American Women are having more Abortions

[Benjamin Frank]

A lot of non-Atlas blue states have moved left on abortion since 2018, creating new public or public-private partnerships to increase abortion access/education (especially for Black/Brown women.)

It's unsurprising that a culture that increasingly celebrates abortion would have more of it. 

Nobody celebrates abortion. The need for it is a fact of modern life.

You're kidding yourself if you think the culture doesn't celebrate abortion.  The days of "safe, legal and rare" are long gone.

There are holidays that celebrate abortion, Andrew Cuomo lit up the World Trade Center in pink to celebrate New York state legalizing late-term abortions, and celebrities on award stages are applauded when crediting their success to a decision to terminate a human life.

And Democrats are complicit in this new, celebratory culture around abortion.  Arguments like "abortion is healthcare" or that abortion "empowers" women are advanced in service to the goal of normalizing and destigmatizing mass abortion. 

Abortion can be legally protected while still acknowledging it as a personal and moral failure.  But is that even what you (and the Democrats more broadly) believe these days?

I offer that it's not a celebration of abortion, but rather a celebration of the freedom of choice. Freedom from oppression by perhaps people like you who want to throw your own personal morality and fear of God into the ring as the standard for all.

Using terms like "freedom of choice" is exactly the type of celebratory jargon that whitewashes what abortion really is - the termination of human life.

Your post tells how perfectly happy you are to celebrate and #ShoutYourAbortion as long as it's to "own" those tirelessly defending the sanctity of life.  You're equating abortion rights to the war to defeat the Nazis or something.  Grow up.   

No one should be happy to talk about abortion, much less happy to have one.  Abortion is a shameful and hurtful reality, but the pro-choice movement has had the normalization and promotion of abortion as their goal for several years now.     

You are operating inside a realm of wanting to control women, wanting to speak for your God, and wanting the entire country to fit in with your definition of what is right and moral. You may not agree with what I'm saying here, but your words tell a different tale.

You say I celebrate abortion but again, I tell you that nobody celebrates abortion. Especially me. I am all for freedom. I am for women having the right to dictate what happens to their own body, without moralists like you trying to crawl into their vaginas to vicariously see what's going on in there.

Why don't you put your nose in your own business and take care of your own health and the health of your family. That's your right. Period

You're only *saying* you don't celebrate abortion while having absolutely nothing but positive things to say about it.  So what does that mean you really believe?   

Repeat after me:  saying abortion can only be described as "a woman's right" is a fundamental denial of what abortion factually is, which is the termination of human life.     

That you can only imagine an assertion of this reality as tantamount to religious bigotry says much more about you than it does me. 

[Benjamin Frank]

Frank, are you just trying to “pwn teh cons”?

Absolutely not.

I'm not sure what I can say without it being considered personal, or a 'personal attack.' I normally don't care about anybody here because what matters to me is the ideas, not the personalities. However,

1.In terms of not being original: I doubt that DT is saying anything that has not been said by others previously, even if he is not quoting. In fact, claiming (falsely) that a non viable fetus is the equivalent of a human life would carry no weight if it were an original argument of DT's. If one private individual held that view alone, it would be of no significance.  I quoted that rather than write my own post because it was easier.

2.More importantly, I think it does get to the heart of the abortion issue, which I regard as the ultimate in virtue signalling, for the reasons pointed out in that quote: it allows the individual to feel morally superior to others (or at least fine with themselves morally) while making absolutely no sacrifice or having any cost to themselves.  

3.So, this is the personal part, in that in another thread DT wrote this:

After two years of covid hysteria, it's very obvious who the public health bureaucrats at the CDC are in business for.  Normal people do not act, think or talk like this.      

1 million deaths from Covid in the United States in two years is hysteria?  I think it is absolutely fair to question the committment a person has to actual human life when they minimize 1 million deaths as 'hysteria.'      

The difference: moralizing about other people having abortion is easy, actually doing something in a time of pandemic is not as easy (at least it wasn't to Americans.)

[Benjamin Frank]

Frank, are you just trying to “pwn teh cons”?

Absolutely not.

I'm not sure what I can say without it being considered personal, or a 'personal attack.' I normally don't care about anybody here because what matters to me is the ideas, not the personalities. However,

1.In terms of not being original: I doubt that DT is saying anything that has not been said by others previously, even if he is not quoting. In fact, claiming (falsely) that a non viable fetus is the equivalent of a human life would carry no weight if it were an original argument of DT's. If one private individual held that view alone, it would be of no significance.  I quoted that rather than write my own post because it was easier.

2.More importantly, I think it does get to the heart of the abortion issue, which I regard as the ultimate in virtue signalling, for the reasons pointed out in that quote: it allows the individual to feel morally superior to others (or at least fine with themselves morally) while making absolutely no sacrifice or having any cost to themselves.  

3.So, this is the personal part, in that in another thread DT wrote this:

After two years of covid hysteria, it's very obvious who the public health bureaucrats at the CDC are in business for.  Normal people do not act, think or talk like this.      

1 million deaths from Covid in the United States in two years is hysteria?  I think it is absolutely fair to question the committment a person has to actual human life when they minimize 1 million deaths as 'hysteria.'      

The difference: moralizing about other people having abortion is easy, actually doing something in a time of pandemic is not as easy (at least it wasn't to Americans.)

On the contrary, it could just as easily be said that advocating for prenatal children is the most thankless job there is.  If we choose to ignore the unborn, they literally go away.  They're the only group completely unable to ever speak for themselves.  Advocating for the unborn is worth it if you see them as the most vulnerable members of our society.

Secondly, there is nothing more "sacrificial" about advocating for the poor, sick, homeless, etc. if your only proposed solution for them is more taxes on the rich.  Christians get credit for running a parallel cradle-to-grave welfare state for orphans, widows, prisoners, immigrants, shut-ins, etc. that has existed for centuries, with much more effect and long before any government ever got around to it.

The parroted quote relies on so many ungracious assumptions about pro-life Christians that it cannot be considered anything other than bait to dangle in front of online slacktivists like yourself, itching to get an "own" in on people they already decided to hate a long time ago.  I'll stand by my characterization of you.  

Yes, and everything you write here confirms to me that you need to believe and believe you are, morally superior to other people, precisely because you are anti-abortion.

1.In addition to what you wrote here, you told another person in this thread to 'grow up' and said that women who have abortions have committed a 'personal and moral failure.'

I don't know if that's hate or anger from you, but you are certainly confirming to me that your primary or even sole interest in abortion is to claim to yourself and others that you are a 'moral' person and that you are morally superior to other people. Of course, I have no way of knowing what else you might be doing to reduce unwanted pregnancies and nor do I know if you hold yourself to such a similar high standard regarding 'moral failures' though your comment referring to Covid as 'a hysteria' certainly suggests to me you don't.

2.Most countries that have legal abortion and anything approaching a sucessful welfare state have higher taxes in general, not just on the wealthy. Whether Americans would be open to that or not, I have no idea.  Certainly seemingly the vast majority of people who laughingly claim to be 'pro-life' because they are anti abortion oppose increasing welfare spending or raising taxes.

3.Certainly Christian, religious in general and other private welfare charities have an important role to play in society, but to claim they have had 'much more effect' than government welfare, as imperfect as that is, is a laughable claim that suggests to me you've been (literally) brainwashed by your church.

It was the limits to the effectiveness of private charity that led many religious organizations and individuals to call for government involvement.  Charles Dickens, who certainly was a Christian himself https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/681/bookings/no-scrooge-he wrote A Christmas Carol and its sequels precisely to point out the need for government involvement in welfare.

[Benjamin Frank]

Frank, are you just trying to “pwn teh cons”?

Absolutely not.

I'm not sure what I can say without it being considered personal, or a 'personal attack.' I normally don't care about anybody here because what matters to me is the ideas, not the personalities. However,

1.In terms of not being original: I doubt that DT is saying anything that has not been said by others previously, even if he is not quoting. In fact, claiming (falsely) that a non viable fetus is the equivalent of a human life would carry no weight if it were an original argument of DT's. If one private individual held that view alone, it would be of no significance.  I quoted that rather than write my own post because it was easier.

2.More importantly, I think it does get to the heart of the abortion issue, which I regard as the ultimate in virtue signalling, for the reasons pointed out in that quote: it allows the individual to feel morally superior to others (or at least fine with themselves morally) while making absolutely no sacrifice or having any cost to themselves.  

3.So, this is the personal part, in that in another thread DT wrote this:

After two years of covid hysteria, it's very obvious who the public health bureaucrats at the CDC are in business for.  Normal people do not act, think or talk like this.      

1 million deaths from Covid in the United States in two years is hysteria?  I think it is absolutely fair to question the committment a person has to actual human life when they minimize 1 million deaths as 'hysteria.'      

The difference: moralizing about other people having abortion is easy, actually doing something in a time of pandemic is not as easy (at least it wasn't to Americans.)

On the contrary, it could just as easily be said that advocating for prenatal children is the most thankless job there is.  If we choose to ignore the unborn, they literally go away.  They're the only group completely unable to ever speak for themselves.  Advocating for the unborn is worth it if you see them as the most vulnerable members of our society.

Secondly, there is nothing more "sacrificial" about advocating for the poor, sick, homeless, etc. if your only proposed solution for them is more taxes on the rich.  Christians get credit for running a parallel cradle-to-grave welfare state for orphans, widows, prisoners, immigrants, shut-ins, etc. that has existed for centuries, with much more effect and long before any government ever got around to it.

The parroted quote relies on so many ungracious assumptions about pro-life Christians that it cannot be considered anything other than bait to dangle in front of online slacktivists like yourself, itching to get an "own" in on people they already decided to hate a long time ago.  I'll stand by my characterization of you.  

Yes, and everything you write here confirms to me that you need to believe and believe you are, morally superior to other people, precisely because you are anti-abortion.

1.In addition to what you wrote here, you told another person in this thread to 'grow up' and said that women who have abortions have committed a 'personal and moral failure.'

I don't know if that's hate or anger from you, but you are certainly confirming to me that your primary or even sole interest in abortion is to claim to yourself and others that you are a 'moral' person and that you are morally superior to other people. Of course, I have no way of knowing what else you might be doing to reduce unwanted pregnancies and nor do I know if you hold yourself to such a similar high standard regarding 'moral failures' though your comment referring to Covid as 'a hysteria' certainly suggests to me you don't.

2.Most countries that have legal abortion and anything approaching a sucessful welfare state have higher taxes in general, not just on the wealthy. Whether Americans would be open to that or not, I have no idea.  Certainly seemingly the vast majority of people who laughingly claim to be 'pro-life' because they are anti abortion oppose increasing welfare spending or raising taxes.

3.Certainly Christian, religious in general and other private welfare charities have an important role to play in society, but to claim they have had 'much more effect' than government welfare, as imperfect as that is, is a laughable claim that suggests to me you've been (literally) brainwashed by your church.

It was the limits to the effectiveness of private charity that led many religious organizations and individuals to call for government involvement.  Charles Dickens, who certainly was a Christian himself https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/681/bookings/no-scrooge-he wrote A Christmas Carol and its sequels precisely to point out the need for government involvement in welfare.

I think it’s more of the Calvinist work ethic and puritan aspect that leads conservatives in the US to reject government aid.

The more catholic/Lutheran influence in Europe however led governments in the opposite direction. It was devout Christians, Anglicans in the UK who pushed for social and economic reforms in that country.

Yes, I think there is a lot of truth to this. Although there certainly is some social spending in the United States, when it comes to welfare, Americans tend to reject it, but they'll spend massively on welfare for working people.

These definitely include the welfare for farmers that often goes to wealthy farmers (though prior to Trump) farm subsidies had declined quite significantly, it includes money to defense contractors (who have offices and manufacturing facilities in every state) to spend on weapons programs the military itself doesn't even want, and, now, it includes tariffs, to 'protect' certain favored manufacturing workers.  So, Americans have no problem with welfare, it's just the form of welfare.

I've generally thought this is because the stereotyped picture Americans have of farmers, defense contract workers and manufacturing workers is white, while the stereotyped picture Americans have of those on welfare is black, but you could be right that it has more of a religious basis.

[Benjamin Frank]

Frank, are you just trying to “pwn teh cons”?

Absolutely not.

I'm not sure what I can say without it being considered personal, or a 'personal attack.' I normally don't care about anybody here because what matters to me is the ideas, not the personalities. However,

1.In terms of not being original: I doubt that DT is saying anything that has not been said by others previously, even if he is not quoting. In fact, claiming (falsely) that a non viable fetus is the equivalent of a human life would carry no weight if it were an original argument of DT's. If one private individual held that view alone, it would be of no significance.  I quoted that rather than write my own post because it was easier.

2.More importantly, I think it does get to the heart of the abortion issue, which I regard as the ultimate in virtue signalling, for the reasons pointed out in that quote: it allows the individual to feel morally superior to others (or at least fine with themselves morally) while making absolutely no sacrifice or having any cost to themselves. 

3.So, this is the personal part, in that in another thread DT wrote this:

After two years of covid hysteria, it's very obvious who the public health bureaucrats at the CDC are in business for.  Normal people do not act, think or talk like this.       

1 million deaths from Covid in the United States in two years is hysteria?  I think it is absolutely fair to question the committment a person has to actual human life when they minimize 1 million deaths as 'hysteria.'     

The difference: moralizing about other people having abortion is easy, actually doing something in a time of pandemic is not as easy (at least it wasn't to Americans.)

On the contrary, it could just as easily be said that advocating for prenatal children is the most thankless job there is.  If we choose to ignore the unborn, they literally go away.  They're the only group completely unable to ever speak for themselves.  Advocating for the unborn is worth it if you see them as the most vulnerable members of our society.

Secondly, there is nothing more "sacrificial" about advocating for the poor, sick, homeless, etc. if your only proposed solution for them is more taxes on the rich.  Christians get credit for running a parallel cradle-to-grave welfare state for orphans, widows, prisoners, immigrants, shut-ins, etc. that has existed for centuries, with much more effect and long before any government ever got around to it.

The parroted quote relies on so many ungracious assumptions about pro-life Christians that it cannot be considered anything other than bait to dangle in front of online slacktivists like yourself, itching to get an "own" in on people they already decided to hate a long time ago.  I'll stand by my characterization of you. 

Yes, and everything you write here confirms to me that you need to believe and believe you are, morally superior to other people, precisely because you are anti-abortion.

1.In addition to what you wrote here, you told another person in this thread to 'grow up' and said that women who have abortions have committed a 'personal and moral failure.'

I don't know if that's hate or anger from you, but you are certainly confirming to me that your primary or even sole interest in abortion is to claim to yourself and others that you are a 'moral' person and that you are morally superior to other people. Of course, I have no way of knowing what else you might be doing to reduce unwanted pregnancies and nor do I know if you hold yourself to such a similar high standard regarding 'moral failures' though your comment referring to Covid as 'a hysteria' certainly suggests to me you don't.

2.Most countries that have legal abortion and anything approaching a sucessful welfare state have higher taxes in general, not just on the wealthy. Whether Americans would be open to that or not, I have no idea.  Certainly seemingly the vast majority of people who laughingly claim to be 'pro-life' because they are anti abortion oppose increasing welfare spending or raising taxes.

3.Certainly Christian, religious in general and other private welfare charities have an important role to play in society, but to claim they have had 'much more effect' than government welfare, as imperfect as that is, is a laughable claim that suggests to me you've been (literally) brainwashed by your church.

It was the limits to the effectiveness of private charity that led many religious organizations and individuals to call for government involvement.  Charles Dickens, who certainly was a Christian himself https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/681/bookings/no-scrooge-he wrote A Christmas Carol and its sequels precisely to point out the need for government involvement in welfare.

Moralizing is an inherent aspect of the abortion debate.  You cannot come to a serious assessment of the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" arguments without an evaluative moral framework to weigh the sanctity of life, rights of women, etc.  This issue is controversial for a reason.

I believe women should have access to abortion as a matter of practicality.  I believe the quality of life is made better for many women because of abortion; in that sense, I'm not a subscriber to the "sanctity of life" ethic (which I find way too aesthetically Catholic to ever fully embrace, anyway.)

What I don't believe is that we should normalize or celebrate abortion, which is something Democrats have been complicit in for the past several years as I alluded to earlier.  We cannot sugarcoat what abortion is:  the termination of a human life.  For this reason, abortion is an issue that must be fraught with moral consequence. 

You rushed to throw out a screen grab of some reddit post as a "gotcha" rather than contemplate and engage my position.  Doing the latter would have been much more edifying.

It was not a (random) reddit post, it was a quote of Dave Barnhart, a United Methodist Minister. Not all religious institutions or individuals have the same view on abortion as you, and there are quite a number who find the obsession with abortion to be wrongheaded.

[Benjamin Frank]

Would you agree with Cardinal Bernadin’s seamless garment approach ?

In general, yes. Ideally none of those things would occur. But, in what sense is he arguing these things?  Is he claiming they all lead to a loss of respect for life?

I'm more of a practical person, not some abstract intellectual. Some people argue that the mass shootings in the U.S are a result of a 'culture of celebration of death' in the United States due to such things as abortion and guns.

I'll go so far as to believe that based on its history, the U.S does have a culture of violence, but beyond that, I have no idea. There are 330 million Americans in the United States and hundreds of cities, how should I know what the 'U.S culture' is or what effects it on any kind of broad sociological level.  All I know is that, in general, when there are more guns and easy access to these guns, it makes sense to me there are going to be more deaths.  

When it comes to the rest, I prefer to argue them on a practical case by case basis, and I'm not an absolutist on any of those things.

I appreciate there are sociologists and others who have studied where mass societies are more likely to succeed based on the cultural climate, but I'm not familiar with much of that research.

[Benjamin Frank]

Would you agree with Cardinal Bernadin’s seamless garment approach ?

In general, yes. Ideally none of those things would occur. But, in what sense is he arguing these things?  Is he claiming they all lead to a loss of respect for life?

I'm more of a practical person, not some abstract intellectual. Some people argue that the mass shootings in the U.S are a result of a 'culture of celebration of death' in the United States due to such things as abortion and guns.

I'll go so far as to believe that based on its history, the U.S does have a culture of violence, but beyond that, I have no idea. There are 330 million Americans in the United States and hundreds of cities, how should I know what the 'U.S culture' is or what effects it on any kind of broad sociological level.  All I know is that, in general, when there are more guns and easy access to these guns, it makes sense to me there are going to be more deaths.  

When it comes to the rest, I prefer to argue them on a practical case by case basis, and I'm not an absolutist on any of those things.

I appreciate there are sociologists and others who have studied where mass societies are more likely to succeed based on the cultural climate, but I'm not familiar with much of that research.

His argument was that abortion, Euthnasia, War, the death penalty are all life issues, and elevating one over another would go against catholic social teaching.

I don't know. I prefer this: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

[Benjamin Frank]

You rushed to throw out a screen grab of some reddit post as a "gotcha" rather than contemplate and engage my position.  Doing the latter would have been much more edifying.

I would have done this earlier but I had to sleep.  I apologize for misreading your comments as wanting to ban abortion when you did not say any such thing.  I'm sorry.

[Benjamin Frank]

It would be ironic if abortions went up if Roe is repealed.

They just might. California and other states say they will be sanctuary states, and California even said they would help women with their transportation needs to come here. I don't know how real that is at the moment. Then there is medical abortion where women don't have to go anywhere, just take the medication. But the backward states want to prohibit that somehow.

I am really really very curious what is going to happen as far as backlash from women and those interested parties who are pro-choice when the SCOTUS does its questionable deed.

Also, at a minimum, the city of Austin, Texas, says that it will not enforce an abortion ban.

I expect many similar decisions in 'blue' cities/counties in 'red' states.

A segment on the CBC Radio program Day 6:
If Roe v. Wade is struck down, the city of Austin, Texas, plans to tell police not to enforce a state ban.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-14-day-6/clip/15919967-episode-603-corporate-concentration-and-food-prices-yourprouddad

I'm surprised this was from the city of Austin rather than the Travis County Sheriff or District Attorney, but certainly states and counties have discretion in deciding which laws they choose to enforce.  The state of Texas could pass a law mandating enforcement, but that would raise other issues relating to policing and prosecuting.

[Benjamin Frank]

It would be ironic if abortions went up if Roe is repealed.

They just might. California and other states say they will be sanctuary states, and California even said they would help women with their transportation needs to come here. I don't know how real that is at the moment. Then there is medical abortion where women don't have to go anywhere, just take the medication. But the backward states want to prohibit that somehow.

I am really really very curious what is going to happen as far as backlash from women and those interested parties who are pro-choice when the SCOTUS does its questionable deed.

Also, at a minimum, the city of Austin, Texas, says that it will not enforce an abortion ban.

I expect many similar decisions in 'blue' cities/counties in 'red' states.

A segment on the CBC Radio program Day 6:
If Roe v. Wade is struck down, the city of Austin, Texas, plans to tell police not to enforce a state ban.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-14-day-6/clip/15919967-episode-603-corporate-concentration-and-food-prices-yourprouddad

I'm surprised this was from the city of Austin rather than the Travis County Sheriff or District Attorney, but certainly states and counties have discretion in deciding which laws they choose to enforce.  The state of Texas could pass a law mandating enforcement, but that would raise other issues relating to policing and prosecuting.

Couldn’t the state just “nationalize” the police and have Texas Rangers take over? Can Abbot fire the DAs or appoint inquisitors?

The first part yes, but it's not like they don't already have their own criminal investigations to focus on.

The second part, it doesn't look like it: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-district-attorneys-push-back-gov-abbotts-child/story?id=83108601

and
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/02/24/defying-gov-abbott-bexar-county-da-wont-prosecute-families-for-transgender-health-care/

The Democratic district attorneys have been at odds with the governor and attorney general over many issues over the past few years, including fights over mask mandates and other restrictions related to COVID-19.

The Texas attorney general’s ability to unilaterally prosecute cases is also unclear.

Late last year, the state’s highest criminal court ruled that Paxton could not unilaterally prosecute election cases without a referral from a county or district attorney first.