Over the past 24 hours, chants of “bans off our bodies” and “my body, my choice” have been heard obsessively over the United States of America, following the Supreme Court leak that threatens to overturn the groundbreaking Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Effectively, preventing women across the country from getting legal and safe elective abortions.
Yet, as is often the case in our shock media feed, things are not so simple.
As more right-wing individuals rapidly pointed out, “bans off our bodies” is nothing but a crude and ironic fallacy, coming as it does in the wake of two deeply restrictive years. Only a few months ago, thousands were forced to choose between involuntarily inoculating themselves, and losing their livelihoods, under the now forgot vaccine mandates that rocked 2021.
And what is saying “undergo X medical procedure, or lose your rights”, if not a ban pertaining to one’s body? Yet, miraculously, you didn’t hear a peep out of either side now clamoring into the streets to protest the overthrow of Roe v. Wade.
The main argument for the vaccine mandates, of course, was that it shouldn’t be your decision, since vaccination would also protect others, and thus was not solely related to your existence, alone. But then, neither is abortion. In all objectivity here, having an abortion impacts another’s life. Well, if we’re being honest, it also impacts, in many cases, the father’s life, though that’s another can of worms, altogether.
So then, where was this “bans off our bodies” crowd a year ago? Suppose that’s all in the past, though. Funnily enough, the people now fighting for choice might be the same who were doing that last year, albeit for a different choice.
Because that’s what freedom is. It doesn’t just exist when someone else considers you’re making the right choices. Freedom is being permitted to cast your dice, and see where it lands. And most of all, to suffer the consequences.
Personally, I’m pro-choice, in that I think keeping abortion legal means keeping it safe. It’s silly to imagine abortions won’t happen if we make them illegal, and deeply delusional. Abortions have always been a thing, even in the most religious, Christian-centric societies of our past. Of course, back then, they often didn’t achieve their purpose, and placed the mother’s life in serious danger, as well. Now, if we decide to ban abortions, they will still happen, though don’t start picturing the backroom coat-hanger nitty-gritty just yet. Rather, we’re looking at small, private, very discreet, and very well-oiled clinics that will perform these procedures at thrice the price. We might not want to admit it, but it is, usually, all about money. Of course, those less fortunate who won’t afford the expensive medical stuff may resort to pills and coat-hangers. People may well die.
So there is that.
Well, first, because it will be an option, as I was saying, legal or not.
Secondly, because it already entails its own set of grave and serious repercussions, which the mother will deal with. Studies suggest that many women struggle with depression, low self-esteem, promiscuous (and downright reckless) behavior, abusive relationships, and so many other serious issues post-abortion. While the press may talk of abortion breezily, there are serious moral and mental dangers to this procedure.
Knowing that you’ve chosen to end the life developing inside of you is a burden that many women never recover from bearing.
And so, no, it shouldn’t be up to someone else - be it the state, the Church, or random activists - to punish them. Though the effects of abortion will vary from woman to woman, those likely to be swayed by heartbeat rhetoric are likely to suffer and struggle, anyway.
The central idea of Roe v. Wade was that it challenged another, far more caustic and dangerous idea - that the state knows best. And that it hides behind various trivialities to conceal this unfathomable and undeserved power.
It seems to me as mental now as it did last year, with the vaccines.
You’re not permitted to do this thing, because it will have consequences.
Well, of course, everything has consequences. Yet, as long as we don’t label abortion as murder, I don’t see how the state, God, or anyone else might be permitted to intervene. Even then, you should only be allowed to speak for an unborn life, if you’re prepared to take ownership of it, post-birth. If you, as the state, can viably support the woman through pregnancy, and offer the child, once it’s born, a good, stable home. Not an orphanage, not placement. Because those are solutions that do not work.
And if we were to consider for a moment, all the atrocious places that child may end up in - abused, malnourished, beaten, sodomized, sent to beg and prostitute himself, living in poverty and constant, mind-numbing hardship... who are you to say that’s preferable?
Of course, with that logic, the mother shouldn’t be allowed to speak for the child, either. Yet, assuming that, as is now the case, she will be responsible for the child over the next two decades, it seems to me hers is a more knowledgeable on-point opinion than yours.
Besides, banning abortions isn’t about the child’s welfare. Seriously, when has the state (or the Church, for that matter) cared about your well-being? Look around yourself, we live in a world where prices are rapidly spiraling out of our control, and forcing many of us into abject poverty, hardship, and debt. Where the platitude of the herd is preferable to the health of the individual. Where politicians lie, cheat, and manipulate your thoughts as a matter of course. And you really think these people are going to fight the good fight when it comes to innocent babies?
The only reason they’re getting involved are money and control. The only reason the Church is getting involved, surprise surprise, also money and control.
Personally, I don’t know what the resolution ought to be. Maybe it’s bad to keep abortions legal, maybe it’s disastrous to ban them. Maybe everyone should be left to do as they think best, at the time, and struggle with the consequences, afterwards. You know, as one might in a truly free society.
And just as a disclaimer, I'm not looking for an argument. I think it should be a choice, a legal choice. If you don't, that's fine. That's your right. I'm just trying to figure out my own thoughts on the subject.
