Abortion Laws—No Help Yet for the Forcibly Born.

More religious overreaching to remove freewill

My Daughter came home from high school today ready to fight! Anti-Abortion laws are religious laws and have no place in state constitutions. However, 20 states are attempting to pass ridiculous “heartbeat laws.” Georgia and Ohio’s just passed theirs. Ohio’s new law prohibits rape and incest victims from having an abortion. In Georgia, having a miscarriage could result in an investigation. Is this really true? Or reasonable?

Ohio governor Mike DeWine signed the state’s Human Rights Protection Act, which bans abortions as soon as doctors can detect a heartbeat—about six weeks. A law that protects 1/2 of the parties involved, one of which is not yet alive.

The fact that many women do not yet know they’re pregnant is irrelevant to the good governor. Actually, that’s part of the plan—ignorance is embedded in the design of the legislation.

Also from the religious right of contradictions; isn’t it odd how financial and pro-life conservatives generally don’t support government assistance to mothers that can’t afford children, yet do everything in their power to make sure they have the baby anyway. Born baby born! What happens after that is if no concern.

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

80 thoughts on “Abortion Laws—No Help Yet for the Forcibly Born.”

  1. Jia Tolentino, “The Messiness of Reproduction and the Dishonesty of Anti-Abortion Propaganda”
    “The fetus in the sixth week of pregnancy, which is roughly four weeks after fertilization, is the size of a pomegranate seed. Many, many women have doubtlessly miscarried around this mark without ever knowing it—they would assume they were just having an unusually heavy period. “

    Liked by 1 person

  2. This was inevitable. What is yet to come is the same (death from guns, failed environment, unequal rights, basic freedom from tyranny, etc.). It is hopeless. They not only vote, they are certain that god is on their side. I saw this Erich Fromm aphorism today, “Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve.” Apocalyptic Armageddon lurks in the future.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Bill,…you are so correct. I fear for the future and I’m glad I’m old.

      I saw today the Taiwan just legalized gay marriage and I was familiar with Ireland legalizing abortion plus its covered in their healthcare.

      So what the heck is wrong with the US? Is it trying to outdo the Mideast in backwardness and a religious controlled country?

      How does a minority religious group of about 30% have total control of the Republican Party and get to set laws based strictly on their own beliefs and not the will of all the people.

      When and why did the senate become controlled by the republicans and why are there no checks and balances anymore.

      An old book was recommended to me on a blog called ” They Thought they were Free” by Milton Mayer…
      Thought I’d get a copy…

      Liked by 3 people

  3. The Catholic Church is so obsessed with abortion that it crowds out *any* concern for post-fetal lives, aside from conversion to the OneHolyRomanAndApostolic Borg. You have to go back to a few years in the 60s and 70s to find any social justice concern not dwarfed by their OCD. They still look at 8 years of Obama as the darkest of POTUSES, but they champ at every bit in the barn to thank the Trinity for Trump, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh — and reinstatement of Benedict XVI.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. And you do know what’s coming next to gin up the cult some more and will also go all the way to the Supreme Court…And it’s a Law Obama put into place and you know how trump and his cult hate him..

    Gay marriage…they will attack that next

    Liked by 3 people

  5. This makes me so mad I can’t even comment right now other than to say we have regressed 50 years back into the dark ages….
    Religion poisons everything and will end up totally destroying the world…
    Maybe we deserve it…to many obnoxious mean stupid people

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I just looked it up. Thanks Bill
        “The Irish electorate voted by 1,429,981 votes to 723,632 in favour of abolishing the controversial eighth amendment to the constitution that gave equal legal status to the lives of a foetus and the woman carrying it. The result was a two-thirds majority: 66.4% yes to 33.6% no.”
        We certainly aren’t that here!

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I’m preparing my own post on this topic (the most recent one since I’ve expounded on the topic before), but reading some of the comments here makes me want to ask … what about the father? These holier-than-thou MALE politicians are so quick to jeopardize the health and well-being of the woman/child carrying the fetus, yet totally ignore the responsibility of the “other-half” of the new creation.

    Since abortions are generally the result of sexual encounters outside of or before marriage, or in the publicized instance … rape … why isn’t the male partner castigated as well? Why should he get off scott-free? ESPECIALLY in cases of rape! But noooo. He walks away with clean hands while the FEMALE is forced to do something that may be totally against her will.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Laws protecting the life of human beings “are religious laws and have no place in state constitutions”?

    Although I agree there are good religious reasons (at least for Jews and Christians) to protect human life I don’t think that means any laws protecting it have no place in state constitutions.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. No but that is what the pro lifers believe. And although you may disagree I would think you would see that it is at least reasonable to think that an entity is not magically a human being only after they are born. So sometime between conception and birth we have a human being correct?

        “Also from the religious right of contradictions; isn’t it odd how financial and pro-life conservatives generally don’t support government assistance to mothers that can’t afford children, yet do everything in their power to make sure they have the baby anyway. Born baby born! What happens after that is if no concern.”

        See how you equate not wanting the government to play a role means you have no concern for the topic? Saying the government should be in charge of everything we have concerns for is a route to totalitarianism.

        Do you have any information to suggest that pro lifers give less to children that are born than those who are not pro-life?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I am just pointing out the contradiction, that’s all. They want to force every baby born, then do nothing to help. What I find interesting is education is more effective than legislating as morality. With education they would get closer to their desired outcomes, but lose control through the religion, which is the most important part. The means to have less abortion is education. That is proven. Making it a sin only ripens the appeal. Yes?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “I am just pointing out the contradiction, that’s all. They want to force every baby born, then do nothing to help.”

            It is not a contradiction. If someone says I don’t think school children should be killed they are not logically compelled to also support the federal school lunch program.

            I certainly agree that the better route to fewer abortions is education. Especially the sort of education that promotes thinking instead of indoctrination.

            But Christians (or any other group) do not “make” killing children a sin. They recognize killing children is a sin.

            Some Atheists may not believe in sin but they would agree that killing children is evil.

            Liked by 1 person

  8. Hi grouchy, and friends,
    I would like to take a look at the roots of the anti-abortion movement, the real roots, and it is not with the religious believers themselves (though it quickly involves them), it starts with religious authorities themselves. Every baby born is a potential financial contributor to the church, as well as a potential spreader of the word. The more babies born, the more potential money into their coffers, the more potential proselytizers–the more potential believers. Now, with more atheists in the general population, these leaders have lost their monopoly, and they cannot allow fewer births. They need their potential followers, or their numbers might be reduced. With a growing muslim population, christianity is looking at losing its number one religious position in the world. Every baby born is a potential number for them. What happens if they aren’t number 1 anymore?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. rawgod – Looking at the roots of the anti abortion movement would be fascinating, I think. The whole “pro-life” movement is actually fairly recent. Yes, abortion was completely illegal before Roe V. Wade, but even after there was no organized pro-life movement until much later. A friend of mine claims that the pro-life movement didn’t really come into existence until politicians realized they could use it to attract the religious right and religious leaders realized they could use it to make money.

      I’m not sure of that but I do know that the Catholic church did not consider a fetus to be a real human being until relatively recently according to some documents I’ve read. When I was going through my mother’s things after she passed away I came across a book that was a guide for new mothers given out by the Christian Mothers association in the church, written about the late 1940s, I believe, which bore the imprimatur (approval of) some cardinal. It stated specifically that following a miscarriage the fetus was not to be baptized nor was it to be buried because it was not yet fully human. So the Catholic church itself didn’t believe that the fetus was human until it was viable outside of the womb according to that.

      Your comments about reproduction are correct, I believe. There are movements in some evangelical communities claiming specifically that they need to have more white, christian babies in order to keep from being overwhelmed.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah, I figured as much. It is not hard to see how they think, if your eyes and mind sre wide open. But seeing doesn’t do much good when the laity don’t care. These people are only too happy to tell everyone what to do. They “want” to see their churches leading governments by the nose. So they are being used, big deal, as long as they think they are getting their way. And they believe that, just like they believe in god, and christ. They have no doubt…

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Rawgod – I think that they, like most racists, extremists and ultra religious, are terrified they are going to become irrelevant in the near future, and that is part of the reason for them becoming increasingly extreme, vocal and even violent, and trying desperately to get control of the government. And the politicians are more than willing to go along with it because it gets them votes and keeps them in power.

          If you look at demographic data, the traditional so called “WASP” (white, anglo-saxon protestant) is well on the way to becoming extinct in this country. There are already large parts of the country where caucasians are outnumbered by African Americans, hispanics and other non-whites. A lot of these people already proclaimed a belief that women were to be subservient to men and looked at them as, if you’ll forgive the expression, little more than brood mares whose role in life was to provide free labor cooking and cleaning and be perpetually pregnant. (just look at the horror that is the so-called “quiverfull” movement). And the politicians are more than willing to go along with them because for whatever reason, the ultra-religious turn out to vote and the non-religious can’t be bothered.

          Another interesting demographic is that the U.S. is actually becoming less and less religious every year. Despite what you see and hear in the media, which makes the US look like it is increasingly controlled by religious extremists, polling data indicates that the country is actually going in the opposite direction. A recent Pew survey indicated that about 22% of people in the US now list their religions as “none”, and the number of Protestants has gone down by more than 8 % in just the last ten years. Since 2000, the number of people claiming a religious affiliation has dropped by more than 20%. Among younger groups of people, that number is even higher, with up to 40% reporting that they are not members of a church.

          The media generally avoids information like that because, frankly, it doesn’t make them money. Reporting a story like “A lot of people couldn’t be bothered to go to church last Sunday” doesn’t generate as many views as does reporting a story about the members of a tiny and utterly insignificant Baptist church screaming hatred at funerals.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I actually saw those survey results about a week or two ago, looking up some figures for a different thread of comments. WASPs might be well on their way to extinction, but they have a long way to go. The real truth about the “nones,” though, is that most of them are still believers, they just don’t associate themselves with named religions because they see the dangers inherent in those organizations. They just want to be free to worship in their own ways, not to bombarded every Sunday with fire and brimstone. If I believed, I would choose to be a none too.
            The vocality and extremism due to terror of becoming extinct is what I call their last gasp death throes. Christian religions are dying, and they refuse to believe it is because of their own stupidity as to how they market themselves. Fear is no longer holding their believers together, nor is the promise of heaven. Their god of wrath is becoming a thing of the past–after all, he should have died 2000 years ago, people today want a more peaceful, benevolent god. But the churches keep preaching for their followers to be afraid, and that doesn’t work for a lot of people anymore, so why be religious. They do it their own way now.
            Meanwhile, what with the looming end of humanity as we know it, how much of this matters anymore? All this infighting and crying for times past are going to become irrelevant, just like democracy vs communism vs socialism or whatever. Nothing matters if there are no humans to hate each other. They can yell and scream and fight all they want, that won’t stop global warming from reducing the human race to the level of tribes, if even that large of units. With any luck we will get to start over, but will we correct the errors of the past? I doubt it. Tribes will fight tribes, looking to steal breeders (women) to increase the size of their tribes. Workers/soldiers (men) will be enslaved if not killed, and history will repeat itself, if we even get that chance. Humans sre too stupid to work together towards a common end. We are narcissistic and greedy. We need to care about others and the welfare of all. We do not know how to do that.
            That is my fear for the future, if there is a future for us.

            Liked by 5 people

  9. This crap is going on here in Wisconsin too right now. These bloody hypocrites make me want to bang my head on the wall with anger and frustration. I intensely dislike the whole idea of abortion and sincerely wish it wouldn’t be necessary. Mainly because if abortion had been legal back when I was born I probably wouldn’t be here and I’ve rather enjoyed my life and am glad I was born. But I also understand how an unwanted pregnancy can destroy a girl or young woman’s life. Largely because of these same self righteous bastards who shame and cast out unmarried pregnant girls and women. So yes, there is a need for it and it should be the decision of the girl or woman involved and her doctor, not some bloviating “holier than thou” politician trying to gin up votes.

    These same self proclaimed “pro life” people are the same ones who are trying to cut the WIC and SNAP programs to provide adequate nutrition for the poor. They are the ones who are trying to cut programs to provide free prenatal care and medical care for poor pregnant women and girls and their children after they are born. They are the same people who are trying to eliminate sex education programs that we know for a fact drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. They are the same people who are trying to make access to birth control difficult or even ban it completely.

    These people are not “pro life” by any stretch of the imagination. This isn’t about health care or “morality” or religion. This is about power and control. Power over women’s lives, control over their bodies. And it is always the women and girls who suffer because of them. They never go after the men who got these women and girls pregnant, it is always the woman who has to bear all of the responsibility and all of the “sin” involved.

    Sorry – these hypocritical bastards just get me so angry I have to vent.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Basically this would mean a dairy cow in Wisconsin would have more rights than an unrighteousness woman— code word for “sexually impure”. Controlling fertility has passed its time of utility.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. I used to be very vocal about being pro-life. My religious upbringing made that view a requirement. But even vocal, prominent Christians are hesitant to say these new laws are good. Pat Robertson (of “the 700 Club” fame) even said the new abortion law in Alabama was too “extreme” and went “too far.”

    Now, I will never say I like the idea of abortion. I wish we lived in a world where that decision never had to be made. But I will say that way too much time, effort and money is being spent on attacking those who have an abortion rather than using said time, effort and money to help people raise the children they can’t financially or emotionally support on their own.

    You can’t call yourself pro-life and only support the life of the unborn. When you choose to ignore the child once it’s born and leave the unprepared mother to deal with it on their own, you have shown your true colors and your ignorance of the situation. If you want to be pro-life, be pro-life all the way. A hypocritical, religion-fueled view on the sanctity of life doesn’t help real people. It just eases your own conscience and makes you believe God has placed another gold star next to your name in his book of Life.

    If you are anti-abortion, don’t have one. Simple as that. Attacking others for making that unbelievably difficult decision doesn’t help anyone. How many people die from drunk drivers each year? Are the pro-lifers fighting for prohibition as well? This self righteous, selective outrage over the value of a life is ridiculous. If you say you support all life and oppose the premature ending of life, prove it and fight for every life. Every last one…not just the ones yet to be born.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Well according to the Bible life starts at breath anyway. Only after the “breath of life” did Adam become a living soul. The Christians can’t see the ridiculous hypocrisy of their own doctrine, how could they respect mine?

      Liked by 3 people

    1. They cannot even put their own doctrine into practice. Why can’t these little spirits wait another round so they can find someone who can take care of them. These Christians have no faith in their own beliefs.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Why do these ”learned men and women who uphold the bastions of the Law and human rights … fuck up almost everything regarding this issue?
    While they are at it why not push through a law to ban all /en>forms of contraception?After all, the largest sect of Christianity is Catholicism and if I am not mistaken they consider the use of contraception a ”sin” and no Catholics are using contraption of course, right?

    But I’ll venture most – and forgive me for using this word – enlightened Protestants and even those from all the other sects use contraception. Naughty f*****s! Jesus is watching, y’all!
    And perhaps we could ensure the ”rhythm method” was also banned as a slight on ”God’s Plan”.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I guess I am little in shock here. I never thought this could be reverted back. Here’s an idea: what if I just belieeeve in abortion. Shouldn’t that belief be respected? All the bullshit beliefs are

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Although I know it was a misquote I still think that ”If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me” tells you everything you will ever need to know about the mentality behind those people who make such policy decision and turn them into law.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Lol. The lottery conversation happened at a city meeting the other day. One guy says if he wins the lottery he’s moving to Hawaii. The other guy there said “not me, I’ll never leave the United States”. This is the brains at our city council meeting.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. The Catholic Church is big on controlling the flocks’ every minute of every life (including fetal) but they do not want to stop there, so they posit a “natural law” that supersedes any law established by man (never by a woman, of course, if a man is in control) — it’s what Christ intended when he established his Church and all its infallible Popes.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. In all honesty abortion has me terribly conflicted. I know you’re supposed to pick a side… and I used to be hardcore pro-choicer. Now having bred I am less certain of my assertions. On the one end of humanism I appreciate that all mammals have the instinct to and often do abandon their young to die as a survival prerogative. And that humanity has been practicing infanticide and senicide since forever.

    Having said that, children are the result of decisions. Sure, not all of them are consenting decisions, but for the most part the decision to get wet and sticky is an agreeable circumstance between two persons. A big part of me thinks that abortion is just responsibility avoidance.

    Now having said that, only one person in the the decision making process has to bear out that responsibility. So there’s that.

    But then isn’t humanism opposing death? Or is it suffering? And so we argue when things are deemed to be alive and can feel pain and when not. And so we try and legislate our opinions on others. And that, my libertarian tendencies find a very steep and slippery slope.

    From a do no harm perspective, I have to fall on the pro-life side. But then… five minutes later I decide maybe its up to each person to decide on their own. I have no idea. Kids are such a massive responsibility maybe its just better for them to be dead than unwanted and unloved.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Hey, Jo, who said you have to pick a side? There is no law or even rule saying such a thing. And making laws about another person’s body, for me, is the height of idiocy. The only person who knows what they are capable of is the affected woman herself. It is not just her body that she is concerned with, but also her mental health. Moving a step away from the potential mother, refusing a rape or incest victim to get an abortion is criminal in itself, but what about a 13 or 14 year-old girl? If she gets pregnant because some guy talked her into having sex, does she deserve to have her childhood destroyed, not to mention her whole life? And anyone who makes her have this baby, are they going to help raise it, or are they going to kick the girl out of the family home for shaming the parents? Anyone who can do that is not worthy of being a parent themselves!
      But I’m venting, for which I apologize, and though I could go on for hours, what I really wanted to say to you was if you want, don’t join either side. This really is no one’s decision but the potential mother’s. Even the father has no say in this, let alone the government, or religion. My own position is that I have no idea of what is going on in a person’s life, so I should just keep my mouth shut. No one needs to know what I think…

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I hate straddling the fence on issues like this. I feel I should be able to identify the what the clear cut ethical answer should be. But really… I have no idea. So I agree with you, it really is none of my business. If under duress and I was forced to decide on a particular outcome I would likely support the choice of the individual concerned. Probably.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Ethics? Is there really such a thing?
          Every situation is different, and people who do not see that are not the ones to try and say what is right or wrong. Whether it be abortions, or the ten commandments, or enacted laws, nothing can ever cover every situation. Thou shalt not kill, but what do you do in a war? Thou shalt not bear false witness, but its okay to lie to get elected? No, ethics does not exist for me.
          Every siutation has to be decided on its own merits. That is the only ethical ststement I can live with.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. As a First Nationer, I’m sure you know full well what it’s like to have someone run your life. I think if we could be in the right frame of reference, nobody would be taking away the woman’s bodily autonomy

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Actually, Jim, I only have a glimpse of it. I look white, and my Metis father raised me white. He hated his aboriginal heritage. I was too young to understand. Now I know, and I see the way First Nations people around me are treated, but I am trapped in some no-man’s-land inbetween the two. I can feel, but I am not immersed in those feelings. They don’t haunt every minute of my life. I live in twilight. I am nowhere.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Hm. I find myself sympathetic to your argument. My gut feel is that ethics are highly subjective and that everyone interprets what is an ‘ethical’ action differently. As is evidenced by the polarity of certain concepts, like abortion.

            Having said that, I do think a codified set of guidelines is important as… operating parameters so that we can co-operate better amongst ourselves. Ie. Ideas and concepts that, for example, theft among our community is bad, assaulting each other is bad etc. Assaulting and stealing from that other community over there, thats probably okay though. And could be seen as ethical in the microeconomic sense.

            I think these bigger communities (states and countries) cause problems insofar as we try and inflict our broader ideas on everyone within a certain geographic area. Its making us hate each other and making future cooperation so much more doubtful.

            So yeah, I agree. But also disagree.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Ethical for me to tell you to get vaccinated? Should this be a law or should I appeal to your broader sense of community well being?


            2. That is probably a probably a fair point and likely not the best Devils advocate argument I could have made right off the bat.

              *thinks* (this might take a while because I’m not very bright)

              Sugar tax. Ethical or not. Ha ha. I’m reaching here. (I’m also not entirely sure how to tie this back to abortion…)

              This is likely to become one of my (many) l’esprit de l’escalier moments.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Stairwell humor is always fun. What I should’ve said after the fact. Lol. It is good to hear the discussions to make sense of it all. My baseline is autonomy. If that can be achieved without infringing on another’s rights that is my stance. I’m willing to concede some things for society, but not much.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Wait… I just thought of something. What if we kill the… eh… embryo… that becomes the kid, that becomes the scientist that cures… diabetes… or is that still lederhosen and turnips?


            5. Me thinks the next Einstein was already born to a fundemented family and shunned his affinity to science to become a preacher. That is just as likely.


            6. Not getting vaccinated could endanger someone else’s life who is already a living ,out of the womb, functioning person.
              Someone choosing an abortion can in no way effects me and since it would be a private thing, I wouldn’t even know about it.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. That’s how I feel. Someone may truly feel abortion is wrong under all or just some circumstances, but the thing to me is, it should not be up to that person to decide for someone else. That is wrong.
              It’s an individual private choice. To impose a view either way on someone else about this, is simply not ethical, because it’s not about us.

              Liked by 2 people

            8. I agree! In fact, I’m hoping later this year we can take our motorhome and visit some of the wineries around Yakima.

              Australian wine is also VERY good! I had some Brazilian wine quite some time back and it wasn’t all that bad. Probably depends on the grape and/or vintage. Truth be known, even some Napa Valley wines can suck.

              (Sorry … off-topic.)

              Liked by 1 person

            9. Ha ha. Then I feel I have done a good deed. Yay me. Joey chalks this one up as a pyrrhic victory… even though it is clear to everyone he hasn’t really won anything. But you know… hubris (and stuff)

              Liked by 1 person

  13. In the words of George Carlin “Isn’t it ironic that people who are ‘pro-life’ also favor the death penalty?” These people are walking contradictions. Unfortunately, we have to deal with their horrendous policies.
    Anyway, your daughter kicks ass!

    Liked by 3 people

  14. I’m disturbed that anyone could believe banning abortions is ethical. This shouldn’t even be a discussion. These laws are being put into place based on one or a few personal opinions. Misinformed opinions might I add. I cannot believe a miscarriage could lead to an investigation?? What?!? And then leaving the state could result in jail time for the woman?!? How is this even happening right now! I’m right there with your daughter.👊

    Liked by 5 people

    1. It is horrible. I am embracing the use of hypocrisy as the foundation of civil and criminal law…I am a Christian—This is really quite unbelievable to me. According to the Bible life starts at breath anyway. Only after the “breath of life” did we have a living thing.
      Never forget all the talk about “Christian values” which has a code word for controlling sexual reproduction and having racist bloodlines.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s