We in the pro-life movement were granted a rare win last summer when the SCOTUS issued the Dobbs decision, which reversed Roe V. Wade’s illegitimate and unconstitutional establishment of a federal right to abortion.
Of course, the pro-choice side took it all very well and pledged to use all legal, ethical, and moral means to push back on this decision …. Not.
Instead, they began their efforts of sabotage by leaking the decision with the explicit intent of intimidating the justices into reversing it. They engaged in illegal protests outside justices’ homes while the DOJ sat on its hands and allowed the lawlessness, fulfilling Sen Charles Schumer’s threat to “reap the whirlwind” should the Court dare to rule against Roe.
And, of course, they lied about the decision, claiming it would make abortion illegal in all 50 states and send those poor, nice abortion doctors to jail.
Nothing of the sort happened. Dobbs simply returned the issue of abortion to the states, where it belongs, and since last summer we’ve seen the pro-choice side chalk up many victories, and not just in blue states. In some states, like New York, abortion is now available up to the point of birth. Congrats.
One reason they’ve been able to have success is because they tend to lie about the nature of the pro-abortion laws they propose, usually claiming that they’re merely restoring the status quo of Roe v. Wade or implementing reasonable rules approved by a majority of the population.
In fact, such laws usually end up granting access to abortion into the 3rd trimester, remove parental notification requirements, and generally go way beyond the initial restrictions established by Roe (although subsequent SCOTUS decisions removed most of them anyway).
But, that is par for the course for abortion advocates. They can never tell the truth about what abortion is or what they really want to achieve because they know that most Americans want to limit abortion to the first trimester and that a significant number want it banned outright.
So, they resort to sloganeering in order to convince and persuade without resorting to actual thoughtful debate.
Take their description of abortion as a “reproductive right.” No one’s arguing women shouldn’t have the right to decide whether or not to reproduce, a la “The Handmaid’s Tale.” We are just arguing that once you have reproduced and created a child, you cannot kill it. That is a right no one should have.
A similar slogan is “abortion is healthcare.” Really? The whole point of healthcare is to restore the body to its normal, healthy state. If there is a virus, kill it. If there is cancer, remove it.
But if the body is functioning normally and healthily and you stop it from doing so, which is what abortion does, that is the opposite of healthcare. It’s certainly not good for the fetus in any way, shape or form, and it’s quite risky for the mother as well, especially in lightly regulated, unsanitary abortion clinics.
The other common slogan is “my body, by choice.” Well, yes, but the baby is not “your body.” It is a separate body. I guess you can do anything you want to your own body (as people are doing nowadays to a frightening extent), but you don’t have a right to harm, much less kill another body.
But this is what sloganeering and the Left in general does. They are proponents of “freedom FROM thought.” They prefer to appeal to raw emotion and brazen self-interest to make their case rather than to actually think deeply about a given problem or issue, which results from the “freedom OF thought.”
We know the Left is against freedom of thought because they are the originator and prime practitioner of cancel culture and social media censorship of all sorts.
They are afraid of freedom because they abuse it to gratify their own selfish interests.
Nevertheless, the pro-choice side has done quite well since Dobbs. Republicans and conservatives in general have been pretty negligent in making good arguments against the loosening of abortion laws. That is on us.
But going forward, we need to be willing to speak the truth about abortion, to clearly explain the utter evil thing that it is while also emphasizing our support for the mothers with unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.
Pro-life clinics and organizations, the ones fire-bombed by the violent maniacs of Jane’s Revenge, have always taken care of women who need help with their pregnancies and will continue to do so.
The press never reports on their noble and valiant efforts to truly care for these women and their children, while abortion clinics simply kill the human life inside them and usher them out the door, leaving them on their own to deal with the medical and psychological effects of abortion.
In the end, you’re generally better off to support those who advocate and seek the truth rather those who not only lie, but need to lie in order to promote their agenda. When lies are necessary for a given cause, that cause is inherently and ultimately detrimental to human flourishing and goodness.
As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.
Stranger: Make the positive case for killing a baby in the womb if that is your view, but your attempt to diverge from the true issue just proves Trey’s point.
Time to scrap your worn-out line about Trey and others wanting to “control every aspect of a woman’s sexuality”. Demonstrably false, as ToSirWithLove completely shreds your ridiculous expression.
HI Penny – I’m glad you are back and hope you have been doing well.
We have a fundamental difference in our perceptions of personhood that deferentially informs our perspectives. I reject your premise that excising a mass of cells from a woman’s body that has the potential to be a child – but is not yet viable – is murder. Thus, I see Trey’s argument as a smokescreen for his real intent which is to control every woman’s decisions about her own body and her sexuality. Taking away her fundamental right to control her own sexuality in any way she sees fit is an external control over her full range of sexual decisions.
Hoffman has been consistent for many years in his missives to the Citizen expressing his exuberance for proscribing female emancipation from state control of anything below her belt. Thus, my invective against his contemptuous overreach. If this is sloganeering, I learned it from the master.
I stand by my recriminations of men who deign to dictate what a woman may do with her body and am especially repulsed when these Pharisees codify their dominance into legal statutes that vilify someone for making personal sexual decisions. If that doesn’t rise to the level of controlling every aspect of a woman’s sexuality, I can’t imagine what might supersede it.
Strange Fiction – so “We’re having a baby!” should be changed to “We’re having a mass of cells!”?? That makes no sense.
You make no case for abortion because you can’t. It’s the ending of a human life. If not human, what is it? If not a life, what is it?
The baby in utero is a separate person, with its own brain, arms, legs, organs and unique DNA. A large majority of states recognize the killing of a pregnant mother as a double homicide, so even on the law, you are incorrect.
You have nothing to offer but the same “control of her own body” slogan that yet again makes Trey’s point. To follow your thinking, you must also be for street prostitution, public nudity, unlimited drug use, and puberty blockers for pre-teens since they also follow from “control of her own body”.
Read again ToSirWithLove about your “control of sexual decisions” nonsense. Obviously, no one is “controlling” what consenting adults do behind closed doors, despite your repeated attempts to make that the issue rather than the planned death of a human.
Penny – I understand your points, and they flow logically from your premise that a fertilized human egg is already a person. As I stated above, I disagree with this premise. Therefore, our arguments to each others’ positions fail to convince because they are based on competing assumptions. Without a common definition of human life, further arguments are futile.
So, have a nice Labor Day weekend!
Just for the record….
The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” 18 USCS § 1841. It further describes the unlawful taking of a child in utero to be prosecuted under codes of murder. This in of itself gives personhood to the unborn child. If you were to deliberately a pregnant woman, you would likely be charged with two counts of murder.
Lulu – Once again, you are misstating the law. You are conflating the legal personhood of an intended pregnancy after the early stages of in utero development with a mass of cells that could develop into a person early in pregnancy. If your interpretation of the law was accurate, then Georgia allows murder during the first 6 weeks after conception.
The issue, even in Georgia, is not whether a mass of cells that have the potential to become a human can be thwarted from that outcome, but rather, where we draw that line, and if the woman herself makes the decision (instead of a legislator or someone who assaults her).
Stick with logical arguments instead of deliberately conflating early vs. late and intended vs. unintended pregnancies. Spinning the narrative is the domain in which Mr. Hoffman lives.
ToSirWithLove —
That’s not the whole law. 18 USC 1841 (a)(c) explicitly protects a woman’s right to her healthcare choices, and to medical providers.
“I stand by my recriminations of men who deign to dictate what a woman may do with her body and am especially repulsed when these Pharisees codify their dominance into legal statutes that vilify someone for making personal sexual decisions. If that doesn’t rise to the level of controlling every aspect of a woman’s sexuality, I can’t imagine what might supersede it.”
Thank you STF! This is so refreshing! No man should be making this decision unless he has been faced with an unwanted pregnancy. It’s just not their business FFS.
Outside of rape, we make our own decision to engage in the act of procreation. We have nobody else to hold to account but ourselves if we become pregnant. Just as we make the decision to drink alcohol. It is the laws that decide how we must behave as a consequence. If you don’t want to have a child, then take the precautions needed to prevent it. If you find that too inconvenient, and crimps your libido, consider getting your tubes tied.
Abortion should not be used in place of birth control, and with about 1 in 5 pregnancies ending in abortion, it is an abomination, but the fact is quite clear. Planned Parenthood is failing miserably at its mission which should be to prevent the need for an abortion.
ToSirWithLove, I can’t tell from your screen name whether you identify as male or female or non-binary, but as you say, “Outside of rape, we make our own decision to engage in the act of procreation. We have nobody else to hold to account but ourselves if we become pregnant,” I will assume when you speak in the royal “we,” you are female. If I am mistaken in this, and you are male, you don’t need to read any further, as this issue is none of your business.
Now, if you are female, and you truly believe every sex act is your own decision, I congratulate you on your privilege. Not every woman always has the same choices you have. Of course, you say, “Outside of rape,” which I thank you for this, but I also pose a question:
Are you saying, in the case of rape, the result of conception is not a person and therefore fair game for abortive murder? If this IS your point, then you are on very shaky logic grounds — the product of conception from rape is the same as the product of conception from a consensual act physically; if you believe that product of conception to be a human being whose abortion would be murder, then you cannot excuse the rape victim from bearing the child, no matter how it was conceived, no matter the age of the mother.
Is this how you feel? If so, I am now finding it hard to believe you are a woman at all as you seem to have no feeling for your sisters who have been raped. Perhaps you are a man, and this is none of your business, so please stop reading.
Or perhaps you are a woman with a heart who doesn’t want to force another woman to carry an unwanted product of conception by rape to full term, but you cannot with any logic explain why she should be spared but any other woman with an unwanted pregnancy must be forced to carry the child to term. I hope, if you are a woman, you are that kind — the illogical but at least somewhat compassionate kind.
But on to the issue of your privilege if you have never felt pressured into sex you didn’t particularly feel like having. It’s not rape, and it’s often with a partner you love and don’t want to disappoint, but it is certainly not about making a baby. This is just a thing that most women have experienced, and if you never have, you are fortunate, and probably also more bold and empowered than many women are. Good for you. But please don’t generalize your life and circumstances to all women, because your experiences don’t reflect theirs.
That said, your original idea: “We have nobody else to hold to account but ourselves if we become pregnant.” As mentioned, we can certainly hold our partner accountable. If we are in a consensual relationship, he can certainly take responsibility by using a safe and effective condom, so even this statement that only we women are responsible is not exactly and always true.
You continue, “If you don’t want to have a child, then take the precautions needed to prevent it. If you find that too inconvenient, and crimps your libido, consider getting your tubes tied.” We’ve already dispensed with part A of your advice (we don’t always have a choice, we aren’t always prepared, and bc methods can and do fail), but part B of your advice is quite harsh, isn’t it? A woman may want to have a child in future, whether she wants one 9 months from now or 3 years from now.
I don’t understand you, ToSir. If you have always been anti-abortion, you should have been happy that abortion rates declined year over year from 1980-2017 … while Roe v. Wade protected women’s rights and bodies. You should be sad that the Trump-Pence “domestic gag rule” regulations that gutted Title X family planning services for low-income families in 2017, when abortion rates began rising again.
It appears that denying the neediest people effective birth control results in more abortions. If you genuinely care about human life, you would want to make sure fewer babies were born into poverty, wouldn’t you?
But it seems like anti-abortion advocates don’t care much for babies once they’re born, and don’t care much for helping low-income families have access to the family planning services they need to help make sure all babies are wanted. This certainly makes it look as if they don’t really care about the babies at all. Why then would they be anti-abortion? The only logical conclusion is they care only about denying women the right to bodily autonomy.
If you are a woman, ToSir, and this is your attitude, you should be ashamed. If you are a man, you shouldn’t even be reading this as it is none of your business. It can’t happen to you.
Happy Labor Day Jax. The canting of these pharisees is appalling. Compare their “scaled dog” shrieks of animus to Mayor Learnard’s very modest proposals for protecting residents from gun violence to their blithe unconcern about externally directing the most intimate aspects of a woman’s health. They can think of scores of reasons that it is unnecessary to touch their guns, but, like their orange god, they’re just fine with literally and figuratively grabbing women below the belt.
As a general rule, I avoid discussing abortion.
Once the “child killer” card is played, exchange of thoughts becomes impossible (even though many, including myself, feel both science and theology leave room to question when life begins).
But I want to thank STF and Visionaryjax for making the attempt, in a civil manner.
I must say the statement by My.02 rankled—“so, “We’re having a baby!” should be changed to, “We’re having a mass of cells!”?”
Those are the words of a happy couple (note the “we” and exclamation points). Which is wonderful.
But every woman, discovering she is pregnant, deserves the same freedom and privacy to define any moral issues, and have all medical options available to her, safely and affordably.
That includes you, My.02, and ToSirWithLove…but also for me, and Vjax, and all women.
We can disagree, without vilifying one another.
Thank you STF and Suz! Your input is so very much needed in discussions like this.
Suz, you are always so kind and compassionate. Makes my snarkiness seem downright rude! Although I hope it is not.
Keep the faith!
Trey indicates that abortion is not healthcare because healthcare is intended to alleviate the threat of physical harm to a body — He says, “The whole point of healthcare is to restore the body to its normal, healthy state. If there is a virus, kill it. If there is cancer, remove it.”
It might interest him to know that among developed nations the USA has the highest maternal mortality rate. (A rate that more than doubled from 1987-2017, while other developed nations saw decreases year on year during that same time.) Pregnancy in the USA comes with real threats of physical harm to a woman’s body. It is definitely not the body’s “normal, healthy state.”
Pulmonary hypertension, for instance, kills as many as one-third of the pregnant women who experience it. But by Trey’s druthers, women facing these odds just have to buck up and hope for the best.
It’s also a sad fact that some of the worst risks of pregnancy to the pregnant woman are life-threatening because of other, pre-existing conditions, and thanks to the abysmal state of healthcare for many people of color in the USA, this means Black women are 3 times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women. Here Trey (and other white men who think as he does) get a bonus: they can not only control women’s bodies but also condemn minority women to a higher likelihood of death during pregnancy. As he says … “Congrats.”
Abortion, by comparison with forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, is much safer. Studies show that medical abortion — using prescription abortion pills — results in complications for virtually zero women who use them. About 1% report an adverse effect, but no one has died from it. Abortion pills had accounted for about half of US abortions before the overturning of Roe v Wade and the abortion restrictions many states immediately enacted.
Surgical abortions also have risks of complications, but they are small compared to the risk of pregnancy. In fact, if Trey cared about preserving life, he might be interested in knowing that prior to Roe v Wade in the USA, in 1973, 47 women died from unsafe abortions; in 2019, only 4 women died from complications of abortion. Far less than died from complications of pregnancy. Abortion is the safer choice.
It is specious for Trey or any man to claim their support for banning abortion has to do with saving lives. Denying women the right to bodily autonomy and necessary healthcare is about nothing other than controlling women and keeping the patriarchy intact. It comes from a place of fear that one day in the USA straight white men might not be at the top of the food chain, and a desperate desire to make sure women are kept barefoot and pregnant. And as we learned from the Barbie movie and the Bible, the patriarchy and that kind of fear is destructive and bad, not just for women, but for all humans.
Look what it has turned Trey into, a fearful, angry man.
Jax – Opposition to abortion is 100% about saving lives, specifically over 600,000 babies each year. You completely ignore this other person – – separate DNA, unique fingerprints and all.
Your opinion is more about issues in our healthcare system and mothers’ pre-existing health problems than any merits of abortion.
By the way, you lost any credibility you might have otherwise had when you spout such sexist, racist and straight-phobic nonsense.
STF states “The anti-abortion proponents, like Trey, are pounding their chests and celebrating their ability to control every aspect of a woman’s sexuality.” Funny, I don’t see people like Trey telling me which adult I can sleep with. Or, when I can sleep with them. Or, If I have to sleep with them. Or, what forms of contraception I can use or don’t use, or how I do it. Or, if I can or can not enjoy it. You know, your statement truly are stranger than fiction.
I think you just illustrated Trey’s point on BS sloganeering.
womans’ sexuality – now that’s a mouth full.
Sir – I’ll make it easy for you with an analogy. Suppose the gun laws change so that you can own any weapon you wish, but you aren’t allowed any ammunition. What gun owner would complain since s/he can cavort anywhere with all manner of weaponry? Withdrawing a key component from the operation of a firearm is just a minor nuisance.
I’m sure the NRA and all the bullet-brains would support that reasonable limitation.
STF – I will agree with you that eliminating all forms of ammunition is effectively near total control of firearms and removes my ability to effectively provide for my own self-defense. As I would also agree with you that eliminating all forms of birth control would effectively impact most women’s sexuality.
However, if 50 caliber bullets were banned in Georgia as it has been in other states, it would not prevent me from using other almost as effective means of self-defense. Likewise preventing me from killing my unborn child would not prevent me from using other almost as effective means of birth control.
It is complete hyperbole that abortion restrictions control every aspect of mine or any other woman’s sexuality. And quite frankly that is insulting.
Sir – Attempt to limit any rights whatsoever considering guns in Georgia – even the most benign ones – and I promise you that the outpouring of contempt will eclipse anything you’ve seen from the abortion bans. Trust me, taking away long held and well established rights has major consequences. And suggesting work-arounds, as you have done, does nothing to quell that dissension. If that truth is insulting to you, I’m very sorry.
STF – No need to go off on a tangent with non-sequitur comparisons with bullets. You made the claim that preventing a woman from taking the life of her unborn child was tantamount to controlling EVERY aspect of her sexuality. a very popular slogan welded by the pro-abortion crowd. You’ve yet retracted your remark, nor provided any rebuttal when provided with examples of the who’s, what’s, when’s, where’s, how’s or why’s that are under my control of my own sexuality that are not affected by any inability I might have in obtaining an abortion.
Restrictions to abortion simply forces us to act responsibly and take adequate precautions prior to or shortly after to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Just as we must act responsibly to prevent the contraction or spread of venereal diseases or HIV/AIDS. Nothing comes without some risk.
Further, since the Dobbs ruling only prevented federal interference of state law. Contrary to the hype, one does not have to leave this country in order to get an abortion. There are plenty of blue states which will offer abortion options to meet the need. It just won’t be ultra convenient.
As to what I find insulting is comments like yours insinuating that women are not intelligent enough, or we so easily succumb to our own physical desires of passion and pleasure that we cannot act rationally where we must rely on abortion as the only “idiot proof” means of birth control.
The left has only themselves to blame. IMHO, the status quo was broken when on the 46th anniversary passed, signed into law by that idiot Cuomo who then celebrated and flaunted full term abortions by lighting up the World Trade center tower like it was a giant pink saline syringe used to terminate the life of a full-term human being. This ultimately enraged so many people that brought on new waves of stricter laws, which when challenged led up to the overturning of Rowe.
Hi Sir – My argument is that of the slippery slope. Hoffman has a long history of letters to the Citizen extolling his wish to control women’s reproductive rights. He thumps his chest here celebrating the first step toward that goal. Justices Thomas and Alito have already signaled that they will go far beyond Dobbs in limiting birth control when given the opportunity. The Trey Hoffmans of the world will not be satisfied until men control every aspect of a woman’s sexuality, and this Supreme Court will gladly accommodate them in good time.
If proscribing your rights as a woman works for you, that is your prerogative. I hope you are in the minority, and recent elections seem to reflect that.
It was & never has been about rights. Wade admitted the story was a lie. It doesn’t take much effort to discover what they use these children for. Oh and it’s not “illegal” anywhere in the USA. It’s just got a cut off deadline that anyone having intercourse should be aware of. 6 weeks is more then enough. They’re making people fight for the right to do them up until the day of delivery. Not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you need to do to think that’s not murder.
STF: “Trey, are pounding their chests and celebrating their ability to control every aspect of a woman’s sexuality.”
I don’t see him telling me who I can sleep with, or when I can sleep with them, what I can do when I choose to do so. I don’t see him telling me I have to be a celibate, or actually I don’t see him controlling or attempting to control ANY aspect of how I exercise my sexuality.
I guess that makes your statement truly Stranger than fiction.
STF: “Trey, are pounding their chests and celebrating their ability to control every aspect of a woman’s sexuality.”
I don’t see him telling me who I can sleep with, or when I can sleep with them, what I can do when I choose to do so. I don’t see him telling me I have to be a celibate, or actually I don’t see him controlling or attempting to control ANY aspect of how I exercise my sexuality.
I guess that makes your statement truly Stranger than fiction.
The Dobbs decision has been a godsend to both sides of the abortion debate. The anti-abortion proponents, like Trey, are pounding their chests and celebrating their ability to control every aspect of a woman’s sexuality. The pro-choice proponents are rallying all across the nation, and we are seeing it take a toll on the conservatives in elections already. It should propel enough women to vote against many Republicans in the 2024 election from president on down the ticket.
I guess that the advantage is in the eye of the beholder, but both camps can legitimately claim a win.