth is not safe.  It has not been safe since human beings began walking upright, and growing big brains and big skulls to hold them.  Even in America today with all our boasted medical science, according to the medical actuarial tables, for women between the ages of 15 and 50, of the 12 most common causes of death, childbirth is not the last.  Any woman who becomes pregnant is placing her life at risk.  No one should be forced to place their life at risk without their consent.  No one should be forced to risk their life for someone else’s beliefs.  No man has the right to order a woman to risk her life for what he wants.

In any country that calls itself free, to risk your life or not must always be the individual’s choice.  Therefore, to abort or not must always be the individual woman’s choice – and nobody else’s.  Anything less is tyranny.


                                                                      *****

As you can tell from the names of the contestants, this was originally written a few elections ago.  Since then, the political divisions -- and stupidities -- have grown worse.   Trump won the 2016 presidential election, driving the Democrats into a continuing fit of hysteria which has led them to become blatant Socialists.  The Democrats then won enough seats in the 2018 congressional election to start openly pushing their Socialist agenda, which scared the Republicans at the state level to start passing some ridiculously Reactionary laws.  Among these were the various laws in the Seven Stupid States which restrict access to safe legal abortions down to almost nothing.

Now whatever your attitude toward abortion itself, a bit of reflection will show that these laws -- and the politicians who voted them in -- are just plain stupid.  For one thing, they make those states (I'll name no names) look like hotbeds of religious fanaticism and misogyny.  Any business with female managers or corporate officers will avoid building or investing there, which will do those states' economies no great good.  Neither will the lawsuits already in the works, launched not only by women's-rights groups but by medical organizations which rather resent politicians practicing medicine.

For another thing, these laws will do nothing to cut down on the actual numbers of abortions.  There are still the other 43 states where abortion is legal, often right next door to the Seven Stupids, where determined women can go to get the operation done -- often cheaper than they could have at home, even counting the cost of travel and an overnight motel stay.  Where that cost becomes burdensome, the burden will fall -- as it did back in the days when abortion was illegal all over the US -- on the poor, the people most in need of baby-making restriction.  Women too poor to get out-of-state abortions will certainly wind up on welfare, if they aren't there already, and so will their unwanted children.  States that won't pay for poor women's abortions today will find themselves paying for the support of those children for the next several years.

the only advantage gained by those laws is to make the politicians who voted for them feel wonderfully self-righteous.  The taxpayers who will have to live with the effects of those laws are not likely to be grateful, and they are likely to make their opinions known at election time.

Moral grandstanding doesn't really pay well, and it's ultimately stupid.

--Leslie <;)))><

12 comments:

Technomad said...

As I understand it (I will admit I don't follow this too closely) the "Seven Stupid States" passed those laws in reaction to laws passed in "Blue" strongholds, basically legalizing abortion even up to the moment of birth and/or legalizing not keeping surviving fetuses (is that the correct plural, or is it "fetuus?" My Latin is nearly nonexistent) alive if they survive the procedure. Those laws were passed in the first "Orange man BAAD! Must punish Orange Man!" frenzy after the 2016 election.

I wish the whole abortion thing hadn't become a tribal identifier for both major political tribes. By now, you can't get the Dem nomination without supporting abortion-on-demand, while the GOP won't let you near the nomination without kowtowing to the extreme anti-abortion viewpoint.

Leslie Fish said...

And that's exactly the problem! "Identity" politics and moral grandstanding have almost completely cut off rational discussion. I'd love to debate it with Ben Shapiro, who's the most rational of the anti-abortion crowd.

Technomad said...

The ironic thing is that Trump's probably the most "pro-choice" guy you're going to ever get under the GOP label.

That said---a lot of the most fanatical "pro-life" people I've ever run into are female. This isn't a "men vs. women" thing, not at all. When I was active with the GOP, many years ago, I knew women who were with the party who were such foaming fanatics that the "Army of God" nutjobs (the US organization that bombed clinics and shot doctors) would have been in awe...and other women who were quietly "pro-choice" but were with the GOP for other reasons.

Getting rid of Roe vs. Wade wouldn't end abortion...it would send the question back to the state legislatures, where IMO it should have stayed. And maybe we could have Supreme Court justices nominated without it turning into a big knock-down, drag-out fight over abortion, even when the A-word isn't mentioned? Naaah...that's crazy talk.

Leslie Fish said...

Well, the lawsuits are already simmering in the Seven Stupids, so a lot of this question *will* be settled on the state level.

What I find intriguing is the development of "week-after" pills, and how various state and federal politicians are trying to ban them. Wait until somebody develops the "month-after" or "season-after" pill, and you'll see a whole new illegal-drug market.


Technomad said...

The problem is, people are getting mighty sick and tired of the expressed will of the voters being overridden again and again by (often un-elected) judges. When we got "gay marriage" here in Iowa, I heard a lot of real grumbling about it, since it hadn't been the voters who said they wanted it---it was three judges. And two of those judges were thrown out of office at the next election, in what should have been a purely routine re-confirmation.

This sort of thing was necessary to get rid of Jim Crow, since Jim Crow had become a legal logjam of epic proportions. But I wouldn't be surprised to see measures taken to curb judicial interference in the laws---a lot of Trump supporters are increasingly resentful of, e.g., some judge somewhere handing down a ruling to stop the Wall.

I've told both pro- and anti-abortion types that if they're so sure they've got the majority of Americans on their side, to get off their dead rumps and amend the Constitution. Oh, the shrieking and pearl-clutching that follows! Misguided though they were, I respect the old Prohibitionists more---that's what they did.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Nomad. True, and see what a disaster Prohibition turned out to be. Nah, let each state have its own laws, and see which of them survives better. Dunno about elsewhere, but here in AZ judges too have to be elected (or re-elected).

Technomad said...

I agree completely about letting states have their own damn laws. The problem with Roe vs. Wade was that it short-circuited that, and forced something a lot of people find highly distasteful down their throats, willy-nilly. That is a recipe for a backlash.

The idiots who think that without Roe vs. Wade we'll go straight to The Handmaid's Tale (which, incidentally, is about the WORST SF I've ever managed to force myself to finish) irritate me enormously. I'm old enough to remember times before the Sacred, Holy, Must-never-be-changed Decision, and it was not The Handmaid's Tale!

I also notice that the "It's MY BODY!" types never seem to compare notes with others who could be said to have the same cause. People who oppose mandatory helmet use on motorcycles, or mandatory seat belt laws; people who want to legalize sex work (paranthetically, why is sex the only activity I know of that is illegal only when done for money?), pro-smoking activists, and so on. This suggests to me that they haven't thought their position through to its logical conclusion.

Leslie Fish said...

Well, the deciding factor in Roe v. Wade was that passage in the Bill of Rights about the rights of citizens to be "secure in their homes, papers, and *persons*" -- "person" being elegant 18th century English for "bodies". It's quite true that the "it's my body" crowd haven't thought of the other applications. I could even find excuse for the anti-vaxxers in that argument; if you don't want to vaccinate yourself or your kids, you don't have to -- but then you have to *quarantine* yourself or your kids, so they don't infect others. That is, in effect, what the Amish do -- at least, up until the kids' "running-around year".

Technomad said...

John Ross, in his now-taken-down "Ross in Range" online column, talked about when he was running (as a pre-FDR Democrat; his grandfather was Harry S Truman's private secretary until he died) for the House of Representatives from Missouri. He talked with both the pro- and anti-abortion people. If you'd like, I can send you both columns---I had the wits to archive them.

Leslie Fish said...

Thanks, Nomad! I would indeed be interested in seeing both those columns. Send to my regular email address of lesliefish@cox.net -- and thanks much. When were they written?

Leslie Fish said...

Got 'em! Yes, Ross is that rarity of rarities, an honest politician.

And BTW I agree with him about motorcycle helmets -- because I've talked with bikers, who told me repeatedly that at the speeds where a helmet would save your skull they also add to the danger by cutting down your hearing; at speeds beyond that, they're no use because you're dead anyway. Yes, I'd leave that to individual choice.

Car seat-belts, now, are a different story. In a multi-car crash, a body flying through a windshield could hit another car and kill somebody else. So, no, I'd say that car seat-belts aren't just a matter of individual choice.

Alchemy said...

For me, I'm kinda on the fence of this sort of stuff. Cause I can see where there could be benefits, such as eliminating diseases that are inherited and the like.. But on the flip side, you could easily start getting into more eugenics stuff..