This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
Apparently, Roe v. Wade is in peril. The Supreme Court has added a Mississippi abortion law to its docket this session, and it may use the legal kerfuffle that this law has engendered to overturn a woman’s Constitutional right to abort her developing fetus.
Now, I’m not going to use this post to argue for or against Roe v. Wade. All I’m going to say is that I sympathize with some of the key arguments made by the pro-choice side. And as a freedomist, I’m naturally suspicious of any federal or state law that degrades a person’s autonomy. But as far as the Supreme Court’s decision regarding this Mississippi abortion law is concerned, I’m going to take a knee. In other words, I don’t care if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
I’m not proud of this indifference. I should care whenever any American feels that one of his or her integral freedoms is about to be whisked away from him or her. But I feel nothing.
Let me be brutally honest. I see no evidence that feminists give a shit about the freedoms and well-being of white males. Whenever I come across a hectoring harpy of hate in the media, she’s always fulminating against white males and recklessly tossing around such acrimonious terms as “male privilege,” “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “toxic masculinity,” and “patriarchy.” The hectoring harpy of hate, not surprisingly, is very much in favor of laws that allow government and businesses to legally discriminate against white men and give preferential treatment to women. And I can’t remember when I last saw a hectoring harpy of hate show the slightest bit of concern for the well-being of men in general and white men in particular. Men are more likely than women to drop out of high school, commit suicide, die from an overdose, suffer homelessness, be jailed, be maimed at work, and be killed in war, and feminists couldn’t care less about these inequities. So why should I—being that I’m white and male—give a shit about the freedoms and well-being of women?
Note to feminists: If you want friends, you have to be a friend. If you don’t want me and other white males to be indifferent or hostile to your rights and well-being, don’t be indifferent or hostile to our rights and well-being.
Something Good
I fancy myself a positive, cheerful person. I always try to find something good in every bad situation, regardless of how dismal it might be. And what could be more dismal than the realization that I’m suffering from cis-gender white male abandonment syndrome? So here we go.
Generally speaking, woke rule has been a catastrophe. But as far as abortion is concerned, it has made that contentious issue a little less contentious. And it has done this by erasing gender. Abortion used to be a woman’s issue exclusively. But thanks to our psychotic woke overlords, a biological woman who identifies as a man is a man. And anyone who fails to submit to this fantasy is not only worthy of a scarlet “t” for transphobe but is also worthy of personal, professional, and financial ruin. Abortion is thus no longer a battle of the sexes. Men can get pregnant too!
Whew. Sexist men are now less likely to be anti-abortion because anti-abortion laws are as much anti-male as they are anti-female. And that’s such a relief. I feel a little better about my cis-gender white male abandonment syndrome.
I like your idea of using a woke framework to say that people with boy-parts have every right to identify as a girl and thus opine on matters of reproductive rights.
I changed my mind from pro-choice to pro-life when I seriously asked myself what a fetus is exactly: It’s not an animal, b/c it has a human genome. It’s not tumor b/c its genome has components of both father and mother.
And if it is a human life distinct from parents, the state may have an obligation to secure the rights of that life.
(Note that my Bible has remained close throughout. There’s no Bushie goobledygook about sanctity or other meaningless pieties.)
OTOH, the fetus is not a citizen (b/c it hasn’t been born in the US) so it may have the same legal status as an “undocumented immigrant.” It is also trespassing within the womb of its mother which also affects its legal status.
These are matters of opinion that I recognize others do not hold. For this reason, I think the matter should be decided by more than an elite of nine persons wearing judicial regalia. To wit, the matter should be put to a vote in each jurisdiction wherein the state wants to decide between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child.
Since we are a Republic, elected representatives can serve as proxies of the electorate’s opinion, but if they’re as craven as we expect, the matter should be brought to a vote.
steve poling recently posted…Dave Ramsey Heresy
Agreed, my friend. My biggest gripe against Roe. v Wade is that it’s bad constitutional law. The Constitution is silent on abortion. Congress wasn’t given the authority to decide what protections if any should be afforded to an unborn baby. I therefore think the 10th Amendment rules. States should be the battleground when it comes to abortion. If Americans think abortion should be an enshrined right that Congress and the several states must respect–on par with such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press–they should amend the Constitution. Our ancestors did that when it came to alcohol. They knew Congress had no authority to make booze illegal. So they amended the Constitution. We need to do the same. Cheers, my friend.
With a pregnant woman and a fetus/baby (whatever you want to argue), someone’s rights prevail. The question is, whose rights? I choose the human who is here right now.
Nobody should be forced into pregnancy – forced to give their body and share their nutrients, and put their lives at risk for a pregnancy that they don’t want. The sperm donor should have no say in this situation.
Fact is, the supreme court will NEVER stop abortion – only SAFE abortion.
Excellent points, W. I love your moxie. But let me play devil’s advocate for a moment. Let’s flip your arguments and apply them to men. Here we go.
With war, someone’s rights prevail. The question is whose rights? I choose the Americans who are here right now. Not future Americans who may or may not be enslaved by a foreign power.
No man should be forced into war–forced to throw his body into battle and put his life at risk for a fight he doesn’t want.
Women, children, the elderly–and whoever else isn’t expected to fight an attacking army–should have no say in this situation.
Doesn’t the above sound rather selfish? What if the attacking army was Muslim and American men were more concerned about the control of their bodies than defending the homeland? And what if they preferred sharia law to risking their lives? Where would American women be under the thumb of a Muslim ruler? Barred from the workplace and wearing burkas?
Again, I’m just playing devil’s advocate. You’d be surprised how much we agree.
Thanks for stopping by, W. Hope to hear from you again. Cheers.
Laurence Tribe, a liberal jurist once considered for the Supreme Court, stated that abortion is a conflict between the rights of the mother and those of the child.
How the state balances this conflict is the question. And how the question is resolved has poisoned politics since 1973. The politicians of my youth did not want to pay the political price of deciding the matter and punted. This has turned the Supreme Court into a political prize and corrupted it accordingly.
“Pro-life” politicians could fund raise and promise all matter of things then sadly lament that they couldn’t do anything about abortion because Supreme Court. “Pro-choice” politicians could fund raise and scare people secure in the knowledge there’d be no political price to pay.
Meanwhile, we’re all mad at each other and they laugh all the way to the bank.
steve poling recently posted…Dave Ramsey Heresy
Nailed it, my friend. Punting the chore of governing to the Supreme Court is the way both Republican and Democratic representatives protect their phony-baloney jobs. Queue Mel Brooks:
“We have to protect our phony-baloney jobs!”
OK I’m going to raise my support for the pro life (anti-abortion) side. It’s not like the pro-choice (pro-abortion) side will acknowledge that there is an unborn child that will forever be denied the right to life when a person chooses abortion. They like to hide behind terms like fetus to somehow ignore the fact that a fetus IS an unborn child. Anyone who has seen pictures of a developing fetus knows that this isn’t just a clump of cells growing like a tumor in the uterus. Acknowledge the scientific fact and then own your decision. That said, society protects the unborn in several ways that are contrary to the premise behind Roe v. Wade. If the fetus isn’t deserving of protection from the destruction of abortion, why do we restrict certain drugs that are known to harm a fetus (such as thalidomide)? Why are charges pressed against a woman who drinks or takes drugs during pregnancy and damages their child? Why do some states have criminal statutes that apply when a pregnant woman loses her child during a crime? Why do we hold medical professionals liable when a child dies or is harmed during delivery but before legally born such as when the umbilical cord is compromised? Why is the death of a fetus mourned when the fetus is wanted if it is just a clump of cells taking up residency in another person’s body? If a person has the right to choose whether those cells continue along until natural birth or not, why does the other DNA contributor not have a choice to avoid their lifelong impact if the birth person chooses to continue the pregnancy? From my point of view, people usually have a choice to make before conception takes place. They should own that decision and its consequences. Of course there are exceptions to that and that’s where the difficult decision can’t be avoided but that’s small percentage of the number of abortions being done every year. In the end, if we can’t respect all life, starting in the womb and ending at natural death, all of society suffers. There will then always be excuses of why some lives are worth more than others. This is why the media will spend days or weeks covering the loss of life of someone pretty, rich, famous, smart or talented but the homeless guy barely gets a mention. It’s a sad commentary on the state of humanity IMHO. Sorry for the long response but hope this helps some look at this issue differently.
Excellent points, Pat. And here’s another issue that’s always bothered me about abortion. Why is it the mother’s decision alone? Yes, the developing baby is inside her. But that baby isn’t just hers. The man who sired it also has ownership rights (so to speak). He’ll certainly be on the hook for child support if the woman decides to have the baby. This may not be a fitting analogy, but imagine if a man and woman bought a car together. Then imagine that said woman no longer wanted the burden of car ownership–and didn’t want anyone else to suffer that burden as well–so she decides to sell the car to a scrapyard without her co-owner’s consent. Would any court in the land rule that she had a legal–much less ethical–right to do that? Sadly, biology confers obligations that aren’t suited to equity. Biology made men more suited to fighting and war, so if a tribe or country wants to remain an ongoing concern, it better be willing to sacrifice the lives of its men. Likewise, biology only made women suited to housing and birthing a child. And likewise, if a tribe or country wants to remain an ongoing concern, it better be willing, on occasion, to sacrifice the comfort of its women. Damn! Who would have thought that ethically managing human affairs would be so fraught with complexity and unsatisfactory choices? Thanks for stopping by, Pat. I love your keen insights. Cheers.