by Roger Resler
It took 49 years but it finally happened! To be honest, I had given up hope of ever seeing it in my lifetime. SCOTUS admitted its error and reversed itself. In what is now the landmark 6-3 decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the Supreme Court held that:
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Caseyhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the
people and their elected representatives.
Needless to say there is much that could be said about this opinion and, no doubt, will be. I’ve waited until I could actually read the (actual) final opinion to make any comments. I can now say it was worth the wait. In short, it’s an excellent, well written, well reasoned opinion. Well worth the read. And I welcome thoughtful discussion/dissent about it here.
Predictably, the pro-abortion left is losing its mind. Admittedly, it’s still early, so I could potentially be surprised, but so far all I’ve seen in response are emotional arguments based on fiction. Here are (merely) two examples:
Patently obvious hyperbole. And yet many on the left (and even in the middle) repeat it unquestioningly as though it were as valid as apple pie. First, on the “ensuring they make it to recess alive” notion, does any rational person actually believe the government has it within their power – using only “gun control” legislation – to stop an insane person from obtaining a gun and walking into a school with the intent of massacre? Until every school is reduced to single entry with an armed, well-trained guard posted at the entrance, we’re not really serious about protecting our kids. Regardless, Dobbs has nothing to do with gun control or the 2nd Amendment.
The first claim, on the other hand – that the government is: “bold enough to force you to have a kid” is relevant to Dobbs, but, as usual, is a gross distortion of reality. Here’s reality: No one is forcing you to have a kid. So obvious it’s surprising it needs to be said. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood used to argue that making birth control legal (yes, it actually used to be illegal) would make abortion a “useless crime.” I hate agreeing with Margaret Sanger but in this case her logic is pretty decent. In a society with multiple forms of readily available birth control methods, abortion should be a “useless crime.” The truth is, no one is forcing you to have a kid, and unless you’ve been raped, no one forced you to have sex.
The second hyperbolic response to Dobbs I’ve seen is even further off the wall:
Yes, people actually created this video as though it represents something even remotely close to reality. Even prior to Roe, abortionists who performed illegal abortions were sometimes prosecuted but the women who had hired them were almost never arrested for illegal abortion. Again, hyperbole. And yet it raises what should be the fundamental question: at what point is the human life inside the womb of a pregnant woman worthy of legal protection? Never?
A striking irony in all of this is that many pro-choice people are also animal rights proponents – and I’m right there with them on that. Cruelty to animals is despicable human behavior and is rightfully illegal. Where is the same compassion many on the left have for animals when it comes to living – and quite defenseless – humans in the womb? Serious question.
Don’t believe it’s human? Don’t believe it’s alive? Prove it with biological facts. But you’ll find that the facts are against you. Don’t believe a human fetus is even the moral equivalent of a dog or cat? Prove it with rational logic. Want abortion to be 100% legal in every state? Demonstrate – using biological facts – that a human fetus is the moral equivalent of a tonsil. If you can do that, I and millions of pro-life proponents will become pro-choice and the abortion controversy ends. So far, all I’ve seen is hyperbole.
In the meantime, if you’re pro-choice, here’s a legitimate question for you: when did you begin to exist?
Javier replied to this on Facebook. I will respond to it here in an upcoming post. Here is what Javier wrote:
I couldn’t get very far into that it’s pretty dumb. You claim in the piece that the antiabortion stance is logic while what you call the “proabortion” side to be emotional arguments yet the only real backing for anti-choice, which is what it is, anti-choice, is religious fundamentalism. There is no link that can be made from religious fundamentalism to logic and it is, infact, a completely emotional argument. It’s a stance attempting to remove “indecency and degeneracy” and there’s nothing objective or logical about that, purely emotional. To further back this up you can look at the stance correlations of those who are anti-choice and other issues, whether it’s their reactions to gun violence as the sign depicts which can be in any manner of potential ways many having little to do with gun regulations that they still don’t support, to their stance on capital punishment, to their stance on better safety nets to assure once a child is born they do not have the right to life unless their parent is well off, to their stance on M4A which does the same thing as the previous not guaranteeing life unless the parent is well off, to their views on people who are morally vegan etc. It has nothing to do with being pro-life. This stance stems from 2 sources, revulsion of “indecency and degeneracy”, and men having less options and feeling emasculated hoping something like this will better guarantee a wife for them when they impregnate a woman. The loaded language is also transparent, nobody is proabortion, nobody wants mandated abortions for everyone, but plenty seem to want no abortions for anyone. Even those pretending their real stance is wanting a middle ground don’t understand that abortions being legal but not mandated IS the middle ground and wanting abortions for nobody is one of the extremes with the other being abortions for everyone. Both abortions for no one, and abortions for everyone are authoritarian positions as they both attempt to limit rights and choice. To those who may claim this isn’t true and that it’s about life, which I’ve already almost thoroughly debunked, here’s a scenario. A man is in a horrific accident and is taken to a hospital, he’s put on life support and his body can no longer sustain itself without the life support, his mind is found to have no real activity and is blank, all his experiences, his personality and everything that made him who he was is gone. Is the state legally bound to keep the body alive until the estimated life expectancy of the individual under theoretical perfect circumstances? I’ve never known anyone to take the stance of yes here as there is no gurantee that man would even have lived that long or could ever come back. Well the same can br said about any fertilized egg, there is no guarantee it will be viable or won’t miscarry naturally, difference being one of these is an actual person with a life, loved ones, they’ve made connections and we know of their contributions to the world or society while the other is going to be a burden for at least another 18-19 years assuming good circumstance even allows the fertilized egg to develop into a baby human and make it to birth. You’re incorrect on your stance, which you’re completely allowed to be, but you’d get more respect from others if you were honest about yhe reasoning or simply said just because that’s what I want.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate honest dialogue even if we disagree.
We do disagree – and I’ll get into that – but I think it’s a good idea to start off on where we do agree. You wrote: “nobody wants mandated abortions for everyone,” I agree with that much, but then you added, “but plenty seem to want no abortions for anyone.” I disagree with that. I don’t know of any pro-life people (including myself) who aren’t also in favor of allowing abortion when the mother’s life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy. I know of no restrictive abortion laws that don’t allow for this exception. Can you cite any?
You identify the extremes as: “wanting abortions for nobody” and “abortions for everyone.” Again, I agree with you on that. But I think we can also agree that practically no one seriously advocates for either of those positions – which is pretty much what makes them extreme.
So there’s something we can agree on (hopefully), despite our fundamental disagreement on legalized abortion on request. But there’s also a lot in your post that I disagree with so for starters you wrote:
“You claim in the piece that the antiabortion stance is logic while what you call the “proabortion” side to be emotional arguments yet the only real backing for anti-choice, which is what it is, anti-choice, is religious fundamentalism.”
Not sure exactly what you mean by the phrase “only real backing”? Do you mean that the only supporters of the pro-life position are religious fundamentalists? That seems to be what you’re saying, but maybe I’m missing your point?
In any case, for clarity, here’s what I’m saying. I’m saying that the pro-life position fundamentally rests on biological facts, not religion. Are there a lot of religious people who are pro-life? Of course. But there’s also a lot of religious people who are pro-choice. Quite a few, actually. I’m saying abortion laws, whether they are liberal or restrictive, should not be based on religion. I’m also saying that the pro-choice position fundamentally rests on declared ignorance of biological facts (i.e. we don’t know when human life begins) and because it fundamentally rests on ignorance, what we tend to see from the pro-choice community in terms of arguments in favor of legal abortion – or at least the choice for legal abortions – are emotionally based, hyperbolic arguments, as for example: “Our government is bold enough to force you to a have a kid…” which is clearly not true. If you disagree with that, show me where I’m wrong.
There’s a lot more in your post that I disagree with but rather than debate generalities, it might be more productive to simply talk about our own specific positions. I do not base my pro-life position on religion. I base it on morality, which, I suspect, is the same thing you base your pro-choice position on. Correct?
You indicated that you did not read most of my post because you found it “dumb.” Yet you responded to it. That’s fine but it’s kind of a hit and run, don’t you think, to just label something dumb without actually reading it? If you respond to nothing else, I hope you will respond to this question: when did you begin to exist?
– All the best, Roger