A Perspective on Abortion From Today

The nature, meaning and availability of abortion as an elective “medical” procedure has been in a state of flux for several generations. Previously, it was, illegal, dangerous when undertaken, and morally repugnant to most everyone. The Hippocratic Oath only says “I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion”. Lawyers being lawyers, that was later construed to mean that doctors were completely free to abort pregnancies by any means other than a pessary.

By 1973, Roe v. Wade narrowly (and erroneously if the Constitution is rationally construed according to what words actually means, as opposed to what judges believe the Constitution ought to say) expanded a previously created right to “privacy”, whose penumbras encompassed a woman’s fundamental right to abortion. Never mind that we can no longer even define the word “woman”! The point here is that in only one generation abortion went from near universal repugnance to acquire sacramental status on the left. As with all zealotry, it became essential that no restrictions of abortion, whatsoever, be permitted, right up until the moment of birth.

It is worth a digression, here, into basic biology. A developing human embryo/fetus exists on a continuum beginning at fertilization and cleavage, continuing - somewhat arbitrarily it turns out - up until birth. Genetically, it becomes a unique genetic individual from the moment of fertilization; no doubt about that. The characterization of the embryo/fetus at various stages of development is what the left likes to say about everything whose existence vexes them - it is a “construct”. Reasonable people of good will might disagree on just when legal personhood and hence legal rights, attach to an embryo/fetus.

What they cannot disagree about, if they are either rational or “follow the science” (science is material only to those issues leftists say it is! it is otherwise irrelevant or ‘hate fact’) is the fact that “viability” cannot possibly be a determinant of a Constitutional right, since it depends wholly upon the state of the medical art at the moment! It may well be soon that a fertilized ovum (in vivo or even in vitro) may develop to “term” in an artificial womb - rendering all the emotion and artifice around birth as a milestone in human life - moot.

For example - in defending “partial birth” abortion as every bit as necessary as a six week abortion (and no more fraught with moral concern, lawyers being lawyers again, assert a legal person does not come into existence until the fetus is completely born - that the entire being must exit the birth canal in order to acquire human or Constitutional status as a person and rights rights. Translated, that means if the fetus’ head emerges from the birth canal (and it may take its first breath of air and even cry at that point), the " medical professional" may go right ahead, puncture the skull with a sharp instrument and suck out the brain - killing the living human infant - perfectly legally and morally! In fact, such dedicated folk are quick top assert they have just “saved the birthing person’s life”!

Now what overturning Roe v Wade (whose original plaintiff, Norma McCorvey, has subsequently recanted much of what she proffered) means is that the legality of of abortion is no longer determined as a matter of Constitutional right. Rather, since the issue is not addressed at all in the Constitution, it is reserved to the states and becomes (GASP!!) subject to the majoritarian Constitutional process of voting! What a shocking idea - that citizens get to decide what is legal and what is not. Who, then wants to save “Our Democracy™”? The new left? In other words, Roe v Wade was so contentious not only because it dealt with the leftist sacrament of abortion, but because it went to the very heart of how we govern ourselves. Do we decide by majoritarian democracy or do judges dictate to us? Do you suppose the Roe v Wade regimen had “disparate impact”?? Did anyone care?

At the human level, what has happened is a tragedy, almost beyond measure. I don’t know how many unique human beings have been aborted, but it likely ranges in the tens of millions in the US alone. The act is treated as a “life-saving” “medical procedure”, when, in fact, it is almost always a lifestyle decision, made with zero regard to it as even slightly a moral issue. There are exactly ZERO medical indications for a partial birth abortion. That is because the most dangerous part of any birth is passage of the head through the birth canal and that occurs with every partial birth abortion. It would have been safer for the “birthing person” to remove the fetus via Cesarean section. The “life-saving medical procedure” constitutes one of the growing examples of the BIG LIE. and is a moral stain on our society and the medical profession. So, where do I stand? You’re entitled to know.

In deciding what acts are to be punished as criminal, part of the determination is always “enforceability”. When it comes to abortion, it may well be that the lesser evil is obtained by not criminalizing very early abortions. I say this because attempts to enforce act which may now be done privately, in the home, without the assistance (and besmirching) of the medical profession. Policing that, IMO, would create serious, intolerable issues of state overreach. Which is not to say the state ought to be neutral (or encourage as it now does, overwhelmingly) as to abortion. The state ought to make clear that it ought to always remain a moral question, regardless of practicalities. It ought to be asserting the immorality of abortion - even where not criminal - with the same fervor now reserved for “global warming”. It should be repeated ad infinitum that abortion is NOT MERELY ANOTHER FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL! That this is the case - that many consider it to be that despite its overriding moral import - is a perhaps the most serious leading indicator of the impending collapse of what was once a decent and improving civilization.

How could it be considered birth control by any responsible "birthing person"when many, many methods are widely available and free to those who recklessly become pregnant and abort their children time and time again?


One of the issues never mentioned in polite company is that abortion as practiced today has a “disparate impact”. An unborn Person of Color is more likely to be aborted than her unborn compatriot whose color happens to white (pink, really).

It is impossible to understand how any appointed judge can permit that discriminatory travesty to proceed. After all, any suspected “disparate impact” on non-aborted Persons of Color applying to universities or businesses is routinely squashed.

To extend the argument, what do the proponents of abortion as a “woman’s right” think about the extensive use of abortion in certain other countries to selectively terminate the existence of female babies – female children being societally less desirable? With the rising tide of immigration, that kind of action has probably already begun in the West.


Maybe we should tolerate left wing harpies to have abortions?

Maybe certain demographics getting abortions isn’t a terrible thing?

Accidental eugenics?

I propose we give all black women 15 week cutoff. No questions asked.

Someone needs to write, Confessions of an abortion clinic doctor


The demographics of abortion patients

In the most recent data from the CDC in 2019, Black women had the highest rate of abortions with 23.8 abortions per 1,000 women.

1 Like


Trump: Arizona ruling went too far


I wonder why there are not ad campaigns about abortion like there are for abused animals, pollution and plastic bottles.

Here is a partial birth abortion. These babies need your help.

Just show the pictures and let people decide if it is a clump of cells or life. I see billboards with the baby in the womb, but they should change it to a picture of the instance when Mengele is doing the killing.

I assume, but do not know, that the media would not allow such commercials. If this is true, it tells you all you need to know.

I hope those that oppose abortion don’t blow it. Hopefully, they will have learned a lesson from their opponents. Don’t go whole hog. Win large on partial birth abortion. Once that is fully won, take the next step.

I doubt this will happen. When they go whole hog they will lose and lose permanently. The Democrats will use the political blow back to change State Constitutions and it will be game over. If they are smart they will just get a ban on partial birth abortion on the books. Let the fight for amendments die on partial birth abortion. Then take the next step.


Your last sentence is something I think about—marvel at—all the time. To hear the Left rant, you’d think there are no methods of preventing pregnancy available! one’s only “choice” is to abort or not abort . And if you point this out, they say oh but contraception is only 98% effective. (“Only” 98%:joy::joy::joy::joy::joy:)

(This kinda….polarization, I’ll say, though i don’t like the word, is the norm now. Like, there’s no possible middle ground between being grossly obese and being anorexic! Eat, girls, EAT! Down with the “diet culture”! )

I hate the Left for the hypocrisy of calling themselves “Pro-Choice”—but I effing hate the “Pro-Life” label too. CTFO, lotsa things are “alive”— our hair, our fingernails, viruses, people on Death Row. No, there’s more going on, I’m afraid, than just a Jain-like reverence for “life”. I can’t believe how vehement some of the men on American Thinker get about it. While I understand and admire your measured and philosophical reflections on the subject, CW (especially since, as it did in 2022, it’s probably going to determine the identity of our rulers for the next 4 years) —I can’t feel that way about some of the vindictive and punitive comments I read by gents on the Right. Why do they care so much? They wouldn’t get all wrath o’ God if they heard about a toddler dying in a car accident. And similarly, why do these weedy-lookin’ Lefty “men” care so much? Gents, I understand your interest in the subject, kinda, but—whence the HEAT?
And this is especially true because I’ve tried on various sites I’ve frequented, our “legacy” sites, to figger (sometimes I find it pleasurable to misspell words, I dky)
out how men feel about their sperm. Not about their children—about their sperm. Why aren’t men furious about the fact that the woman gets the sole decisional power over whether the zygote lives or dies? She can hold him in for 18 years—or she can opt out of parenthood , for both of them, without him even knowing. Doesn’t that piss you guys off? Apparently not.
Anyway I wake every morning hoping Trump can avoid the minefield of the abortion issue. So far so good, in terms of statements he has made. But it’s the only issue the Dems have, really, and they’re gonna flog it for all it’s worth.


Maybe I don’t understand your question. This seems like asking why did anyone that wasn’t a slave care about slavery or why care that the Nazis and Communist killed a lot of people.

Beyond what people conclude morally, men probably have an innate drive to protect. Most men I know think rapists should be killed. The same is true of wife beaters and child molesters. The Lefties probably think they are protecting women’s rights.


I knew someone would mention abolition. I don’t see that it’s comparable, really, or not till we get to the late partial birth abortion stage. Slaves were other compos mentis humans.
What I mean is it’s puzzling to me that men seem to take the abortion issue personally but only in the abstract, which I know is oxymoronic. I never read a lament by a man who was devastated by finding out that some woman aborted HIS baby. In fact, when men write about this issue, even the most thoughtful ones like CW—they don’t even mention the dads.
I’ve written elsewhere that I think there should be some kinda arbitration process that gives the dads a say, but of course the problem is Nature’s SoL on gestation. Still, if the gents cared about the issue in this personal way, you’d think there’d be some reflection of it in law.
Not a peep from men when the SCOTUS cases came down saying it has to just be all up to the woman because of the far greater burden of pregnancy! Sheesh—what’s 9 months compared to 18 years?
All this has to do also with whether this is a federal question or more properly a moral issue. Whenever I engage on this topic online some guy ends up writing, “It’s MURDER!” As if that were the last word. But, y ‘know, murder isnt a federal crime, unless you do it in federal territory or there’s an interstate aspect.


Let me say one more thing if I may: Roe v. Wade, while it was a piece of crap legally, ws a pretty good decision culturally. We lived with it in relative peace for 50 years and I think SCOTUS shoulda just left it alone.Who cares, as CW points out, what somebody does in her own home to induce menstruation ( first 12 weeks) and at the other end, everybody should care about the outright murder of fully developed babies. (Last 12 weeks) Thats barbaric, by what I still feel,pretty confident in saying is kinda a universal standard of civilization. For the middle 12 weeks of pregnancy, states could ‘
“Regulate but not prohibit”. Well, that’s ok, I reckon, it leaves room to consider that particular circumstances of each case. Is the little mother only 12? Is she retarded? Will giving birth almost certainly kill her? Y’know, like that.
I hope I’m wrong, but I’m afraid that, because of Dobbs, I may lose all the REST of my first ten amendments rights; Ol Jo[k]e & co are chippin’ away at ‘em all. IMHO that isn’t a good bargain


I remember seeing somewhere that 80 percent of abortions are before 6 weeks

In Europe and Japan the cutoff has been 13 weeks and everyone seems to tolerate it. I remember in 1996 telling a friend abortion is only a hot button issue in America. Even Ireland has settled the issue!!!


These are good and pertinent points; as a staunch believer in merit, I prize excellence regardless of the accompanying sexual fixtures; I have no problem with women (I still know the definition) doing anything. There are reasons, though, I think, that men’s potential “rights” have been completely discounted in this particular debate and some of men’s silence is self-imposed because they have been somewhat cowed (no pun intended) (some might even say p@#*sy whipped, but not me!). When it comes to the “battle of the sexes”, we have been living in the epoch of payback for what, three generations? IMO, men’s silence boils down to accepting present payback for the political and social power men have traditionally held in most societies since time immemorial, simply because they were physically stronger when that mattered most. Simply put, hardware favored those with XY chromosomes; it is only newer software and peer pressure which recently permitted equalization of women in many fields. Yes, they always had the latent abilities which were left fallow and have recently come to the fore. Those formerly exploited usually want recompense, no?

It will be an interesting experiment to see what happens when as seems increasingly likely - our elites are heading us toward it - we return to feudal, tribal and fragmented societies/city states, where cognitive and verbal skills may once again be eclipsed by manual skills and physical prowess. The permutations of trans interactions, alone, will be very interesting - especially in light of the changes in the accompanying liberation of female sexual assertiveness. Hmmm. I can almost imagine a novel/movie showing male/female interactions in such a neo-primitive feudal society; it would of necessity have to be freed ot many of today’s ‘triggers’, though there would be no shortage of those discharging bullets.


Various forms of contraception are readily available in the modern world – it is a good bet they will not be so readily available & inexpensive after the Collapse.

The other side is that a wealthy society has chosen to subsidize illegitimate births; prior poorer societies could not afford that, since citizens were barely able to feed their own children, let alone the offspring of others.

A third element is that – prior to the development of modern expensive technologically-advanced medicine – pregnancy and childbirth had a surprisingly high death rate for the woman.

Traditional female morality was arguably driven by those technological & economic factors. It is likely that whatever (initially very poor) societies emerge after the Collapse will be driven back to the idea of marriage, with only limited furtive copulation outside its bounds. That, at least, is the message from history.

As for abortion in that future world – read the section in “Quiet Flows the Don” in which the woman who decided not to carry her baby to term spent 3 chapters dying from the kind of botched abortion typical of those not-so-distant days. That section was so disturbing I was never able to finish the book.


This is maybe part of the reason you don’t understand men that are anti-abortion. They believe the fetus is human. Because your definition of what you consider human has to do with compos mentis doesn’t mean others see it that way.

When you start to think in terms of scientific definitions and legal arguments, you are ignoring moral arguments. I think you are assuming you can define something, that cannot be defined by science or lawyers. In my opinion, it is a way to gloss over the moral question by saying you are addressing the moral question and you are able to do that because by our (whomever our is) definition it is not human.

Humans can make definitions any way they want. Some may decide that a human fetus of certain genetics is human while what we define today as a compos mentis human really should be defined as sub human.

Humans can and will define what is human in any old fashion they want and just because you are not a Nazi doesn’t mean you cannot fall into the same pitfall of defining humans based on some rational.

I don’t believe anyone can define when a fetus becomes a human. The development is a continuous process.

If you take an oak seed and plant it. When does it become a tree? If we do not mess with it, it may or may not grow into an oak tree. If you dig it up immediately is it an oak tree? If you wait until it germinates? One millisecond before it germinates?

The seed has value and the value increases continuously as it tries to become what we call an oak tree. Not just in human terms of value, but in nature’s terms. It takes resources for a plant to produce seeds. Resources that could otherwise be used to protect itself. It takes more resources for the seed to germinate and grow. The value isn’t just because it used resources. It utilized resources to go through this continuous process that we end up calling an oak tree.

Points on a continuous line are hard to distinguish from the next infinitesimally small increment. If your talking about the melting point of a plastic it doesn’t matter. If your talking about a moral issue, it does.

As CW pointed out, we already know that the first definitions around viability were wrong. We already know that some people will define it as not fully out of the woman’s body. We already know that some people will define others as sub human.

We already know that there are lot less humans because of abortion. A lot less. Doesn’t’ that answer the question of whether they were human? Even the intentional destruction of eagle eggs at this scale would be considered wrong. Why? Those eggs aren’t eagles. Are they?

By the way, if the Nazis used our own definition of human and all they did was abort all the Jews fetuses would that be a much lesser crime. The only offense would be that for a few years they infringed on woman’s rights. That isn’t much worse than putting Germans and Japanese in camps. Right? On par with making a law that people must vaccinate their kids. Right?

And what is the counter weight? It is inconvenient and uncomfortable?

Let’s be above board here. Humans are superb at rationalization when covering for their desires. The Vietnam protestors were not anti-war. They were against their life being impacted by a war. This is obvious because by the eighties they were no longer apposed to war. They weren’t against institutions. They were against institutions that hindered sex, drugs and rock n roll man. They flocked to the institutions. They made them bigger and more intrusive than ever. Having kids would also be a drag so they rationalized abortion. Abortion wasn’t a popular view in the early 70’s that is why it had to be a SCOTUS decision against the will of the people.

All of this ignores the second order consequences of abortion which is a rather large list all on its own.


Daniel Patrick Moynihan described partial birth abortion as infanticide.

It’s a barbaric procedure. I don’t see how anyone can defend it. I also don’t understand women who wait so long to terminate a pregnancy


Let’s say any one of you gents has gotten a woman pregnant. Let’s say that, in those ads we see where a woman sitting alone, wracked with worry over what to do, frantic because she doesn’t have the money, or the nearest clinic is so far away—
Because, after all, in every one of those situations, behind every one of the individual numbers which make up the abortion statistics—
There IS a man, right? Gotta be!—
And this time, YOU are the father.
How did it happen? I don’t know…you met her on a business trip, or at a class reunion, at a hotel bar when the two of you happened to be at the same hotel, and you had a mutually consensual romp.
The two of you know nothing about each other except what you vouchsafed during the conversational preamble.
You didn’t fall in love; when you departed the next morning all you felt was …well, you tell me: post coital repulsion? A sense of a completed conquest? Guilt?
But now, you find out a few weeks later that she’s pregnant.
(I’m sure the first thing you’re thinking is “I WOULD NEVER!” But for my purposes let’s put that aside. People DO things like this. )

You, sir, are the reason the woman is now sitting alone, “in trouble” deciding what course to take. (Y’ever notice there are NEVER any men in those “pro-choice” dramatizations?)

What do you feel—
What are you thinking—
About the zygote, the soon-to-be homunculus,
half of which is YOUR live sperm?


Another topic of contention when it comes to health innovation:

Scientific progress prompts ethical concerns

But the possibility of an artificial womb is also raising many questions. When might it be safe to try an artificial womb for a human?

[sarcasm] Yeah, better leave preterm babies to die. [/sarcasm]


If you approached this from the perspective of a man on a hunt for casual sex with strangers, the scenario you describe could never happen – since the woman who engaged in casual sex would not know his real name, address, phone number, e-mail, etc. There would be no way for her ever to communicate the fact of her unwelcome pregnancy to him.

Historically (and sensibly), this was part of the reason that women were rather demanding about obtaining commitment from a man prior to rolling in the hay – because the potential consequences of copulation are so much larger for the female than the male.

Perhaps the world would be a better place if women stuck to those old ways? Certainly, abortion would be much less of an issue.


You weren’t “on the hunt for casual sex”. And let’s say you had already exchanged business cards, or she was able to find out from someone else who you were. NOW: I ask again.


We all understand that males are very easily manipulated by a willing female – we males are unfortunately weak! The scenario then is that an ordinary Joe was not looking for casual sex, had dinner with a woman he met at some kind of meeting (probably at her suggestion), and ended up in her hotel room (again, probably at her suggestion). Poor guy did not have a chance. Later she calls him up and tells him she is pregnant.

After poor Joe stops banging his head against the wall because he was such a weak fool, thoughts which would likely occur:

  1. Maybe the woman is not pregnant. Maybe this is just a disguised demand for money or for some business-related favor.

  2. If she really is pregnant – and Joe by this point is probably not going to take her word for it – what does she want to do? Does she want marriage? Or 25 years of child support? Or to have the baby and give it up for adoption? Or to have the baby and give it to Joe to bring up? Or to have an abortion? There are so many variables at that point in this hypothetical that it is difficult to predict what comes next. But it would be very clear to Joe that the woman is in the driving seat.

To get back to the topic of abortion, Joe might be pro-abortion or anti-abortion or agnostic – but he knows his views don’t count; the woman is in charge. Whatever Joe’s prior views on abortion were, they might change when the woman demands that he pay for her to fly to an exclusive clinic in Switzerland to have the abortion. Or maybe I am just being cynical.