Anti-abortion laws are never about preserving life (Getty)
It’s been a long time since Texas was anything other than a hostile environment for reproductive choice. But the state-wide law put in place yesterday — which effectively overturns Roe v. Wade — means than Texan women are now living under one of the most tyrannical and invasive abortion laws in the world.
Previous legislation in America has attempted to outlaw the procedure after a certain gestational point, or imposed wholly unnecessary barriers and regulations, such as requiring that women wait 48 hours before they can have abortion. But the Republican-backed Senate Bill 8 takes a wholly different approach: it pays private citizens up to $10,000 to spy on, snitch on and sue anyone who has “aided or abetted” a woman in having an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (which, to be clear, is just two weeks after a woman misses her period). There is no exception for women pregnant from rape or incest.
In true dystopian fashion, “aided or abetted” is defined broadly enough to cover any health care provider who performs or assists in performing an abortion, anyone who goes with a woman to an abortion appointment and anyone who gives a woman money to pay for her procedure. Even a taxi driver who takes a woman to a reproductive health clinic could now be sued — and potentially bankrupted.
It didn’t have to be this way. Abortion providers in Texas challenged SB8 in July, and called on the Supreme Court to prevent it from going into effect while it is litigated in the lower courts. This is pretty standard when a law clearly violates Roe v. Wade. But this time, the Supreme Court did something shocking and unprecedented: they let the Texas law stand. And so for the first time since Roe v. Wade broadly legalised abortion for American women in 1973, abortion is effectively illegal in an American state (roughly 85% of women who seek an abortion in Texas are at least six weeks into pregnancy).
What’s so galling about this law, though, is how unprecedented and invasive it is. It harkens back to some of the worst eras of authoritarianism and paranoia in modern history, when citizens were encouraged by their governments to spy and snitch on their family members, friends and neighbours. It’s the kind of state-sponsored civilian surveillance we associate with the Stasi, China’s cultural revolution and Soviet Russia.
More acutely, it harkens back to dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu’s Romania. Ceauşescu banned both abortion and contraception, and engaged a broad network of secret police called the Securitate who, like Texas’s lawmakers, also relied on civilian informants to snitch on women who ended pregnancies or sought to prevent them.
Doctors went to jail. Women were forced into humiliating and invasive gynaecological examinations every three months, just to make sure they were obeying the law. If these examiners found evidence of a pregnancy, it was noted down — and if she didn’t give birth in the expected period, she could be prosecuted. By the 1980s, Romania’s orphanages were overflowing with malnourished, neglected and abused children. But Texas’s conservative lawmakers appear to view it as an aspiration.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe article is founded on the unquestioning assumption that all right-thinking people are of course fully in favour of abortion. It waves Roe v Wade like a banner, never considering that that decision was itself a judicial invasion into the political sphere by a bench of liberal judges who wilfully bent and twisted the US constition until it broke in order to justify a “right” that simply is not there. If this law is shocking to leftist sensibilities, it is shocking because it exists at all. People are not supposed to push back against the “inevitable” advance of leftist doctrine. The fact that they are, and are making it stick, is terrifying to the whole leftist worldview. It really DOESN’T have to be this way.
Abortion was never illegal in the US, it was merely a matter for the individual states. The left, in their usual self-righteous fashion, were never satisfied with that, so captured the institutions at the federal level (like the Supreme Court) and used their control of them to shove their doctrine down unwilling throats in states that didn’t want abortion. Far easier than trying to convince the rubes out in flyover country.
Unlike the UK, where public morality and philosophy are considered mildly embarrassing niche interests, like plane spotting or brass rubbing, ideas still matter in America. Let’s hope they begin to matter again to the children and grandchildren of the millennials and Boomers who brought us to this pass.
You accuse the left of wilfully bending the constitution to allow abortion, however from the outside looking in it appears the Texas government are doing exactly the same thing by allowing this to be dragged through as a civil matter policed by what is essentially a modern day gestapo, rather than arguing the legal case to make it a law in its own right
The Texas legislators are not bending the constitution as their role is to legislate. SCOTUS cannot touch the legislation until the legal process has otherwise been exhausted (assuming there is a case about the legislation). However, Casey v Planned Parenthood does bend COTUS by asserting that restricting abortion is a violation of constitutional rights and a violation of the right to privacy. There is no right to abortion or bodily autonomy in COTUS.
Would you be in favour of left leaning states using the same legislation to ban the use of firearms, allowing private citizens to sue people who buy guns? If not I’d argue you don’t agree with the way the law is used at all, merely its target
Can you please tell us, where “abortion” is mentioned in the constitition and after that, also where “the right to bear arms” is mentioned? There is no comparison between owning something or ending what is (at least) to become a human life.
I don’t see many of those with guns being part of a well regulated militia which is also part of the constitution, however that part of the amendment seems to be conveniently forgotten when it suits.
But judging by your response it appears I’m correct, you agree with the law only on the provision it is used against targets which you approve of
Well regulated militias are indeed Constitutional. Let that roll around in your dome for awhile.
It doesn’t say “with those guns being part of a well regulated melitia”. The SCOTUS has decided this question many times and those decisions are part of a jurisprudence that are grounded in actuall word that are in the constitution.
Roe is not grounded in anything, as the case, which I guess you have never read, basically admits. The right to abortion comes out of nowhere.
I also have the feeling that people do not understand what people who oppose abortion actually aim at: Abortion is never going to be outlawed. It’s not going to happen. What is going to happen, is that Roe is going to be overturned, which will lead to a number of US states passing abortion laws. Other states will outlaw abortion/keep the status quo after Roe is overturned.
I wouldn’t have a problem with states using the same legislation to ban the use of firearms, if you repeal the second amendment which can be done – its a high threshold, but legally possible. I’m not an American, so its a moot point the one you raise. I was also describing process rather than the desirability of a particular outcome (description – ‘this being or not being the case’ – is different to prescription – ‘and this may or may not be a bad or good thing’).
However, I have heard legal arguments that invoke States Rights to reduce if not outlaw gun ownership. Gun law legislation usually is on the meaning of ‘well-regulated militia’. I don’t really know what ‘keep and bear arms’ means other than allows people to keep and bear arms.
Its hard, in my opinion, to justify abortion even as a Natural Right (where Constitutional and/or Human Rights come from) because a hypothetical natural right of being able to choose an abortion would conflict with the natural right to life (the right to life not being an entitlement, but the right of a protection to not have life taken away) which we all understand to exist as the default (even if one doesn’t believe in rights because there is the Biblical commandment ‘Thou shall not kill’).
Privacy, or the right not to be subject to unjust searches, does apply in the fourth amendment (I think its the fourth), but I don’t see how that is connected to protecting . Scalia said, basically, if its not in COTUS then its not a constitutional matter and something for legislature to sort out and if (say) abortion is not illegal then abortion is legal – law is all-or-nothing (we can dispute what an ‘undue burden’ is, but we can’t dispute there is a ‘not to place an undue burden on the women’ standard in Casey v Planned Parenthood).
I’ve re-read Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood and I have to revise some of what I’ve said.
I was also going to make the Roe v Wade being not of legal grounding point.
The fact that Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision is an compelling indictment of the entire US Constitutional system
No. It is a compelling indictment of the justices who voted for Roe.
Very good response! The unborn are human beings, no matter what the Supreme court did in 1973. If legal precedent is so sacred, where was the Left’s respect for precedent in 1972?
There are ways to assist women with problem pregnancies, and there are funding sources available to poor mothers. A poor mother with a baby can be helped. But an aborted baby is gone, past all help. Planned Parenthood has a financial motive in promoting abortion.
Abortion clinic directors are very well paid, considerably more than comparable medical personnel in that profession
devoted to saving human life. Birth control pills cost about nine dollars a month. Planned Parenthood’s hysteria over this new Texas law seems more about their profits than about helping women. The legal right to kill one’s own children is not a fundamental human right. Rather, it is a perversion of the Hippocratic Oath, and a complete violation of the basis of human ethics and morality, as well of Christ’s second great commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself.
Is this really a judgement of left vs right? Or is it more of old vs new?
I normally find myself to be ‘on the right’ when it comes to a lot of political discussions with friends and family, but thats because my belief system (a learned one, not a taught one) matches those views, and those beliefs stem from my unequivocal support of an individuals right to be able to choose their own path in life. If that person decides that an abortion is their best/only option for a better future then surely as ‘right’ minded individuals, we should be supporting any… and all..legislation that matches this criteria…whether you agree with the individuals choice or not shouldn’t even come into the argument, as its got f*ck all to do with us.
How exactly is this article outside the herd mentality and not a simple regurgitation of the same old pro-abortion talking points?
The site covers a range of topics and views. Just because you don’t agree with this one doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be published
He is right though that it reflects a herd mentality.
The comments section seems fairly divided on the matter, as does the Texas electorate according to the article so I don’t really see it as following the herd, especially in the States. If this was in most first world countries you may have a point the subject wouldn’t even warrant a discuss as there would be such a small minority looking to place such severe restrictions on abortion, however we all know America is a very strange place
I agree that it is strange!
Ludicrous position. Life is not to be traded for convenience. There is no argument why unintended or unwanted conception cannot be either prevented through proper sexual conduct (condoms, for example) or where accident strikes, the morning after pill.
These are adult responses to taking responsibility. 6 weeks is more than enough time. Beyond that you trade – brutally and cruelly – one life for another’s convenience.
What the author proposes – doubtless one whose view of anti vaccination advocates is that it isn’t their body to deny vaccination, but a public health / morality issue – is to abrogate responsibility and make the defenceless pay for the irresponsibility of the adults.
I’m guessing you’ll be happy to pay increased taxes to help support all these extra children that will now be born to women and girls that don’t have the means to raise them, seeing as you’re taking away the right of women to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies?
It always intrigued me what the law makers who restrict abortion think they are achieving? What good comes from forcing women to have children they either don’t want or have the means to properly support?
The children by and large aren’t going to have happy carefree childhoods, a large number will be raised by single parents which significantly increases the chances of getting in trouble at school and with the law. The mother is significantly held back from a potentially lucrative career, and may end up in need of government support.
I simply don’t see any winners in it at all personally
”…the right of women to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies”
Is the unborn part of a woman’s body? Or separate albeit in a very close relationship through the umbilical cord?
And why can’t the children be adopted? There are many absolutely desperate to bring up a child because they can’t conceive.
I suspect many would protest at someone drowning unwanted puppies rather than finding owners or taking them to a sanctuary. Courteously, yours is the same disposable attitude.
Until 20 weeks I’d argue the foetus is essentially part of the mother, as it cannot hope to carry on developing without her. I also don’t believe it is yet a conscious being as we understand it, the brain isn’t developed to a level that allows it to be aware.
As for your point regarding adoption, we already have thousands of kids in need of a home, what makes you think these extra unwanted children would be adopted?
This logically applies up to the age of about five, surely.
A toddler can’t feed itself, care for itself or find shelter. So it’s not an independently viable being. Why should women not be allowed to terminate their unwanted toddlers?
No it doesn’t because once a pregnancy is viable (around 20 weeks) if the baby survives then it can be cared for by anybody else technically, it can be bottle fed so isn’t reliant on the mother anymore. Before that point if you remove it from the mother it doesn’t develop any further
Once the child is outside the womb, anyone can raise it not just the mother. Where are fathers in all this? Men should have their tubes tied when they get to 30 or after they have had 2 children. Less single parents, less children living in poverty. Less women needing a ortions.
There are many children raised without fathers unfortunately, and many more raised in state care without either parent. However prior to around 20 weeks of pregnancy if you seperate the foetus from pregnant woman it cannot develop any further. That’s the difference.
The second part of your comment answer sounds horribly authoritarian if you truly believe it
That can only be a thing in the USA.
Have you ever seen a 19 week old foetus? Those are not just cells and part of a female body…Many women, who had abortions, will have long term mental issues. It is a subject, which is taboo in our society and never talked about nowadays. But many Psychologists and psychiatrists know what mental damage it can do to these woman ..
It isn’t what it is that matters, it is what it’s going to be.
Are you also against the morning after pill then, as that’s preventing it developing into what it is going to be?
If it is a fertilized egg, yes.
I would certainly agree to pay taxes to support the babies. Or better, have them adopted and an allowance given to help the new parents raise the child. Not a single problem with that.
Most would end up stuck in an orphanage as the article highlights, there aren’t enough people willing to adopt the children we already have without adding more to the mix
Do you think that children in impoverished developing societies should be aborted?
Of course not, why do you ask?
Because you are in favour of abortiing children who will grow up in impoverished circumstances.
I believe the mother should have the choice about whether to bring a child into the world if it is likely to endure severe hardship or be raised by a parent that doesn’t want it. That’s vastly different from effectively sterilising the poor as I’m sure you’re well aware
I didn’t realise you could see the future and were able to decide who’s life is worth allowing to continue.
I’m troubled by the fact that you think being born into less than ideal circumstances is worse than no chance at life at all, as if no one ever made anything of themselves or went on to a happy life from a difficult home situation.
No one ever did that from an abortion, though.
I can’t see the future, but if a woman believes that a pregnancy will make her life substantially worse, and that it will be a poor environment to raise a child and that child will suffer who are you to say they’re wrong?
Which begs the question…. do you live in an impoverished developing society and see poor and uncared for children in a daily basis?
I don’t but would not expect them to be ‘culled’ if I did!
Do you think it’s right that a 16 year old rape victim should be forced to go through with a pregnancy that’s been forced upon her, to raise a child that she didn’t ask for that will forever remind her of the attack and to severely curtail her life choices most likely forcing her and the child into a life undue hardship? Because that’s a possibility under this Texas bill
No, I think she should have support throughout her pregnancy and be able to have the child adopted. She would need a lot of support afterwards too.
No, I think she should have support throughout her pregnancy and be able to have the child adopted. She would need a lot of support afterwards too.
Judy you are living in cloud cuckoo land. You talk of impoverished societies and honestly think that the above will happen? Thousands females and children are raped and then they themselves and sometimes their very poor families are left to deal with the consequences. Rape is so common in some impoverished societies that it is hardly, if ever, reported to the police. In my country that is the case. Besides anything else there is a backlog of approximately 200,000 DNA cases needed processing.
All that will happen to the girl and/or the family is that they descend into more poverty as they then have more mouths to feed.
When you can easily travel again, I think that you should do so – and skip the developed countries. In the meantime read up about unwanted children – and rape – in undeveloped countries and then make comment.
Hi Leslie, as always, a good contribution from you.
The thing here though is this is Texas law. The point of it is to keep the place a Morally strong society, and to always fight against abuses, and thus if you believe abortion is immoral – and everyone surely knows it is reasonable for a person to hold that view, even if they do not, then Texans must fight to keep their society moral as they do NOT want to become like the Third World.
Sanford, Texas will not become like the third world BECAUSE of abortion lows. You need to look more closely at cause and effect.
I wrote that they should be supported (not only financially of course) but did not say that is the easy choice. I think it is the right choice.
We must agree to differ I think.
‘Should be’ simply does not equate to ‘will be and cannot be’. You are suggesting something for undeveloped countries that cannot work. It is not just a difference of opinion.
So the mother already traumatised has to go through pregnancy and birth which always poses a health risk, albeit a smaller one in wealthier countries, and the child gets stuck in the state care system more than likely ending up shunted from pillar to post through various foster families enduring a fairly unhappy childhood, for what?
What does forcing this situation on those two innocent people achieve for either them or society?
No-one has ever told me that they are expecting a foetus; they have always said they are expecting a baby. I think there are alternatives to killing babies but acknowledge they are often hard.
And what happens when that child then comes looking for their birth mother? Children have rights to know where they came from, but why would the birth mother have to relive their ordeal for the sake of that child. That is brutality.
Women should have autonomy over their bodies and that includes abortion. I have never carried a child to term (7 spontaneous abortions) but I still believe in the woman’s right to chose.
In that instance, she should have a consultation with a doctor and given the pill after
What’s the difference between the morning after pill and an abortion? Both are getting rid of a potential child that hasn’t been born yet
The difference is that on that day or the day after there are only a few cells and mostly not implanted into the Uterus. You are right, the potential of a human being is there. But you are also talking about extreme cases and not of the huge majority of abortions. My argument is that the foetus/growing baby in the uterus is not part of a female body,
But you believe the cells that the foetus comes from are part of the female body? To me they’re one and the same I’m afraid, they both turn into a child if left to go full term so I find it rather hypocritical and illogical to be in favour of aborting a pregnancy at a few days but against it at a few weeks.
To me the limit should be set at the point the child has any chance of survival outside the womb, before that it should be up to the mother to decide what she believes is the correct path forward
No, I don’t believe that the few cells are part of a female body, they have their own DNA, but they are not yet deeply implanted in the uterus. So if a woman gets raped, I think as an emergency , I could accept that a woman gets “the pill after” from a doctor, which leads to a heavy period. I was told by a gynaecologist , that often the early cells get naturally aborted by a woman’s period.
“Do you think it’s right that a 16 year old rape victim should be forced to go through with a pregnancy that’s been forced upon her,”
“Hard cases make bad law
Hard cases make bad law is an adage or legal maxim. The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common.”
SIX WEEKS.
FORTY TWO DAYS.
MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO DEAL WITH THIS.
RAPE KITS CONTAIN THE MORNING AFTER PILL.
SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN RAPED REPORTS SUCH AND IS GIVEN THIS CHEMICAL ABORTION ANYWAY!!!
Sorry to the same for the all caps, but it’s clear that a gentler approach does not work with this individual.
Emotional language. I am arguing pro abortion within a reasonable time frame – not ‘culling’ children.
I live in an impoverished country. I witness hunger, poverty, child abuse (in many forms – neglect, sexual abuse, FAS – foetal alcohol syndrome, brutality, hunger and mostly a combination of various factors) and many of these children grow up with zero hope of a good future. They do not even have reasonable state support, as there is not enough money in the fiscus.
So I ask you, do you favour all of these pregnancies coming to full term?
Yes. It is the responsibility of the educated and wealthier members of the society to resolve these dilemmas; the best answeeer cannot be to kill the babies.
I think my answer that you thought emotional is practical.
From the tone of this article it sounds as if the Texan legislation is applied harshly and without regard for the expectant mothers.
May I ask how many of these unwanted children you’d be willing to take in and raise, or would you turn your back and leave them in state care? It’s easy to force your beliefs on others when it isn’t you that will have to deal directly with the consequences
I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone; I am as entitled to express them as you are.
But in Texas those beliefs are being forced onto others that don’t hold the same views, and potentially damaging many lives as a result. So I’m asking if you lived in Texas and supported this law change would you be willing to take in and care for a number of these children that will be born from unwanted pregnancies as a result, or would you leave it to others to deal with the consequences?
Why can’t those unwanted children be avoided using contraception, morning after pills or abortion at a very early stage?
Why do you have to wait say 25 weeks if it’s an unwanted pregnancy?
I honestly don’t know. I am in my 70s and can’t imagine caring for babies and children now. At the same time I hate to be one of those people whose answer is to throw money at a problem.
A problem in the UK is that when someone has an unwanted pregnancy and goes for advice, abortion is often the only answer suggested. I do support a pregnancy advisory centre that offers alternatives.
You clearly know nothing of the UK health service. Termination is never the only answer suggested, it is often the last option discussed.
But it appears I was correct, you’re restrict others access to abortion as long as you don’t have to deal with the fall out?
I know quite a lot having dealt with it all my life, with a daughter who is a midwife and I am involved with a pregnancy advice centre.
It seems somewhat arrogant to think that people only hold opinions other than yours out of ignorance.
I’m sorry but your comment regarding the UK health system is demonstrably false. No clinic in the UK only offers termination as an option, in fact they’re very careful to talk through all other possibilities before even mentioning an abortion. They then check numerous times that the women is comfortable with her decision before carrying it out.
Your description of the health service makes it sound similar to Xinjiang and the Uighers
I meant to write that it is the first option.
Anyway, I think we must agree to differ! Thank you for your responses.
I agree. Killing children should not be the “go to” option. Because of the ease and availability of abortion, many traditional institutions that helped women in the past are now nonexistent or weakened. I find it interesting that the most vehemently
pro-abortion group in America today is not women of childbearing age. Rather, it is men age 18 to 40. A telling statistic indeed.
The educated and wealthier member of societies in impoverished countries simply CANNOT support all the unwanted children. And why should they even if they could. Sorry, but your opinions are increasingly lack knowledge and logic.
In the UK there’s a shortage of adoptable babies. When you see a celebrity purchasing a child, they have usually done so from abroad.
Have you ever been involved in the care system in the UK? I have a sister in law who is a social worker and I can assure you they definitely don’t have too many loving homes willing to look after the children in their care, very much the opposite in fact. Restrictions on abortion would see this number skyrocket
I would much rather pay for an American Baby to be raised, and then put in a lifetime of contribution to their nation, than bring in a bunch of middle aged unskilled Developing world people who will bring vast costs and social issues. (who then use ‘Chain Migration’ to bring in their old people at a Vast cost)
In other words – keep Americans to build USA rather than giving out immigration policy to people smuggling Cartels like we presently do.
More than likely that child will grow up damaged as a result of going through the care system, and a much higher percentage than the national average wind up with mental health issues, addictions and criminal records. Many will probably cost the state money rather than the other war round unfortunately
so Kill the fetus and get a Somali migrant to take its place? That is the current system and I am not for it.
What has immigration got to do with a woman deciding the best course of action in her personal circumstances, and others with no skin in the game effectively making those decisions for her?
They don’t have the right to kill a child once it’s born; whence have they a right to do so before? As a thought experiment, why are women not allowed to abort children up to the age of, say, five years old?
If you allowed that in principle, then euthanising your elderly relatives just becomes a very late term abortion.
A reduction in infanticide?
Let’s go the other way in this line of reasoning. Life begins at conception. Apparently. If you abort at any stage it’s murder. You are extrapolating to say legal abortion means it’s fine to kill adults too. States in America already do this with the death penalty. There are even cases of innocent people being wrongly executed. So if American states like Texas are fine with the death penalty, humans killing other humans, there should be no problem with abortion.
At what point do you believe life begins?
Do you class a failed pregnancy, say one that ends at 10 weeks the same as a child that dies at a week old? I personally think they’re miles apart, which is why throwing around words such as infanticide is very unhelpful
So in your opinion when is the day you can not abort a child? You also don‘t seem to be able to answer the question as many of the women, who claim that the foetus/growing child is their body. Is it when the baby is attached in the uterus, 2 or 3 months or just when it can live outside the body? Do you let a late term aborted baby die? All you answers seem to be utilitarian, not moral. Should handicapped born babies be allowed to be killed, as society has no use for them?
I believe the cut off for abortion should be just before a baby has a chance, however small, of survival outside the body. From that point on I believe it is essentially two people, before that it’s simply part of the mother and it should be her choice how to proceed.
I also have no problem with termination of a pregnancy where the baby will have a disability, but of course that doesn’t extend to babies that have been born. I don’t think you’ll ever meet anybody who believes in killing babies once their born to be honest, at least I’d hope you wouldn’t
Would you then consider giving an anencephalic baby only “comfort care” OK? Personally I am not comfortable with state authority being brought in in any way. There are states in the US where the parents are not allowed to elect that! That seems very wrong. On the other hand, if killing a pregnant woman comes with enhanced charges, as in many states, then a foetus does have a separate existence, legally. There is no easy answer, but I believe the conscience of the adults involved should be the arbiter. And no taxpayer money, either way, should be involved. At the other end of life, I believe that “early exit” should be allowed, and neither prohibited nor recommended by the state. I believe it is a mortal sin, but others do not. They should be able to choose for themselves.
I don’t know enough about the disorder to really understand what you’re asking me I’m afraid. Is it a similar question to the parents who refuse blood transfusions for their children when it could save their lives?
Any half way responsible adult, knows how to prevent a pregnancy. Schools already teach pre-menstrual girls what to do. There are plenty of free clinics which provide contraceptions. If a girl gets raped, she also has the possibility to get the pill after.
The moral question is, if the growing baby in you is YOUR BODY or a separate human being with her/his own rights. I myself had miscarriages and I never thought that this tiny human being, which was miscarried, was just a part of my body.
This article is full of cliches (Ceausecu‘s Romania) and irrational arguments. I always wanted to have an answer from women, who claim “the right over their bodies”, at what stage the growing child in them is not their body anymore. So far none could give me a satisfactory answer.
The state of sec education in schools in the UK is dire, and I can only imagine it would be even worse and more restrictive in some of the religious Bible Belt state schools of the States.
No Religious Education in schools in the US. Where it is taught in the UK it is informative rather than evangelistic.
My children attended schools in U.K. where these things were mentioned. Actually many parents complain that sometimes it is taught too soon.
Don‘t talk about Bible Belt if you never met people from there. Prejudicial talk doesn‘t help your argument .
But what about the unborn person’s own bodily autonomy? Yes, SCOTUS deprived the unborn of that right in 1973 in a legally dubious decision. But a bad law(Roe v. Wade) does not
change the reality of what abortion does
Crazy concept: people change their behaviour when circumstances change.
Crazy relevance: Now that the children conceived through irresponsibility (true for almost 99%) cannot be disposed of for selfish convenience, people may start behaving like adults who recognise the risks and consequences of their choices and act accordingly.
You have assumed – entirely erroneously – that an unwanted pregnancy can only be dealt with by permissive abortion laws.
The 6 week rule is plenty for a responsible response to a desire not to be pregnant if the responsible use of prophylactics failed.
Further, your argument works only in the absence of any sense of right or wrong. Hardly surprising given that the greatest abortion advocate in the USA – Planned Parenthood – was founded by a racist eugenics lover.
Native Texan here
You are right:. Texas is a pull yourself up by your bootstraps state.
The governor vetoed the *Federal” aid for coronavirus because”Texans need to get back to work.”
That is the mentality.
Here’s what will happen:. White babies (no racial mixture please) will find homes if the teenagers want to give them up for adoption.
Racially mixed or children of color will fall further into multigenerational poverty.
And women of any ethnic background who had the money have traveled to a neighboring state and received abortion medication or procedures.
There *are* superb, highly effective methods of birth control today:. The implant is one. Self sustaining for three years. BUT our wonderful state cut birth control funding as well. How badly do they want to prevent abortions?
I highly recommend anyone desirous of a rude awakening lesson on “Texas Think” read the writings and quotes of Jonathan F Mitchell, the former Soliciter General of Texas and writer of SB8.
This man is against birth control and sterilization because women don’t want to control themselves. You doubt me?
An Internet search will prove otherwise.
Good ol days:. Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen!
Emotional argument – life is not to be traded for ‘convenience’ – almost all women would choose not to fall pregnant than to abort. Reasons for abortions are numerous.
Hundreds of millions of people fall pregnant every day. Check out the worldometers clock to see the constant net gains in world population – so far almost 55 million this year. If you are impoverished, you are consigning unwanted children to an unimaginably (certainly for most in the West), poor life, low life expectation and individually with no hope of anything but poverty and in many countries, disease. Yet I guess you would argue that they are better off for being born?
He is saying perhaps that they are better off not being killed.
“Hundreds of millions of people fall pregnant every day”. Really? It just happens? I always though it involved two people and some degree of consent.
Unfortunately in many societies and many circumstances, consent is not asked for.
6 weeks is more than enough time? What do you know at all of the vagaries of the menstrual cycle, especially in younger women?
Six weeks to: 1) realise because your pattern is erratic that you might be pregnant; 2) get a test and have it confirmed, and, 3) arrange an abortion (paying for it, possibly), just far too much for a young girl who might well have been raped.
That is not at all true. 6 weeks is not long enough as many women who have been pregnant know. Most women do not have periods that come every 4 weeks. Periods vary for lots of reasons and can come 6, 7 or 8 weeks after the last one. Mine often came 10 or 11 weeks after. But I also didn’t know I was pregnant until I was at least 8 – 10 weeks in. All my pregnancies resulted in spontaneous abortions – from 12 to 28 weeks. How many would have been considered to be brought about by me under Texan law, I wonder!
Anyone thinking pregnancy is a logical process needs their head examined, including legislators in Texas. I see lots of trouble ahead…
I am left wing but I oppose abortion in all but the most extreme cases (rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality or genuinely life threatening to the mother. Suicide of ptegnany women is virtually unknown!). I do so for the following reasons:
1. It cannot be the right of one human to kill another even when one is inside the other. Is it right for a conjoined twin to murder it’s attached sibbling? Of course not!
2. If you don’t want a baby then don’t get pregnant. That’s now very, very easy to achieve.
3. If you are careless, take the consequences – like if you injure someone in a car accident take responsibility.
4. Childless couples are crying out for babies so carry the baby to full term and give it up for adoption. Surrogate mothers do so: why not you?
5. Nine months of unwanted pregancy vs a lifetime of guilt? It’s a no brainer.
It’s beyond me how Christians can have abortions or carry out abortions.
I note the article avoids the word “baby”. I guess words matter? I know this is an unpopular view but there you go: it’s my view.
I will change my view if anyone can convince me that abortion is okay.
1. I believe that until the foetus has a chance of survival outside the womb, it can’t be considered a life as most would recognise it. It isn’t developed enough to be aware. Do you believe in the death penalty if you’re against taking life?
2. Accidents happen, circumstances change. What if the father has died or decided to do a runner leaving the mother to deal with the pregnancy? What if the pregnancy is a result of a sexual assault in which the woman had no choice? Why should she have to go through the risk and trauma of pregnancy and childbirth for a situation not of her making?
3. See above, not every pregnancy is the result of carelessness, it could be something as simple as a broken condom.
4. There already thousands of kids in care in need of foster homes, why would you want to add more to the mix? I wouldn’t imagine growing up in state care is a pleasant experience, and the life chances of those in care tend to be much less than those in loving families.
5. Do you not think giving away a child also leads to a lifetime of guilt? I’d wager that’s much harder to process than a termination
Ideally abortions should be unnecessary, but we do not live in an ideal world, people make mistakes all the time. S e x is sold in the West as a fun pastime, on top of that the s e x urge is naturally very strong West, East, North and South.
For what its worth I have long argued for a 12 week limit on abortion, free and comprehensive contraception + national and international ongoing campaigns in schools, colleges, universities and across all media to make sure young people understand what the reality of abortion means to the developing life within, to horrify them in fact into being more responsible.
I argue for a return to life time marriage and families. But modern society argues for the opposite, and so abortion is one pillar of their ideology.
I agree with you. I don’t think we can get there by draconian legislation though, the only way to more sincere relations has to be via the imagination and feelings of people, in my opinion.
I wonder if this Texas business is not partly right against left rather than the actual issue of abortion.
I think inspiration needs to go before and alongside the legislation otherwise it’s just another battle.
I would agree with you. The general principle behind pro life makes sense, but the interval to decide should be 12 weeks, 6 weeks is too short.
That’s also what the majority of people believe, I understand.
But the stance of the pro death camp is crazy in terms of allowing a fully functional, viable, close to full term baby being aborted.
Anti-abortion laws are NOT about shame, stigma, and misogyny. I suggest it is an extremely tiny percentage of the population who wants to end abortion to control women, and I fail to see any difference in shame and stigma between those who have an abortion and those with unplanned pregnancy (with arguably more shame and stigma on the latter from both sides). What an incredibly antiquated and dare I say ill-informed view (given support for anti-abortion laws are generally supported most by women in the US).
Rather these laws are about valuing human life, recognising that life matters from conception, that there is no magic stage where we suddenly change from not human to human. To many others it is also quintessentially about the woman. How is it a good thing to deny our fertility? Why should our fertility be a problem that needs to be fixed? There is no possible positive end in a woman denying their most ingrained biological function, of motherhood, and all that it means to carry and care for a child. I understand there are times when a mother may not be able to raise her child or is not in the appropriate mental state, and there are alternatives. Babies are quickly adopted (it is the older children who are not). We also give an incredibly poor view of what it means to be a parent and what it involves within our society, so perhaps improving that understanding and support would provide better outcomes for women and men in this position overall.
Life is not meant to be just thrown-away or disposable for convenience.
Quite well said. Given the poor replacement rate in advanced societies, our future society is at stake.
As a woman I dislike you speaking for me. I respect your right to believe life begins at conception and choose not to have an abortion. You should respect my equally valid belief that a foetus is incapable of surviving outside the mother and therefore is a part of her body. You should respect the views of people who believe differently and not support laws that seek to deny them choices. You say fertility and having children is our “most ingrained biological function”, so are women who cannot or choose not to have children less valuable to society? Should we be shovelled off into a gas chamber, along with doctors who perform abortions? Well, so long as your logic is consistent on the value of human life.
When you believe that something is intrinsically wrong, when you believe it hurts someone why, how can you morally an ethically allow for it to happen, just for the sake of respecting someone else’s beliefs? I am not intending to offend, but how can I just go and say that these things should be allowed to happen just because you believe them? Truth is not relative, the nature of life is not relative. I cannot support the removal of it in any form simply because you believe that it does not exist. It is not an equally valid belief.
I am not sure what you are getting at with your other comment, it is quite disingenuous. I don’t think it is at all a fair conclusion of what I have said. What a ridiculous thing to say! Abortion, children, all of this is an area that must be approached with kindness, care and the utmost respect, as is deserving of every human.
Emotionally I entirely agree with your position, but if I was a legislator, today, I would take a pragmatic approach, with the ideal of abortions as a rarity as my goal and legislate accordingly. The co-operation of other public service bodies would be necessary to help achieve that goal as outlined in my comment above.
This legislation in Texas may be moral but it will fail unless persuasion also is used effectively. I’m not sure people can be persuaded actually but, for me, the realistic moral approach would be to work towards something better, rather than be authoritarian now.
If the left gets more extreme so will the right. Perfect example.
Writing about Nicolae Ceauşescu in the context of restricting the right to abortion in a democratic country is completely inappropriate and shows the author’s dislike of decent and rational argumentation.
Communist dictatorships restricted (not all of them as consistently and brutally as Romania, but all of them did) abortion in order to have more serfs and more soldiers capable of attacking other countries and thus gaining even more serfs.
I am familiar with the general conservative abortion opinions of most of the men on this site, but I must agree with the author. Onerous abortion laws drive women into backshop abortions or force them into having children that they do not want. The world is already chock full of needy, poor, unhappy, unwanted people who struggle to survive.
One thing that leapt has out at me: “and make sure that any woman can choose to have a child knowing that she and her baby will be housed and fed.”
Making sure that women having babies receive endless welfare is creating so many of the current problems we experience in communities – fatherless children.
If your real concern is fatherless children, you should be arguing against sex outside of marriage and no fault divorce.
A very real concern is fatherless children – as is evidenced in the US and in other countries and I do believe it is far better for a child to grow up with a mother and father. I grew up without a father as he died when I was very young.
I’ll leave you to the crusade against sex outside of marriage and no fault divorce to the ultra conservatives. It is not my belief or crusade.
I believe in education above all, limiting population growth and controlled migration.
Abortion doesn’t stop fathers from abandoning children. I’ll ignore the many assumptions you’re making about me and leave it there.
I have made no assumptions about you – just parroting what you are suggesting in your post to me.
Abortion would stop fathers abandoning children as there wouldn’t be a child to abandon
Parents don’t have to be married for the father to stay with the mother and be involved in his child’s lives. Plenty of married dads do a disappearing act
That was the point, yes
Or maybe it makes men and women more responsible with their sexuality. Maybe having consequences will make people think twice about cheapening sex, about engaging in risky behaviour. Maybe there will be different approaches to teaching and promoting sex that would actually decrease unexpected pregnancies and fatherless families.
The back alley claim is also a bit of a weird one. For whatever reason people seem to think that limiting abortion will lead to a total reversal in technology as well. Given you can typically end early pregnancies with a pill, and there is plenty of modern technology for later, a back alley seems highly unlikely.
With such an advanced society shouldn’t we be the best placed to care for and give chances to the most vulnerable of human life?
In what time or place has this utopian vision of yours ever happened? History is littered with unwanted and abandoned offspring, unfortunately as are many poorer countries around the globe today and even in societies with good contraception and abortion freely available. Why do you think banning abortion and bringing unwanted lives into the world will suddenly result in a wave of responsibility when it has never happened in the past?
The most dangerous part is not so much anti-abortion part, but the way in which the law deliberately steps around democratic institutions in terms of using the law to compel certain behaviours.
It legitimises ‘lawfare’ – the use of legal complaints and frivolous cases by non-parties to create policy and compel action by creating punative costs and pain for defendants, when those policies and actions should be left to democratic legislative and executive processes. Something used by the left and right in America.
I have a feeling that if the law is ever used, the case would be ripped apart by the Supreme Court, but could allow them to define more clearly the limits of using the law for political ends.
The Texas law is along with others an attempt to reverse Roe. By making it even harsher than most, it is designed to see the court again.
The law is worse than just the abortion aspect. Imagine the same type of bill that deliberately enables ‘private civil actions’ for ‘aiding and abetting’ and that prohibits defendants from being awarded costs – even if they win – for things like illegal immigration, hate speech, violence (eg gun crime) or traffic offences.
The method used in the bill is deliberately unbalanced, and could be used in many other scenarios (by Democrats or Republicans) by other States to tilt the legal playing field against a host of potential defendants not directly involved in ‘the crime’, giving massive leverage to ‘private’ prosecutors from activist organisations pursuing political ends.
I’m a little unclear about the actual text of the law but here goes…
The Texas law will allow a private citizen to sue a woman who has had an abortion after 6 weeks – or anyone remotely connected with the procedure.
In all standard legal systems, for a litigant to sue another party they need to show that they have suffered personal loss, damage or injury. It is recognised as being compensation. I fail to see how this principle holds under the new Texas law. If they sue and win, what exactly are they being compensated for??? Do they get to keep the proceeds (this is the bit that I am not clear about)? What damage has the woman or associates inflicted on them? Why should the litigant benefit – it would be pure profit and with no downside.
If Texas doesn’t like abortions, then let them try to introduce a law which makes 6+ week terminations a criminal act.
But to legislate a civil law where a completely unconnected party stands to gain but has suffered no harm undermines the whole concept of civil justice. “I’ve never met you but don’t like what you’re doing. Now pay me $10,000 for me being offended”.
I have always been of the opinion that it is better to have access to a safe procedure and not need it than need it and not have it. However, in the UK we have very good access to free and effective birth control so arguably abortions should be very rare. Sadly they’re not and not always because *hit happens but all manner of reckless and selfish reasons. Sad but true.
How to decrease the abortion rate is a solved question: give women full and free access to the long-acting contraceptive methods that are the most effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy; teach young people accurate information about sex; and make sure that any woman can choose to have a child knowing that she and her baby will be housed and fed.
it would be useful if there were a reference for this. Where has this happened? Not disputing it, but would like evidence rather than just assertion.
This part of the article is totally disingenuous. All these things are available in the UK, but so is easy access to abortion as just another alternative choice. Young people are NOT given accurate information about s*x. In my teaching days I used to give such lessons to Year 12: I was appalled by how ignorant they were and by the end of the lessons, so were they.
Or put men on the “pill” – could be a great 18th birthday present. An injection can be given, almost like chemical castration. Then less women will need to look for the morning after pill or a abortion. Neither are easy and both have health implications whereas the father gets away with it every time.
A mate version of the pill would be a game changer
Republicans in Texas want small government and freedom of choice but then Big Brother government when it suits them?
The headline The new abortion bill is a humiliating and cruel act of misogyny.
No, that is emotive and a mistake I think. It is much more likely that it is partly t*t for tat political point scoring, (as well as the moral aspect presumably) especially when you consider that there are demands from the Left for abortions to be available up until the last day of gestation, which would be barbaric.
Why does reproductive choice never include the choice to reproduce? This is just another unbalanced rant from a ghoulish abortion enthusiast. I stopped reading at the first sentence.
Then you shouldn’t really comment on the article if you didn’t read the points they put forward to explain their viewpoint. It seems you only want to read articles that confirm your worldview, an echo chamber if you will
yea, well whatever – but it really is killing babies. The fetus is not your body, it is its own life – and the father should also have some rights in the situation as it is his body as much as the woman’s genetically.
How about the Hippocratic oath? Where it says “Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”
I must say the whole article is so hyperbolic and emotion laden and angry it is just a political rant really, and maybe could be toned down a bit to appear in a moderate publication.
What you really mean is that you don’t agree with the writers opinion so you attempt to smear the writer as unstable. I’d argue most of the points raised in the piece are valid and your reply is much more emotional and hyperbolic, especially your first line about killing babies, than anything in the article
So if it’s not killing babies, what is it?
I don’t believe it is a baby until it has a chance of survival after being removed from the woman’s body. At what point do you believe that it becomes a life? 20 weeks? 10? Conception? In the testes?
A baby is also dependent on others for survival.
Chance of survival when removed? Well science has made this a moving feast. This isn’t a meaningful definition.
It is killing foetuses. Like nature causes spontaneous abortions in many pregnancies. Having held several foetuses, I can say they are not babies…
Yeah, but you only say that because you don’t agree with his opinion, so you went on to smear him as unstable. You’re accusing him of your own shortcoming.
No I’m not, I’m merely saying that his comment played the man rather than the ball by using the same hyperbole he accused the writer of doing rather than making points of his own
Roe v Wade was highly controversial from the start. That didn’t prevent Planned Parenthood rushing in and using the decision as a mandate. A judicious apoproach would have been to procede with great care, and only apply in extremis. The same could be said for the 1967 UK law. The result of absolutism by choice supporters is absolutism by response. You reap what you sow.
And if the baby is female, what price women’s rights?
I’ve had a second comment “Awaiting for approval” all day and all because I used the phrase t*t for tat with the i in place.
Because of sex selective abortion, the overwhelming majority of victims of abortion are female. So how exactly is the Texas law a “betrayal of women”?
The last paragraph sounds like the Covid approach to people not getting vaccinated or doubting masking.
Won’t someone think of the children? Especially the unborn ones? Someone needs to because this author has a heart of stone.
Pro-herd
The way to resolve this argument once and for all is to have a referendum to vote on the question – “Do you wish you had been aborted?”.
How about putting the new laws to a referendum so they can be properly debated and voters are free to make a decision that doesn’t involve party politics? If they’re that confident they’re right surely they can trust the voters
No doubt the Texas law is poorly framed but if restricting abortion is misogynistic, is enabling abortion paedophobic? The UK aborts over 200,000 wannabe children each year of which only a few per cent are the product of rape, incest , poverty, underage girls, or going to have a severe handicap, for which abortion should probably be available.
I was born and raised in Texas and with the exception of eight blissful months in San Diego have lived in this atmosphere.
To what can one attribute the culture here?
Let’s start with the Bible Belt and the automatic conference of white male supremacy. Not all Christians hold to this dogma, but it is an acceptable enough tenet not to be sidelined.
The point of concern is lack of white babies. Perhaps you are guffawing as you read that.
The best statement I have read is that miscegenation, LGBT people, and abortion are impacting that
I can hear some of you laughing across the Pond. I would respectfully direct you to one Jonathan F. Mitchell, the former Soliciter General of the Lone Star State.
His record itself speaks volumes. Glance through his targets, and it will leave no question as to where this man stands on multiple points for attack.
As many, I was listening to the Supreme Court hearing today which included Mr. Mitchell defending SB8.
I wanted to know more about his draconian views – or if they truly were draconian.
I was not disappointed. My favorite quote thus far is one in which he chides women for using birth control and sterilization (no abortion mentioned here) as ways to continue their lack of control in engaging in sexual intercourse.
I will leave it to you, fellow readers, to examine these statements for yourselves.
So, yeppers (as we say) – consider the source and the potential end game:. Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen!
Anti-abortion in the USA is driven by religion. In the same way, politicians have to say ‘God bless America’ when they appear in public – in a secular country according to the constitution.
So, we have the Taliban driven by extreme religious beliefs and the USA also. Which is more dangerous to us in our lives?
The Taliban have guns, the USA nuclear weapons. In some US cities ordinary citizens also walk about the streets with automatic rifles strung over their shoulders. How do we see this as ‘OK’?.
People, especially young people, see the USA as great. They see the movies and the endless police series on TV with car cases and shoot-outs. They don’t see the bigotry, the drugs, the gang fights (guns not knives), the No-Go areas in cities, the people sleeping on the streets. In the religious areas, abortion will always be seen as murder, whatever the circumstances, however the women suffer – because on Sundays the preachers say that God says that abortion is murder.