There is a case before the USSC currently that, if the Court rules with the State of Louisiana, will make getting an abortion in Louisiana somewhat more inconvenient for some women. They (some women whose home is distant) would have to drive a couple hours to an abortion clinic, rather than accessing one closer to home. Hence, we are warned that women's "reproductive freedom" is under attack.
Reproductive freedom? If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she can decline to engage in reproductive behavior. It is free and completely safe to do so. Or if she is OK with having a baby, but doesn't want to have one with a particular man, she can shun that man, sexually. Or she can go on birth control pills, which are 99% effective when used as directed. Or she can use an IUD. Or she can insist that the man use a condom. Or she can get her "tubes tied." So, like Adam and Eve in the garden, there are a whole shitload of means she can take to exercise her "reproductive freedom" ; she just can't have an abortion, conveniently.
But what if abortion were off the table, excepting only cases where the LIFE (not the "health," which could mean anything at all) of the mother was in jeopardy, how would it impact the lives of fecund women?
Would they not seek to access one or more of the strategies mentioned above? And if such a law or decision were to come to fruition (prohibiting abortion), wouldn't it also make these strategies universally available - i.e., "free" birth control pills?
And dare we mention, abortion was a crime in almost every state prior to 1973, a crime in EVERY state a couple decades earlier, and the number of women who were severely harmed by "botched abortions" is grossly overrepresented in the current mythology. A couple woman a year in the whole country.
I submit that as much political angst as is current expended on the abortion issue is pathological. If it were completely outlawed (which would never happen - some states would approve it by law immediately after the feared USSC decision), it would not be such a big deal at all. Women would be a little more careful in their reproductive habits. That's it.
Reproductive freedom? If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she can decline to engage in reproductive behavior. It is free and completely safe to do so. Or if she is OK with having a baby, but doesn't want to have one with a particular man, she can shun that man, sexually. Or she can go on birth control pills, which are 99% effective when used as directed. Or she can use an IUD. Or she can insist that the man use a condom. Or she can get her "tubes tied." So, like Adam and Eve in the garden, there are a whole shitload of means she can take to exercise her "reproductive freedom" ; she just can't have an abortion, conveniently.
But what if abortion were off the table, excepting only cases where the LIFE (not the "health," which could mean anything at all) of the mother was in jeopardy, how would it impact the lives of fecund women?
Would they not seek to access one or more of the strategies mentioned above? And if such a law or decision were to come to fruition (prohibiting abortion), wouldn't it also make these strategies universally available - i.e., "free" birth control pills?
And dare we mention, abortion was a crime in almost every state prior to 1973, a crime in EVERY state a couple decades earlier, and the number of women who were severely harmed by "botched abortions" is grossly overrepresented in the current mythology. A couple woman a year in the whole country.
I submit that as much political angst as is current expended on the abortion issue is pathological. If it were completely outlawed (which would never happen - some states would approve it by law immediately after the feared USSC decision), it would not be such a big deal at all. Women would be a little more careful in their reproductive habits. That's it.
