Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

A Conservative Case for Abortion Access

Buckle up buttercup … This is going to be a long one…

Preamble

First, let me start by saying I abhor abortion. A piece of me inside cried when I heard that someone I knew had terminated a pregnancy and I said a short prayer for the baby and the mom. Yet, I am sitting here writing an advocacy piece in favor of access to abortion services.

When I hear that a fetus is not yet “life” at six months gestation I think of the preemie pictures of me that my mom keeps in a private album showing me at 987 grams (2lbs 2oz) and of my brother even smaller. Extracted from my mother’s womb in an emergency surgery at six months gestation, and not yet breathing, were we not life?

I’ve posted on abortion here previously (prior to the over-turning of Roe). In those posts, I’ve expressed my reservations about the procedure. And yet I sit here now, after forcing myself to spend many hours thinking about justice and rights and healthcare and society, and I’m about to advocate for preserving access to the procedure.


What is a “Right”?

Notice I said I am going to advocate for access to abortion services and not for abortion rights. Abortion is not a right. Neither is healthcare. Or food. Or housing. People who claim these are “rights” do not understand what a right is (and before you go off on me, I do support universal access to healthcare and food security, but these are not “rights”).

Abortion, and healthcare in general, is a service provided by one person or group of people to another. As a service, comprised of the labors of people, it cannot be another person’s “right”. John Locke discussed the Rights of the Natural Man in his many writings. If you’ve not read him, I strongly recommend you do.

So what are the rights of the natural man (person) and how does this relate to the abortion discussion? In the US Declaration of Independence, our founders stated to the world that…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,
- that all men are created equal,
- that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
- that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
~US Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776


Now I’ll be the first to admit that America is and our Founders were far from perfect and not everyone was treated equally, but the point made in that Declaration was that our “rights” did not come from the government or from the English Crown or from any congress or any judge. Our rights were pre-existing. Our “rights” were something that was naturally possessed by virtue of having been born. This is an important point. One that our founders came back to when they sought to create a “more perfect union.”

A More Perfect Union

Eleven years after declaring our independence from the English Crown, our founders recognized the need to form a “more perfect union” and set out to codify in a document what the new American government should look like. That document, the US Constitution, has survived and adapted for over 230 years. And while it has survived by adapting to changing times through the amendment process, one thing has remained constant. That is the understanding that “Rights” do not come from the Constitution or from the American government. Rights are part of the pre-existing state of the Natural Man (again, see John Locke).

So, what is all this discussion of “Constitutional Rights”?? Here’s a really important point: There is no such thing as a Constitutional Right. None. Rather, among the MANY rights of the Natural Man, there is a subset listed in the Constitution that government cannot infringe upon. This is the famous five words favored by so many of my conservative friends and repeated over and over in the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law...” infringing on this right or that right.

That’s correct. Your right to free speech is not granted by the Constitution. Rather, the US government (and by extension the states) is prohibited from infringing on your pre-existing natural right to free thought and free expression.

Similarly, your right to freely practice the religion of your choosing or none at all is not granted by the Constitution. Rather, the US government (and by extension the states) is prohibited from infringing on your pre-existing natural right to freely believe whatever you’d like.

And, your right to own and carry (keep and bear) arms is not granted by the Constitution. Rather, the US government (and by extension the states) is prohibited from infringing on your pre-existing natural right to self-defense.

What’s my point here, you ask? Simple. Our Declaration announced our belief that we are each endowed with rights that pre-exist and supersede any government action. Our Constitution went on to enumerate a short list of some of those pre-existing rights.

Whoa Sara! What do you mean a short list of some of those rights?? I mean exactly that. In Constitutional theory, we talk about the enumerated rights contained in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and we talk about the greater list of unenumerated rights of the natural man (person).

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other {right}s retained by the people."
~US Constitution, 9th Amendment

That’s right! The Bill of Rights, enumerated in the Constitution, which prevents the government from stepping on certain of your rights was never intended to be a complete list of your rights. You have many other rights!

But Sara, you said abortion wasn’t a right? Why are we talking so much about rights?

Two reasons. First because the 9th amendment above has been repeatedly interpreted to mean that the “rights” of the people enumerated in the Constitution should be broadly construed whenever possible.

And secondly, because we do have a very important right that is discussed in the Constitution, but that doesn’t get anywhere near enough attention. Privacy. The pre-existing natural right to privacy that we all cherish. Please, my conservative friends, tell me how you feel when someone from the government wants to know something about your personal life? Right? I feel the same way. It’s none of their business.

So let’s look at this right to privacy? Where is it in the Constitution (if at all)? The answer is that it is everywhere! It underpins your right to privacy in your beliefs, thoughts, and expression (1st amendment), your right to privacy in your home (3rd amendment), your right to privacy in your person and possessions (4th amendment), your right to privacy in your personal information and against self-incrimination (5th amendment). And, of course, the 9th amendment, quoted above, clarifies that our rights are far broader than just those listed in writing.

Let’s look at that right to privacy in our persons and possessions:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
~US Constitution, 4th amendment

Secure in my person??

Against unreasonable searches?

Hmmm. What could that mean? Perhaps that as a Natural (Person), I have a pre-existing natural right to be free from intrusive inquiries and/or restrictions about what I do with and to my body.

As I said at the opening of this essay, I abhor abortion. A little piece of me inside dies with each baby aborted. In a perfect world, I would let Jewish Law govern the abortion issue. The child has a Right to Life unless the mother’s life or health is threatened; in which case, the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the child. I like that. It has balance. But here’s the thing: As a slightly right-of-center person, I do not want, nor do I trust the government to enforce such a policy. That mother has a natural right to privacy and a right to be secure in her person, secure from government intrusion.

I wish for abortion to be rare. I wish for every baby conceived to be given every chance at life and for every baby born to have every advantage and opportunity for success. But this is not a perfect world and I’ve yet to be convinced that there is some compelling government interest justifying intrusion into the decisions made by an expectant mother.

If you live in a state where your right to privacy is respected in law, great. If you live in a state where it is not, then I ask you to consider what freedoms, what liberties, what privacy you are willing to hand over to the people in your state government. For me, that is a very short list. 😔






My hope is for civil discussion in the comments below. In over ten years of active participation in discourse on EP & SW, I have never deleted a comment on any of my stories. For this story, my policy will change: I will allow only civil discourse. Any comment containing derogatory or accusatory statements toward another SWeep or any group of people will be deleted.

You can say anything you want to or about me but be kind to each other or I will delete comments. And yes, for this story, I am the sole judge and jury regarding kindness and all decisions are final. 😉
Graylight · 51-55, F
I appreciate not only your contribution to this discussion but your willingness to openly reflect on the details of this issue. Any stance borne of critical thought with synthesis of all factors can never be criticized.

For me, the issue is a simple one. A woman possesses the same autonomy over own body and life as does a man. Period. Mostly men have attempted to legislate women's bodies more than 468 times. They have attempted to legislate a man's body exactly zero times. Ever.

No stranger may tell me I can't have a child in this country. No stranger will tell me who I have to marry in this country. No man will tell me whether or not I have to procreate.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Graylight Any stance, critically borne or not, can always be criticized. This is inherent in our natural right to free thought and expression and borne into our pluralistic society. :)

But thank you. :)
Graylight · 51-55, F
@sarabee1995 Let me rephrase. You are correct; let me say rather, any stance borne of critical thought with synthesis is above reproach by those who've done lesser work.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Graylight Thank you 😌
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
So I appreciate you taking so much time to write on this. My stance is radically pro choice. A fetus is a life but it is a life that is ethical to end.

I'm less interested in the constitution which is too often treated as a dogma - a perfect text we flawed humans must interpret - rather than a pretty decent document that captures late 18th century liberalism.

Privacy is Good. A society with privacy is a happy one and one worth living in. That's why it matters.

But vitally, abortion is a medical issue and the principle of medical autonomy over your own body is vital to a healthy society and people. When we realize that 70% of pregnancies end in natural miscarriages the ethics of abortion come back into question.

Trying for a baby ends so many lives prematurely that the mere act of trying to procreate should be banned. They'd close a road that killed 70% of passengers.

Or there's the "would you save one five year old or a thousand viable frozen embryos?" thought experiment. No sane person would save the embryos get many of them tell me those are lives equivalent to my own.

They aren't. And we have to accept that with medical abortion. Even later term ones, which are almost always wanted pregnancies that have gone horribly wrong.

There is no positive outcome to legislating abortion and there is no ethical line you can draw at A weeks without causing profound human suffering.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 Yeah I think so. Really, this is less about "is it right or wrong" and more about "is it ethical to ban it" and I think we can both see how it isn't.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@CountScrofula Oh boy! You brought up ethics! I very intentionally left ethics out of this essay. All draft versions of this essay included a section discussing the ethics of the abortion procedure and the ethics of banning the procedure.

And in my prior abortion post there was a great conversation in the comments on the "relative value" of prenatal life relative to the adult pregnant mom.

Ethical discussions are obviously complex by their nature. I'm not sure this issue can be decided on ethics alone. I can argue either side.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 Well to me it just comes down to "does this make your society better or worse".

If you're interested, this is my favourite ever article on abortion because to me it really clearly lays out why banning it is just bad policy.

https://publicseminar.org/2016/11/is-abortion-candy/
pdqsailor1 · 61-69, M
In Canada we all have access to health care including Women's access to abortion services. That said it was not that many years ago that abortion services were neither legal nor accessible and one Doctor, Henry Morgentaler fought this and eventually prevailed at significant personal sacrifice. We do not have the US constitution, neither does the UK, neither does Europe, all democratic areas of the world.. yet abortion services are available in all these jurisdictions.. Like you my Wife was very premature, also 2.2 ounces at birth and she survived..

You have a clear understanding of the Jewish view of abortion, where the fetus is held to be potential life, secondary in importance to the life of the Mother who possesses actual life up until the moment of birth at which point it becomes actual life, regardless at what point birth takes place (premature birth)... The talmud discusses the case of a threat to the life of the Mother including late term abortions... but that does not in any way describe a right to abortion and by this standard it is very rare to establish a case for abortion, certainly not on demand... but as you say no one is going to submit to a rabbinical court for a decision, it simply is not practical even if it has moral standing and standards - biblical law is the foundation for western law - something most people are unaware of, perhaps one reason that for decades half the Harvard Law School graduates have been Jewish.

The idea that states rights should over ride a uniform application of a US Woman citizen's natural rights or interfere with a decision between a Woman, her own moral standards and the advice of her physician is I agree bizarre.. and unwarranted, not to mention cowardly and politically motivated on the part of a Supreme Court who have lost credibility, with the recently appointed justices reneging, let me be so bold and say LYING in their confirmation hearings..

If my own Daughters found themselves having to make this impossible choice.. I would still prefer that they retain the options available to them rather than have someone else decide for them what is best.... We raised them to be independent, to be able to think critically and to choose wisely.. they are adults and our job is done.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@pdqsailor1 You avoided my question over a technicality.

So I'll modify the scenario... I'm visiting a range and watching you try to impress me with your shooting skills. An assailant enters the building guns blazing, I jump over the counter grabbing the Sig while airborne, chamber a round, and get off two rounds before I land. They land center mass and he drops like the piece of shit that he is.

So. Am I guilty of something for this selfless act of defending others?
pdqsailor1 · 61-69, M
In the scenario you describe .. you would be be totally exonerated after police questioning.. and they will have you repeat the scenario again and again and again... because on that range is the only place in Canada were that gun may be set down loaded on a shooting table @sarabee1995 I have a good friend on our dock, retired Master of the court.. (a judges Judge)... he and I walked through the scenarios.... The general rule of thumb for self defence in Canada is you can escalate one level beyond an assailant to defend your self excluding a gun because that is the way they structure the law.. He has fists, you can use a club/stick, he has a club/stick, you can use a knife, he has a knife, you can use a sword.. he has a sword.. You have a problem because grabbing a magazine, going to the safe, unlocking it, unlocking the trigger lock and loading that magazine and then moving into position to use that gun after assessing the threat the guy swinging that sword..... well the minutes keep on ticking past and that is exactly what the law was intended to do.. make self defence with a fire arm a practical impossibility in Canada... They did this on purpose...To compound this.. my ammunition and loaded magazines are in locked boxes.....
pdqsailor1 · 61-69, M
@sarabee1995 One of the exceptions to the law that will allow for a carry permit is to protect actual life, yours or someone else's but ... that threat has to be evaluated and agreed to by a local police chief and it has to be REAL... I am Jewish, given the number of hate incidents targeting orthodox small congregations - Pittsburgh, Poway CA, NY and NJ, there was an incident in Texas.. The synagogue I attend has been subject to hate crimes and damage previously... Well if my Rabbi wanted me to carry a loaded side arm, he could write a letter to the local police chief stating that his congregation needs to be protected by a licensed, permitted individual and he would like for this purpose that I be granted a carry permit... for this purpose alone.. and likely ... it would be considered and granted.. A carry permit in Canada for the purpose of protecting a life... is about as rare as it gets..
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
That was a terrific analysis of what your Constitution does and does not say, a bit of historical context (very rare these days) and realism, leading to a well-reasoned and subtle conclusion. I think my moral and ethical convictions may be very different to your own, but that does not matter one bit if we can debate on this level and find common ground for compromise. What has horrified me most in recent weeks is the way in which the US Constitution can be subverted for dogmatic ends and the complete lack of compassion and humility displayed by some very powerful people. It will not survive another two centuries if it continues to be misused as a proxy for the Old Testament. I would love to see you on the Supreme Court in due course healing rifts and serving your nation . . but as someone who does not identify as Republican or Democrat, I guess that is not possible, unfortunately 🙂

Btw, I have read Locke extensively, disagree with most of his views, but completely acknowledge my debt to his development of empiricism 😉

Thanks for taking the time and effort to state your case, it is greatly appreciated 🙂
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@SomeMichGuy Omg MichGuy! I love this! I'm all about free speech (as discussed in prior posts), but providing a platform to the most extreme views on either side is irresponsible journalism.

But the press is free as well, right. So if they choose to provide the two extreme views in order to foster the ugliest of name-calling "debate", then we should know that one view is held by 1.7% of people and the other by 1.6% of people. That would be perfect!

I wouldn't attempt to "ban" unpopular views because a free press is the first defense against tyranny, but I would like to hold our press accountable in this way!
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@sarabee1995 The BBC is a peculiar case because its public charter causes politicians to treat it like a branch of the civil service. The 'balance' editorial policy is a response to continuous government accusations of left wing bias. So rathed less free and more accountable than the average media outlet. But they are occasionally superb. Like funding regional journalists to cover local politics and hold politicians to account. Or leading an investigation into serious sexual allegations against a famous radio DJ which the BBC themselves employed for 19 years (when all his other employers during the relevant period are refusing to answer legitimate questions).
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@SunshineGirl I will admit a bit of a typically-American anti-public-charter bias against the BBC, although I am a regular consumer of BBC World News. And I would say they are quite a bit more than just occasionally superb. 🙂
TheGreatLeveler · 36-40, M
My only issue with pro-choice legislation in its current form is that only women get to have a choice. Men don't have any choice in whether they become fathers or whether they'll be held to the (financial and legal) responsibilities of parenthood.

To make things fairer between both sexes, it would be better to offer men the option to financially abort, within a reasonable time window. That way they won't be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want to have in the first place, just as women aren't forced to give birth to a child they didn't want to have.

This line of reasoning obviously only applies to people who are pro-choice. If you're pro-life, this is all irrelevant. Just like it's an irrelevant argument for regions where abortion is illegal.
TheGreatLeveler · 36-40, M
@Ynotisay
Following your logic, banning abortions might not be the worst strategy either. If women know they're on the hook for creating a human being, precautions might be taken more seriously, and unwanted pregnancies would further decline. The thing with these double standards is that I can easily turn them around on the other gender.

The current status quo isn't really pro-choice. It's pro women's choice. Men don't get any choice. Men and women don't need to be physiologically the same to provide them both with alternatives. Personally, I think it would be best to only have a child if both the father and mother wanted to be parents. Obviously, that would be problematic to enforce by law. There for giving women the option to physically abort, and men the option to financially abort, would qualify as the most plausible rights for both sexes within the pro-choice debate.

If a woman chooses to go full term with a pregnancy, where the man has already opted out of parenthood early on during the pregnancy, the well-being of the child (or lack thereof) would be solely the woman's responsibility. After all, she decided to continue with it, knowing the father didn't want to have that child.
Ynotisay · M
@TheGreatLeveler I'll just go with the first sentence. Following my logic? No dude. Not even close. The rest of it? I get it now. And I'm not on board. Have a good one.
TheGreatLeveler · 36-40, M
I forgot to link it earlier, but a further clarification for my position can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paper_abortion
I would like to say thank you for posting. It's nice to see an opinion and an explanation as to why you believe such. While I personally find religion to be nonsense I have no problem with you practicing / saying a prayer. The difference is you not forcing that religion on people who are not of that faith.

I do completely understand that some believe a fertilized egg is a baby it's just not scientifically true. If this was about "saving the babies" then these "pro-lifers" would have adopted all the children needing homes. Rather this is looking more like forced birth. When, how and with whom if at all someone wants to have children is nobody's business other than the mother and her significant other. Forcing people to have children they don't want will only make things worse. More unwanted children sucking on the gov teat and sitting in foster care with no real families. What if the left actually played fire with fire? What if they started implementing forced abortion? That would be the equivalent here.

This really is a lose-lose situation.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Spunkylama Hmmm, I'm glad you have no problem with me praying, but quite honestly, you have no more right to an opinion on my religious habits than I have on yours. Nor do we, or anyone else, have a right to nose into our reproductive status.

It's about privacy. And thank you. :)
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
My politics are very different to your's but this is such a thoughtful and well-reasoned post: making the case for pro-choice within a Conservative civil-libertarian framing. It also takes guts to go against the conventional wisdom on your own side.
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@Burnley123 🤔 only if you consider the Republican party centre left... 😂😂😂
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Yulianna Which my Massachusetts Republican party is for all intents and purposes. 🤣
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Yulianna Our.Conservative party (who I despise for multiple valid reasons) is centre left compared with the Republican Party.
butterflybaby75 · 46-50, F
Abortion isn't supposed to be a 'free choice'. it should be available due to health or medical reasons where the pregnant woman's and/or the baby's life is at risk, not as a reason to end an unwanted pregnancy. Not every woman is cut out to be or wants to be a mum, but there are plenty of compelling reasons why abortion should be available. Religion should FUCK RIGHT OFF out of it.

Life as a definable property of human existence starts the instant that egg and sperm combine.
butterflybaby75 · 46-50, F
@Spunkylama When does life start then? Come on - give me a scientific definition (not a funky religious one)... I've never needed or wanted to get an abortion myself but have had a miscarriage - to me that life was real and ended when the foetus died at about 6 weeks. Why do we as women have the absolute right to decide about killing another human being before it's born without compelling circumstances?
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@butterflybaby75 Other than acknowledging that I sometimes pray, I have not relied on religion in any aspect of my opinion here. 🤔
@butterflybaby75 Maybe my comment was deleted but it explained that once a fertilized egg implants it's considered "life."

Oh nm I see it now..
Carissimi · F
What an amazing essay. You have put forth a thought provoking argument that makes me think about this issue with a new perspective.

I still believe that when a fetus has a nervous system and feels pain as much as anyone already born, then it would be cruel and barbaric to abort ... unless the mother’s life is in jeopardy, and it will be her choice to risk her life, or not, for the baby. At the stage when the baby feels pain, it’s my opinion that the “right to life” supersedes the “right to privacy. In the early weeks, before 12-weeks, but the sooner the better, perhaps the “right to privacy,” takes precedence. This is what is giving me pause for a new perspective. I suppose it is a very private matter, and governments shouldn’t be involved in control of your body ... but it’s complicated by women using this right as a method of birth control. That’s not acceptable to me, and yet do I have the right to tell another what they can and cannot do with their body? It’s an extremely complex and moral dilemma. I’m not sure there is an absolute correct answer, except once suffering and pain is registered by the fetus then I am adamant that a woman not be allowed to abort unless her life is at risk.
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@sarabee1995 🇺🇦❤🇺🇸 you argue bravely and well. in particular, i admire your seeing that your Constitution does not confer or define rights, it simply recognises certain pre existing rights.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Yulianna Yulia... The recognized origins and treatment of "rights" is a fundamental distinction between Europe and America.

Both our systems recognize and protect human rights. But in most of Europe, those rights are societal and they are conferred by, and therefore can be limited or revoked by governments.

In America, our rights are individual and exist above the rights of society and the powers of government.

Can rights so powerful be abused? Yes, of course. But to us who recognize this distinction in our rights, the alternative is worse.
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@sarabee1995 it is a philosophical question rather than political, do "rights" have an inherent existence or are they a human construct?

and that's the same question we pose about "god".

so, are "god" and "rights" in fact both expressions of some intangible aspect of our nature? something we know exists beyond definition?

a random thought... if you hold something to be self evident, you are putting it beyond discussion or dispute. it is absolutely true simply because it is.

i wish i had more time but i need to get back to dealing with the fallout from russia agreeing to grain exportd and then trying to blow up the port facilities in Odesa. 🤷‍♀️

🤗
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@MalteseFalconPunch Thank you. Thank you very much.

If you wish to discuss those things upon which we disagree, and enjoy civil but spirited discourse, them I'm happy to engage. 🙂
HikingMan · 51-55, M
This particular version of The SCOTUS is actually forcing an agenda, and casting aside decades of precedent, and centuries of it's own self-imposed checks to assure impartiality, equity, and an overall appearance of fairness, in order to impose their will and stamp upon the American Experience & History.

Those who celebrate the ending to Roe, are also in turn, proudly sanctioning the cessation of inherent rights to all people. Which in time shall lead us down a road where even those that celebrate this decision shall eventually be infringed upon using the same arguments these biased and politically motivated judges have used here.

Right now they target directly those who live outside of mainstream Christianity...., but soon..., sooner than they think...., it will be their own wants on the chopping block of the New SKOTUS, and it's illegitimately gained, Super Majority.....


I thoroughly enjoyed reading through your post and opinions.
I don't get to see too many fully fleshed postings here that offer real content.
Well done.

Be well
Live happy
Die trying,
Rob
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@HikingMan Hi Rob... Long time no speak. I hope all is well. 🙂

Don't be too critical of this decision. While I am disappointed with it's impact (the curtailing of access to abortion services), I cannot argue with the decision. And let's not forget that none other than Justice Ginsberg warned us that Roe was badly decided and needed shoring up.

There is no federal right to abortion access and there never has been.

This is appropriately a state issue.

Proponents of access to the procedure need to focus on state capitals.

And for those capitals dominated by conservative thought, I hope this essay helps.
Yulianna · 26-30, F
🇺🇦❤🇺🇸 strange how the greatest legal minds America can produce have signally failed to see this...
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@TexChik What I read from your chart is a great argument for banning handguns. 😂
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@Burnley123 i certainly don't want handguns banned...
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@MartinII you don't... ok.
MommyLucy · 36-40, F
Cause I am special needs (I have very mild autism) I honestly found this post very difficult to understand. But I agree with you. 😘😘😘

I have always been pro life for the sole reason I love children. I am like a child myself and the thought of a child getting ripped apart upsets me cause I love kids. 😭😭😭 But when someone says a innocent girl was raped I get pro choice instantly. 🤔🤔🤔 Also something happened recently that REALLY makes me sick and turns me pro choice. My husband told me. A ten year old child was raped and had to travel to another state for an abortion. I'm sorry but that is wrong. She is a child. I am pro life in most cases cause I love kids but no underage child should ever be forced to suffer a pregnancy and the judge who made the poor child travel to a different state is heartless. 🤬🤬🤬
MommyLucy · 36-40, F
@Ynotisay Awwww! 🤗🤗🤗 I completely agree! 😘😘😘

I love kids cause of my autism I am a big kid myself and and just have a huge soft spot for small children! 😁😁😁
Ynotisay · M
@MommyLucy Yep. Me too. So you want what's best for the child. Could be why the majority of women who have abortions already have children.
MommyLucy · 36-40, F
@Ynotisay I was always very pro life but when I heard about the 10 year old child bless her who got raped and was denied an abortion in her state my blood boiled! 🤬🤬🤬 That girl is a child only 10 years old so for underage abused children I am pro choice forever! 😇😇😇
Scribbles · 36-40, F
I'm too opinionated and pro-choice, any comment I make would just piss off people. I am curious if you hid or deleted your previous abortion post, I went to look for it after reading this and couldn't find it.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Scribbles Here you go...

https://similarworlds.com/life/4270341-I-Struggle-with-the-Abortion-Issue-Poll-Question

(And yes, my position has evolved since then. I've spent a LOT of time thinking about this.)
Scribbles · 36-40, F
@sarabee1995 Thank you for the link. I've been wanting to go back and look at what I wrote because I've wanted to write a post about abortion for a long time now and rereading it will remind me of the things I skipped addressing at the time.but want to remember this time around. I'll likely write a post instead of commenting since you know how I get long-winded.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Scribbles Works for me. It's an important issue. Let me know when you post it. 🙂
TexChik · F
I agree that abortion is abhorrent behavior, especially when it is used flippantly as birth control. What the constitution did not do was specifically make abortion a right to be protected by the federal government. The recent Supreme court ruling concerning Roe V Wade corrected egregious judicial activism. The tenth amendment clearly spelled out the course to be taken with concern to abortion. I do think some states are overreacting in their indignation over being forced to allow something they find disgusting and have locked down any access to abortions. Only time and elections can change that.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@TexChik Oh agreed. I said right up front that there is no constitutionally protected right to an abortion. Such a right is not possible.

And yes, with no federal solution, this is obviously a state issue, as I believe it should be.

What I am advocating here is for conservatives to be consistent, and I do consider myself to be a (small "c") conservative. We are for small government, unobtrusive government, freedom & liberty before government intervention, personal responsibility... Right?

And, above all, the right to be secure in our persons from government intrusion. So at the state level, I think we should get the government out of the business of regulating when an abortion can or cannot take place. This is a private matter that no woman should have to explain to the government.

My humble opinion 😌
TexChik · F
@sarabee1995 it may be a private matter but taking a life that can not defend itself makes it tough to accept.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@TexChik The whole issue is tough. I was serious above when I said it took me a LOT of time and thinking to reach this conclusion. But the alternative is also difficult. 😔
MartinII · 70-79, M
Absolutely brilliant piece. As it happens, it encapsulates my views not only on abortion but on the question of “rights” in general. But to find such a supremely intellectual essay amidst the general dross on SW (to which I contribute occasionally) was a wonderful surprise. Thank you.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@MartinII Thank you. 😌

And I also contribute occasionally to the baser side of SW! 🤣
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@sarabee1995 @Burnley123 serious question... is it any longer possible to consider the political spectrum as a fixed scale? or is every position on it defined subjectively, in relation to where the definer is standing - how the definer defines her/his self?

WTF is "centre left" or "hard right", "conservative" or "liberal"... or any other label?

i know my politics are reasonable, so by definition, it is self evident that anyone who does not agree with me is unreasonable... and where does that get us? 😂😂

i did think of posting this as a question for open debate, and then i thought about all the "unreasonable" response i would get.

so i probably will... but right now i have a war to fight.

🌻🇺🇦🌻🇺🇸🌻🇬🇧🌻🇺🇦🌻
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Yulianna You are, of course and as usual, right. We all describe ourselves in terms with which we are comfortable; and usually use a linear scale to do so.

But in reality, no linear scale can accurately depict the range of possible political positions. At least a Venn diagram would be needed and likely a three dimensional one (if such a thing exists).

Politics is complicated and makes for strange bedfellows.
Yulianna · 26-30, F
@sarabee1995 too tired to answer now...
Reject · 26-30, M
For me it’s as simple as a difference in belief. Pro life people feel life begins at conception. If I also believed that then I would take their side, but I don’t. So it can’t really be argued, we just feel differently about it.
Reject · 26-30, M
@sarabee1995 Well here’s how I saw it. Any line on that spectrum is prochoice because that’s the choice they ideally want you to have, even if the ideal of choice is different for everyone who is prochoice.

Prolife is all about having no choice, that’s their ideal, because you’re now infringing on another human life. So if they do have a line on that spectrum, it’s begrudgingly. It’s the choice they’re allowing you to have, but it’s not one they want you to have. Otherwise they’d be prochoice.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Reject Now see... You can't do that. You don't get to decide what the other side thinks or believes.

One of my very good conservative pro-life friends once told me that the pro-choice camp wants to be able to abort children up to two months after birth. Now, I know that a very small fringe element of the pro-choice camp supports this, but it is a very small element. And for her to make that generalization was wrong. Just as it is wrong for you to assume (or worse, to claim) that every pro-life person is in line with the most extreme elements of that movement.

Politics is a spectrum.
Reject · 26-30, M
@sarabee1995 I’m not really deciding anything for anyone, I’m just trying to make sense of it.

No matter how much variance there may be with those who have chosen a side, one is clearly in favor of the mother who can make a choice. (Prochoice) and the other in favor of the “life” inside of her which can’t. (Prolife) hence the terms coined for each side of this.

I’ll await the day I meet someone who is prolife telling me that they’re happy with the mother having a choice to abort because that wouldn’t make any sense to me.

*edit*

I can see some prolife people being okay with less extreme forms of abortion. Such as the morning after pill in your example, but I can’t see them being happy about it. To me that’s prochoice.

Obviously people are free to call theirselves anything they like regardless of whatever does and doesn’t make sense to me. Honestly, people who call themselves Christians can also choose to not believe in God at the same time. Anyone can claim anything they like and it doesn’t have to make sense to anyone but them.
PTCdresser57 · 61-69, M
Well written...do I agree with abortion...no..but..it is more about choice. If a person gets an abortion that person or couple must live with their decision.
I read later in this post about guns...I am for ppl having guns..but as my father..bless his sole said and mind you he was in the service for 35 years and had many trophies for marksmenship. If it is made for hunting then you can have one or if it was made for protection you can have one but if it is made for combat...then NO...no one needs one.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@PTCdresser57 As a service member myself who qualified expert on the M16 my first time, I would agree with your father. I see no reason for the individual right to own assault ("fully automatic") weapons. But, a semi-automatic weapon is not an assault weapon. It might be a sport rifle or a hunting rifle, it might be made to look like an assault rifle, but it is not an assault rifle. There is not an army in this world that would go to war with a semi-automatic rifle.

I have an essay posted here somewhere about the second amendment. Let me know if you'd like a link
KiwiBird · 36-40, F
This.....American Men controlling what American Women can and can not do.

Washington policeman Bill Norton measuring the distance between knee and suit at the Tidal Basin bathing beach after the local authorities issued an order that suits not be over six inches above the knee. 1922.

[image/video deleted]
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Graylight This pic is from when? A hundred years ago? I think we've come quite far.
KiwiBird · 36-40, F
@Graylight Seen absolute double standards....middle eastern man in shorts and t- shirt walking along a beach with his wife in full hijab and full length traditional clothing....so sad.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@KiwiBird And when faced with a man in a tank top and shorts and a woman in the same dress, places like Disney are escorting the females from the park for inappropriate dress. (And most of it is - have a little class, America - but when only one side is enforced, the law becomes moot.)
Heartlander · 80-89, M
Health care providers, employers, etc. also have rights and should not be compelled by the government to perform or pay for abortions or anything that''s not within their moral beliefs.

"My body my choice" is a shallow right when others are compelled to participate in your choices that's contrary to their choice.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Heartlander Agreed completely. But I've never heard of any government anywhere forcing a clinician to perform any medical procedure, least of all an abortion.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@sarabee1995

I believe that some states require hospitals to provide some abortion procedures.

There were also issues a few years ago where nurses were required to assist in late term and partial birth abortions.

[media=https://youtu.be/7RfKoex_4vI]
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@BiasForAction Thank you. 🙂
KiwiBird · 36-40, F
Way to much American Politics in this for me to feel comfortable in responding constructively. I see guns in the replies already..... in a debate on abortion. FFS.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@KiwiBird Not as out of place in the comments as you might think. I actually brought up guns, speech, and religion in my essay above to make a point about how our Constitution treats rights differently from other legal systems around the world.

And yes, this essay was written very specifically about abortion and privacy in the context of American Constitutional law.
Budwick · 70-79, M
So, you have contorted and pulled the right to murder an unborn child out of the 9th amendment? Ahhh, no.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Budwick Oh no. I most certainly have not.

What I am saying here is that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments taken together acknowledge a right to privacy. With that right (acknowledged in many decisions), and barring a compelling government interest, I see no role for the government in an expectant mother's decision.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@sarabee1995
in an expectant mother's decision.

Decision to.......? Kill her baby?
Who protects the babies? Murdering mothers?
familyfunguy · 56-60, M
Is there a tl;dr version of your post, OP? 🙃 A friend of mine was only curious.

Anyhow, here's my conservative case for allowing abortion access. I don't like losers who sit on their asses, using drugs instead of working at a job.

If you're fine with outlawing abortion, hopefully you're also fine with people doing things like talking in movie theaters. I think that's one type of person you could happily see less of if abortion isn't so difficult to get.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@familyfunguy
"Is there a tl;dr version of your post, OP?"
Sorry. If 1500 words is too much for your "friend" just tell him to move on. There's plenty of picture posts here. 🙄
vetguy1991 · 51-55, M
Very well written and thoughtful
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@vetguy1991 Thank you. 🙂
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@MistyCee Thank you 😌
UserNameSW · 46-50, M
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@UserNameSW Thank you!

 
Post Comment