Now You MAGA Dipshits Want an Abortion?
By: The Mouthy Renegade Writer
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
You Talibangelicals Voted for This Fuckery, So Hell No
The Mouthy Renegade Writer Jul 01, 20262146Share
Women should be in charge of their own reproductive health. Fake-religious men should have no say in the matter.
You voted for Donald Trump and his MAGA movement, winning (stealing) the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections. You did what you're programmed to do as a good (hypocritical) Christian in your conservative, religious red state. You cheered as Trump stacked the Supreme Court with as many conservative "Christians" as quickly as he possibly could during his last term.
You watched as your party did nothing about sensible gun control laws. You identify as "Pro-Life", at least until the baby is born. Then fuck that; it's somebody else's problem.
You don't want to pay to feed it, house it, protect it at school from mass shootings, or care about its well-being.
You don't enjoy paying your fair share of taxes to raise someone else's welfare baby. This life doesn't matter anymore. Well, at least until it's old enough to join our military. Then it has a purpose once again. America needs soldiers, right?
George Carlin spelled out the abortion issue brilliantly, almost 30 years ago. It's hauntingly uncanny that this is the exact shitty situation we're in now. Tell me I'm wrong, after watching this clip:
You don't want your tax dollars paying for health care, daycare, Head Start, or paid time off for the new mother. You piss and moan about the sanctity of life and what your bible says, but don't think ahead to the near future. You should have, though, and here's why:
What happens now when the red state you live in bans abortions completely? Or worse, suppose your stacked conservative Supreme Court backs up and upholds any state laws if it comes down to it? Guess what happens, then?
Your high school-aged son knocks up his little girlfriend after prom. Or, God forbid, your daughter is raped and is forced to carry her rapist's baby to term. What about when that hot little number you're seeing on the side during your midlife crisis suddenly misses her period?
Fuck.
You're up shit-creek without a paddle or a life-jacket, and the waters are stormy. When I was in high school, they taught us in health class that it costs a quarter million dollars to raise a child from infancy to high school graduation. I bet it's closer to a full million dollars, now.
And it's not getting any easier, with Sir Psycho Syphilis's goddamn tariffs raising prices.
Everyone knew girls who suddenly had to attend an alternative school because they got knocked up. If an awkward, hormone-driven junior high or high school-aged kid is fortunate enough to find a girl willing to have sex, it's gonna happen. There's no way you'll stop it.
It doesn't matter if you come from a religious, well-respected family. Unwanted teen pregnancies happen to religious families as much or more than to others. Why? Because conservative religious families tend to be ignorant about sex.
Mine was.
They preach abstinence, even though you can't scare most kids enough for them to actually practice it. It's one thing if abstinence is forced upon you because you're an unfortunate-looking, nerdy kid. Take it from someone who had that exact experience in the 80s to early 90s. It's quite another to be a good-looking kid who can find another attractive member of the opposite or same sex who wants to get naked with you.
Subscribe
Many religious folks are so uptight about premarital sex that they don't even have "The Talk" with their children. Some, like my pastor father, didn't allow their children to participate in Sex Ed classes in junior high and high school. I had to sit in the library every day for two weeks like a little fucking nerd because my father didn't want me to get any liberal ideas about boning.
It was fortunate for me that at junior high and high school age, I was not some Casanova. I probably would have had a half dozen, curly-headed, big-nosed kids by graduation with a whole bunch of baby mamas. This brings me to my next point:
Who raises these unwanted children?
Being a teen mother is not an easy road to travel.
If you are an anti-abortion, red-voting conservative Christian, guess what? YOU'LL be raising these children. Your child's brain isn't fully formed until the age of 25. You think your son and Statutory Susie are going to make great parents?
Wake the hell up. Early. Like when that baby does at 6 AM.
Hopefully, you have a cool mil in your bank account. And that idea of a nice, quiet home alone with your loving, subservient church wife happening at age 38? Try age 56 now, at the soonest. Early retirement? Hell no.
You'll be working BOTH jobs you'll be holding, trying to afford to raise another baby, and having your young-adult kids living at home with you.
And how about this scenario: You get caught having an affair with the hot little 22-year-old secretary at the real estate office where you work. Your long-time faithful wife decides that you're not going to raise this illegitimate bastard child in HER home and serves you divorce papers.
Your church family finds out. They judge you. They support your wife through this situation, as they should. Or maybe they won't, since douchebag men seem to matter more than women in a lot of Evangelical churches.
Her lawyer gets her the house and alimony that YOU'RE paying since she has always been a stay-at-home mother to your three other children. You know, the ones that you're paying college tuition for. Weddings for the girls. Money becomes tight.
You're getting worried and stressing out.
This kind of fella is who I'm talking about. There are more of them, too.
You move into an apartment, which is what you and Secretary Baby-Mama can afford. So now you're paying for pricey self-employment health insurance for two more people. Those rates are fucked. Your above-average real estate income is suddenly split between two families.
The baby is born, and you stop sleeping. Baby Mama is going through post-partum depression and then finally snaps out of it. You think you're on Easy Street, but new problems pop up. She's not happy living with a 52-year-old middle-aged man who's reminding her of her controlling, conservative asshole father.
She rebels and wants to live her life.
You're the one watching the baby after long work days while she goes out with her young friends. You yell at her, she screams back, the baby is crying, and she says she's leaving you and taking half your shit. Now you're working with half of half of what you were earning 18 months ago.
That abortion sounds a lot more reasonable now, right? Oh, but you couldn't get one. You live in a conservative red state. The same one in which you voted for conservative candidates across the board because the Bible tells you so.
You didn't want women making their own reproductive choices, so now they can't.
Women know far better than men do about their own reproductive rights.
You did the Christian thing to do, right? Or did you? At least you stood up for the unborn. Even though it made more sense to leave women's reproductive rights to women, where they belong.
It's been over 50 years since they were given those rights constitutionally. This wasn't a new issue. Women were doing just fine without your conservative, religiously-influenced male viewpoint butting into it.
Why don't conservatives just adopt babies, children, and even teenagers who are already in the system? We have close to a million children needing homes in our country, but no, you couldn't consider that viewpoint.
You'd rather force women to give birth and add to the high number of children in the system.
This brings another issue to light: Crime. When Roe V. Wade guaranteed a woman's right to choose her own reproductive rights, the number of unwanted pregnancies plummeted. As did crime statistics.
Children who are born into poverty and into homes where their parents do not want them to commit more crimes. Republicans who love to use the slogan, "Blue Lives Matter," are about to see a spike in crime over the next 10 to 20 years.
So no, you can't have an abortion. Get the hell out of here with that bullshit. You don't deserve one. Just like mass shootings, COVID-related deaths, or general poverty, you don't give a damn about such issues until they impact you on a personal level.
And it will, when you lose your insurance that tripled in cost to pay for all of this child birthing and 18 years of parenting. You can thank your child rapist president and his shitty, lazy Congress.
© 2026 The Mouthy Renegade Writer. All rights reserved.
Mooch thinks that you all deserve 50% off our paid subscription rate. It's just $2.49 monthly, or $24.99 a year to support our independent journalism. Here's our half-off coupon from her, just for you!
Join HERE for 50% off!
Mooch says we need to mobilize and get Traitor Trump the hell out of office. She wants you to join her Moochant Marines organization to fight fascism.
If you enjoy my political humor writing, I'd appreciate your support of my independent journalism. It's less than $5 monthly, and I'd be honored to have you with us. Thank you!
Subscribe2146Share
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
137 visitors
My in-laws raised their granddaughter and then her 2 boys. Don;t believe in birth control or abortion but sex outside of marriage is just fine. Yes, I judge them and every one just like them
So with that said....stick to the topic. Go off topic unless I started it, you will be deleted. And no trolling. And no racism or bigotry.
I'm not in a good mood. Let that be a warning
most christo-fascists want abortion illegal for everyone but themselves ...
I know that one for a fact
I told you about my cousin's nurse wife that once worked for a private catholic hospital in the northeast for knocked up nuns, right? none of those babies went thru the traditional adoption cycle, they were an income stream for the hospital.
thumpers typically claim to be anti-abortion, right up to the moment that it's very imperative that someone they know needs one ...
This article highlights the hypocrisy baked into our system.
I've been doing a deep dive into intimacy and kink rabbit holes the last couple of weeks. I'm left wondering for a society that's so hypersexualized and kinky we are woefully unprepared to deal with the feelings that sex exposes. There are also a lot of finger pointing... If we were more geared to honestly educate rather than shame we'd have a lot less abortions to worry about.
It's been an eye opening journey. (Note I'm listening to a podcast of two phycologist discuss hot wifing/cuckolding kink as I type this)
You are a brave soul doing a deep dive of that sort
I started with Dom/Sub stuff. It's way more of a diverse subject than I could ever have of imagined. There is a huge emphasis on consent, communication and care. There is a whole recent expansion of what's called soft domination... which is about being gentle and tender. ...and then outside the whole kinky sex aspect it's about being present.
not if he's wearing a speedo ...
where's that puking emoji I've been demanding?
No one wants to see that.
you're right, the maga twats left this site years ago ...
do I dare ask what that is?
It's where a husband either watched his wife have sex with another man, OR waits for her to come home and tell him about it. The payoff for the guy is that he has this wife that's so hot other guys have to have her, but he's the one she comes home to.
That's twisted. Yes, I'm being judgemental. But it's legal and it's their business
It's different... I'm more perverted than most people and I feel pretty tame compared to a lot of stuff I've found. Porn has really made a lot of these kinks more toxic than they need to be too.
This guy's article is based on some major assumptions. One is that there are no (or should not be) consequences for having sex. It's just something one does, if they feel like it, like if one is in the mood for ice cream or maybe going to the movies.
Another is that, for those who believe there shouldn't be consequences for sex, it somehow obligates those who think otherwise to be responsible for the results of those who are irresponsible.
Another appears to be that one's own self-interest is paramount and above every other consideration and is the thing that should drive every decision in your life, rather than obligation to another.
That's what I see in this article.
Please post quotes from the article to illustrate your points so we can discuss them.
thank you for responding to him. I don't read his comments
Discuss? That would be a nice change. So, okay.
There is no specific quote for this one I can post, other than the entirety of the article in which, as I said, seems to treat sex as something as casual as eating ice cream or taking the dog for a walk. While I'm obviously anti-abortion for most cases, I think the problem begins long before pregnancy occurs. That is, how people regard sex to begin with. Pregnancy is just one possible consequence. There's STD's, emotional problems, financial and all the rest. None of that goes away simply because one thinks sex is, or can be recreational.
One relevant quote would be...
Aside from the fact that there are many charities that do exactly what is claimed anti-abortion organizations don't do (I donate to one every month), this quote assumes that everyone else has some sort of responsibility for someone else's choices. Why, for instance, should my taxes pay for a woman who is not married and who's four children have four different fathers?
Relevant quote...
In other words, what's important is that the problem goes away rather than addressing the cheating and taking responsibility for it. Just get an abortion and continue cheating. Self-interest.
Self-interest, again. "I just wanna have sex. I don't want to raise a kid. Thank goodness for abortion!"
Appeal to self-interest. Trying to convince Christians, in this case, that they are somehow responsible for the outcome of someone else's choice and now the Christian has the responsibility to deal with the outcome. Better if it were just aborted so Christian self-interest is best served.
watching the religiously challenged try to logically navigate the hypocrisy and contradiction between their alleged traditional values and modern reality is entertaining. there's really a simple solution for thumpers that think they have the right to decide the private individual health decisions of non-believers in america. they should probably relinquish their personal health decisions to others as well.
It is the people with your OPINION that are legislating antiabortion laws. . . so why the . . . do you want charities to raise a child/ren in your stead? In addition, you accidentally answered your own question:
Why, for instance, should my taxes pay for a woman who is not married and who's four children have four different fathers?
"You" are the people compelling women to give up their PRIVACY and PUBLICLY have a child/ren they otherwise would legally abort. So yes, "you" have a fiduciary responsibility to take care of the children "you" wish others to have when they can not or do not want to.
Personally, I think if their responsibility to the child does not exist, then they can go go elsewhere
Self-interest in and of itself is not a negative thing. It can be a positive. Bringing a child/ren into this world and then ABANDONING them to the 'system'. . . is a problem for some people and thus it leaves trauma. Abortion leaves trauma too. So, in the case of the former justices that voted for PRIVACY, the trauma is thought less when only the girl, or woman, is left to strive with her own emotions about 'ending' a life—legally. Trauma is thought more when the mother and others outside of the relationship must raise somebody else's child. (Also, "you" have an issue with homosexuals raising "other people children" - for your own private and personal reasons.)
So yes, self-interest can be a positive. It saves birthing a child/ren as 'cast offs' - a status they will feel the trauma for all their lives—just ask any child that comes out of a one parent household whom will never get to know the other side of the relationship that ended in her or his birth!
Additionally, it is "you" that go around 'agonizing' and hauling a bulldozer full of talking points about people being responsible to not 'burdening the system' - and here you are asking girls and women to birth a child/ren that will burden the system!
Hi Thomas, can you elaborate on your statement. . . .
Why are "you" moralizing about other people's liberty? Is it not enough that 'you' are at liberty to make your own private and personal decisions about not having an abortion. . .why chase down 'the world' outside your collective and taking away their liberty to have sex as they see fit. . . "you" have sex as you see fit within the 'confines' of your morality: What is wrong with letting others have their liberties in a country touted for its liberty? Like a gun. . .an abortion is not the problem. . .people interfering, moralizing, and compelling are.
Aside from my typo, I thought it was self explanatory: People without direct involvement with a child should not be considered in the child's care. Parents should have the ultimate responsibility, decreasing outward from there. Unless they are found to not have the child's best interests at heart.
Since "you" want to legislate for girls and women what they would whether properly manage for themselves (for the entirety of their lives), then "you" are responsible to care for the child/ren you LEGISLATE INTO EXISTENCE. . . And unlike "Sandy Hook Elementary" . . . not forget "your" child/ren "you" caused to be. . . or choose a gun/s over and beyond them.
So, I posted quotes where I could. You see the results. Nothing that actually addresses what I wrote or what I was talking about. I don't know why I bothered.
It's cheaper for the taxpayer to pay for a $500 abortion than it is to pay for at least 18 years for a child
I don't get anything from the article that treats sex as casual, it seems more like treating it something people do. As far as the rest of this post, I tend to agree and my point in another thread up above, I said our society has hypersexualized almost everything... "Sex sells:" At the same time people are constantly bombarded with it, we are also constantly told sex is bad. Instead of doing both we should be more open and honest about sex, sexuality and emotional maturity we'd probably have less abortions.
It's not about what others should do, or the government should do, its about the hypocrisy of those with power.
Again it's about hypocrisy. Voices of morality that lie, cheat and steal and then pretend they prayed their sins away.
With abortion access restricted to those who have the means to pay to go to others states leaves the poorest and least educated to rely on welfare and charities.
Again, sex happens... we have a biological urge to procreate and it feels really, really good, if you do it right. So people do it. Trying to stop it and ignoring the consequences... or worse criminalizing the consequences, is foolish and ultimately creates social instability. Rather we should sink resources into honest, open communication, education and mental health to create stable healthy communities.
It's tiring. It's not like the data refuting their tired opinions hasn't been out there for decades now.
Yeah... wait until the Dobbs decision isn't challenged under that idea. If a woman's pregnancy can be government business then perhaps we should make all our elected representees health records public with FOIA request.
what's wrong with recreational sex? Isn't the point of sex having fun...ie...recreation?
As long as all parties are consenting adults, nothing.
Sometimes... maybe most times. Sometimes it's about intimacy. Sometimes its about procreation.
Like eating ice cream or taking the dog for a walk? That's the impression I get from the article. That the author simply relegates it to recreation.
I saw that. I agreed, although I didn't say so. The fact that sex is pushed so hard and our current society is so driven by it should tell a reasonable person that sex is a powerful thing. Something that shouldn't be taken as lightly as it is, but those without conscience use it to make money, in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. I don't think I've ever attended a church that said or intimated that sex was bad, in my experience. Quite the opposite, in fact. That it is something to be celebrated, in the proper context. Perhaps that is what you are referring to? That sex outside the proper context is pushed as something bad? If so, I can understand why you might see it that way, seeing the issue from a different perspective.
Strange how we can both agree with this statement but mean different things.
In my opinion, you are speaking of a different subject. I commented on the article itself and what I thought what the underlying motive for his perspective was, which is, in my opinion, selfish self-interest. Other than that, I'm not sure what you see as hypocrisy. That those with power are often perpetrators of what they claim they are against? If so, I tend to agree, which is why I have almost no faith in government anymore.
But it isn't just government that is corrupt. In the article, the author talks about the high school kid who gets a girl pregnant and his only concern is now the kid is stuck with the consequences of his actions. It appears to me the author thinks that eliminating the consequences for one's actions is what we should be working towards. As if the problem is simply getting rid of the pregnancy. But what about the rest? What about the emotional damage to the girl? What about the callous attitude of the boy just wanting the problem to go away so that he doesn't have to account for his irresponsibility? What about the idea that we can just solve the problem with abortion do to the concept of commitment? Trust?
Although that does occur, that is largely a generalization, and irrelevant to what I was talking about. If such hypocrisy is one extreme, then this article is the extreme on the other side. It argues for not holding anyone accountable for their own choices.
I disagree. Sex doesn't "happen." It's a choice. I understand it is one of the strongest urges in human nature, but that should tell us something. Unless one is simply so callous to sex that it's just a more satisfying form of jerking off, sex comes with loads of baggage. Through most of history, it was one of the greatest commitments one could make. It was serious stuff. Now we have media of various types telling us that we should have casual sex to be a well balanced human being. That there really isn't any commitment beyond the moment. The more sex you have, the more successful a person you are. As you say, we're so hypersexualized that it may be for many that how the perform sexually is the basis for the whole relationship. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you?
And yet that is is TOO MUCH for the 'moralists' who seem to think they have a RIGHT to insert themselves into the uteruses of girls and women—NOT IN THEIR RELIGIOUS AFFILITIATION.
These __s are on interested in cost or being reasonable. . . they simply want CONTROL over girls and women. . . like they USED to have it in times past. It is a form of RAPE (CONTROL) and I do not understand why females 'stand' for it!
I am a Christian in spirit and I will not stand with these __s to meddle in anybody's true expression of liberty and privacy!
We live in a capitalist country, what else would you expect other than marketers to capitalize on what focus groups show sell their product the best to generate maximum profit for themselves, their business and their shareholders?
Well then, you went to an unusual Christian church. Just about everywhere else the fear of hell is put into kids when discussing premarital or adultery sex which is just about the only sex most pastors discuss from the podium.
Yes, that is what he was no doubt referring to, the constant drum beat of 'sex is for procreation, not recreation!' that almost every Christian church pushes.
The long and short of your complaint, it seems, is that many Americans don't take sex as seriously as some deeply religious rightwing conservatives want them to. But the great thing is, Americans don't live in a theocracy! Isn't that great! That means we don't have to give a flying fuck whether some deeply religious rightwing conservative thinks about Americans having sex for recreation, or at least we shouldn't. Why is this even being discussed? Because some deeply religious rightwing conservatives believe they should get to force their religious morality on everyone else contrary to the constitution. If you don't want an abortion, then don't get one. Stay home and get out of the way of Americans who don't give a flying fuck about your religious opinions.
I guess we have different definitions of what "most of history" means.
Like it's part of normal life.
I don't think sex needs to be referred to with any sort of reverence. Only that it should be approached with knowledge.
I'm talking about anyone who is trying to tell people that they shouldn't be doing it, telling people they are doing it wrong. I've seen it from both conservatives and liberals.
Is it?
You missed the author's point, which was political & moral hypocrisy about forcing choices on others.
Pregnancy is the consequences. The author's point is about taking away choice and agency. Yes there is a lot that could be said, but that's not what the scope of the article. You and I can, and are, discussing it, which is fine, but we shouldn't be rewriting the article.
It does not! It may be taking a caviler tone to sex and safe access to abortion, but there is no argument anywhere in the article that says no one should not be held accountable for their choices.
Your issue seems to be that the author makes no moral statement on sex itself.
Just because it's a choice, doesn't preclude it from happening. It being one of the strongest urges in human nature one should logically conclude - regardless of all other factors sex still happens with great frequency.
It really is not anybody's business what people do with their sex organs-is it? It is not like "you" have any intention of helping them with their 'appetites' or 'outcomes' and apparently letting them alone with their sex organs as "privates" is a problem for the religious moralists whom think they should have a say in what others do with theirs!
You're a good friend to women, CB. Thank you
You got that right!
thumpers really don't give a fuck about sex education, birth control, safe sex, abortion, non-procreation focused sex, alleviating gov't programs for disadvantaged children, or non-white children available for adoption. it's all about holding biblical dominion over women. I'm excited about the prospect of xtian nationalist attempts to subvert the constitution and impose a theocracy in america, so that they can finally be dealt with in this country permanently ...
I believe, through evolution, homo sapiens ancestors that were able to evolve sexual pleasure sensations and turned sex into recreation were able to survive when other similar groups did not. It's why we get a massive chemical dose of hormones and oxytocin during intimacy. While the ultimate point from an evolutionary standpoint of sex may be procreation, the sending of our DNA into the future, embracing it as recreation may have been what made that possible.
Too bad some folk won't even accept evolution as a reality and thus refuse to even consider the positives recreational sex might have within a species.
That was a large part of it, but even some liberals point fingers at what doesn't look normal to them.
As I pointed out above, I've been doing a deep dive into BDSM and they get shit from all corners. Vanilla conservatives and liberals don't understand the kink. Especially hard core feminists look down on submissives as being taken advantage of in some way. The BDSM community goes to great lengths to push consent, respect and care (both before, during and after any kinky play).
I was on a reddit thread the other day (by accident) where some liberal women were heavily criticizing praise kink as if they knew what they were talking about. The softest most loving form of sexual exploration.
Yesterday I heard the term "cuddle puddle" for the first time. A no sex, just a pile of naked people cuddling.
Me. I admit that I point fingers. But after reading your words (they are sinking in!) I did some reflection asked myself...why are you pointing fingers? Are they hurting anyone? Most of all is it any of my business?
So thanks for your comment.
As to naked cuddle puddling...I have to take strong pass on that. Primarily I don't like to be touched and ew...people don;t want to see me nekkid
I get it. It was an eye opening education. The subject is massively broad and there are even arguments in the community about what's expectable and what's not... People have opinions. An Emerson U study found that 60% of women admitted to having thought of a rape fantasy at least once.
I'm a people pleaser... LOL!
Yeah... I've heard rumors of a particular Floridian retirement community with a large number of swingers. LOL.
out of the blue 6 months ago, my doctor gives me an unsolicited safe sex lecture about living in a community for seniors ... wtf?
Because the rate of STIs are high in retirement communities. Lots of randy old coots living in those places
Seniors get horny too. Hahaha! My mother worked for most of her career as a CNA at a nursing home and had one lady that kept getting in trouble for waking up guys at night for sex.
how is that even possible? I have my blood work done every 3 months on medicare. although I did recently have to change my regular walk around the complex after breakfast to random times because there started to become more women walking there dogs at that time. another disturbing thing that happened last week was finding a blindfold in my laundry basket that somebody must have left in a dryer. it didn't strike me as the type of blindfold to keep the light out for sleeping either ...
it's probably time to move, again ...
didn't any of these people pay attention in high school biology? should I start dealing boner pills to the males that live here?
I'll take a bottle.
Condoms, my friend, condoms
too complicated, first I'd need a hallucinogenic or a barf bag. I already have to look in the mirror after every outing just to keep reminding myself I look more like I'm in my 50's than my 70's, and I have my clothes on. unless they look 45 and they've buried a millionaire husband recently, I had my day in the sun ...
just google viagra, and your youtube feed will soon be loaded with online boner pill ads ...
You know you're saying this in NT, right? That's all this place does, wouldn't you agree? So, why should this be any different?
No, I did not miss the point. I understood it well enough, although I question the moral and political hypocrisy claim. That is, it does not logically or morally follow that because someone is against abortion it necessarily obligates that person to carry the burden of someone else's choices. I do not believe it does.
That said, my point about the author's argument is that it is based entirely on avoiding responsibility through abortion rather than face the consequences for bad choices. Instead, society leans heavily toward a hedonistic approach to sex rather than a responsible attitude.
I'm not rewriting the article. I'm addressing the author's assumptions, which seems to be that elimination of the unborn is the simplest solution. I agree that this is the simplest solution. I disagree it is the moral one. It is, in fact, the self-serving one. He lists what he believes is the monolithic behavior of the religious/conservative right and appeals to abortion as being in their self-interest, not their moral interest. It's simply an argument to escape responsibility.
I believe this is wrong. It does exactly that. Whether abortion is involved or not, the author expects everyone else to pay for someone else's poor decisions, as I pointed out with my example of an unmarried woman with four children, none who have the same father. I used that one because I personally know this person. Because not one of the men who got her pregnant are present in any way at all, the rest of us are stuck with paying for her kids. You speak of the author speaking of taking away choice and agency at the same time the author calls us hypocrites for taking away our choice and agency by forcing us to pay for this woman's inability to make responsible decisions.
That's probably true, although I think I began this as simply pointing out that the foundation of the author's argument is escaping responsibility for poor decisions. The moral aspect of sex, at least from my perspective, is the assumption underneath all of that. Sex is an enormous factor in the human condition, yet we treat it as if it isn't. Like the equivalent of an especially good ice cream or some other pleasing thing. It's not. It has more consequences than most apparently understand.
For instance, biologically, it causes reactions within our bodies that result in bonding, attachment and rewards. That is, it causes chemical responses that result in these things. That's great, for someone you are committed to. To someone you're not? The more one does sex casually to someone not a bonded partner or someone you do not intend to commit to, the deader one becomes to these things, making it harder to commit to an individual later. This is because sex has become separated from bonding, attachment and commitment. In actuality, it's far more complicated than my simple words here indicate.
Or consider the social aspect. Unplanned pregnancies, family instability, increased conflict, economic burdens and greater need for social support systems are a few examples. A husband gets some young, pretty thing pregnant, causing conflict within the family. The young woman thinking he'd leave his wife and family for her and her child. He doesn't and now she has to support her child and, perhaps have the public help pay for it.
These are just a couple examples. So, yes. There definitely is a moral aspect to sex, which the author apparently thinks abortion is the reasonable solution rather than trying to get society to wake up to the moral aspects of sex.
Greater now than before, I think. Mostly because our view of sex has changed. In a hedonistic way, I think. But in spite of that, simply stating that sex happens is hardly an argument for either trivializing sex, which we certainly do, or suggest that abortion is a moral solution to the problem. If it were the case that it was moral, then it would certainly be easy to make the same argument for eugenics. Sadly enough, that argument is already bearing fruit, in that parents are screening the preborn for defects and aborting them if they are found.
I'll re-read your comments later. It's my day off today and I haven't had enough coffee.
Not a coffee drinker myself but, based on my brother, I totally understand. He's totally different after coffee. Kaiju rampaging through a city before, relatively reasonable after.
And yet "you" are here. . . carrying on in defense of 'relieving' girls and women of their freedom to "produce" as each individual sees fit, based on "your" evangelical belief in God (even though it is one of many views on God).
Oh and by the way, a (evangelical) view that you can not properly support as implied by "your" lack of engagement on the topic of religion (even when 'engaged') - the thing speaks volumes for (and against) itself!
That, like the usage of the word: "hedonistic" - is a judgement call. And, is not valid because "yours" is not the only way or 'path' to having quality sex or a quality life!
Escape responsibility of what?! Living like an (white) evangelical?! States and courts permit abortions legally. . .even with the federal ban gone! The question for "you" is: How is a thing that is legal in some states (as decided by the people in those states) a crime as decided in another state? Which set of states are the holders of the Moral high ground?
Because it seems apparent that both sets of states think they individually and collectively are right. . . and, somehow "you" decide "your" (red) states are more "righteous" than the other states. . . even though "you" have a moral authority based on "your" religious belief—alone.
So "you" isolate a 'case' and imagine that the solution to a woman with four kids out of wedlock (and four separate male 'donors') is to 'tough it out" by herself without help an ABORTION could give her if 'only' she was permitted to do so in a red state?! Seems (white) evangelicals want their 'cake and eat it too'!
Tell me, do you also want this hypothetical 'hedonistic' woman to become evangelical or merely conservative too?
BTW, pick "your" damn 'poison' already! Do you want these girls and women to have the child/ren they would otherwise choose to abort, or do you want to ASSIST them in the 'birthing and raising' of the child/ren "you" insist (compel) these girls and women to bring into the world (against their private judgement)?
Why should you get to have (demand) "your" worldview or 'way' on someone's else life and freedoms?!
What is a consequence of girls and women having babies they individually do not want (at this time in life)? A consequence is a larger population in the country! That is a thing the state/nation should invest in willingly, since it would increase productivity and 'mass' in the country (with adjoining benefits). "You" do not support such benefits as status quo.
And yet, sexualized teens become adults that at the end of the day do find intimacy and even. . . MARRIAGE (for life)! They do so on their own terms (and with permission of the state/nation) - it's called FREEDOM. It happens everyday somewhere on the planet.
Let's just call it what it is: "You" have a set of talking points that when taken as a whole-deeply wants every girl and female under the control of the moral authority "you choose.
That is, "you" do not allow for diversity of opinion; just demand ONE-WAY conduct for all people. Something conservatives fancy as being open-minded—it is not!
why would you waste your time on nonsensical bible blabber from religious hypocrites, you'll never get it back ...
It was a long busy weekend... doing things for other people. But now that I'm back at work in front of my laptop this seems to be the crux of your argument - is the morality of sex and abortion and how it's trivialized.
You ideas of morality means nothing past the end of your own nose. I would uphold your right to live your life as you see fit, but I do not ascribe any morality to sex between consenting adults. I agree there are implications and consequences of all actions (including sex), and while I'd rather not see abortions it should remain a safe legal option for those who need it.
Continuing to try and legislate morality on the masses is a fools endeavor. It hasn't worked in millenia. We should put effort into honest open communication, education, health and mental care. It wouldn't eliminate abortions, but it stands the best chance of lowing rates. A well educated and healthy person makes better life choices.
This actually supports the argument for safe access to abortion.
I'm pretty sure the future is going to be in In Utero Gene Therapy and tools like CRISPR to fix faulty genes.Once science has this figured out... probably not in our lifetimes... there will be designer babies. Whether it is moral, or ethical, will be left for my grandchildren to debate.
More specifically, it is about what I originally said...
While abortion is necessarily a peripheral part of the discussion, it wasn't actually a part of my point. Rather, it was the demonstrable consequences of a casual attitude toward sex, only a portion of which is solved by abortion even when included. It has no impact on STDs, for instance.
It should be noted that not once did I refer to religion, but simply spoke of social consequences of what a trivial view of sex can and has resulted in. That is, the extent of my moral argument relied on simply that; social consequences. In that respect, what you consider as my opinion has evidence to back it up. Nor have I spoken of legislating anything. I'm simply having a conversation about what I saw wrong with the article's premises.
At this point, in continuing this conversation I would be restating points I've already made, just in different ways, I'll just thank you for your engagement with me. It was pleasant to have an actual conversation for once. Hope you had a nice 4th.
If it helps fix genes in children like my young friend's son, then I'm all for it. I've talked about him before. I admire his parents in not aborting him, but he takes all their time and money.
too bad the moment of his birth is the stopping point of bible thumper support in america ...
That's the dream. CRISPER tech is already making headway with sickle cell disease, but there is a long, long, long way to go before we reach serious commercial use.
Of which we seem to come as close to agreement as we'd likely get.
And I pointed out the social consequences are better served with abortion as one option, but better served with education and support.
Okay. I'm not sure you actually understood my point, but thanks anyway. It's going to be a damned busy week.
Don't let it get you down. The first five days after the weekend are always the hardest.
I am sure that a child/ren that are aborted have no thought of what they 'missed'. . .it takes the living (breathing air) in this world to think functionally. I know 'regular' people can muse fondly (openly) about quality of life for disabled or mentally handicapped people. . . yet, do these people really have a true understanding of what it means to live physically, mentally, or both. . . for a long, long, long, lifetime? Of course not. It takes a lot of 'being brave.'
And I say that without any mention or thought to what the parents undergo emotionally, spiritually, financially, and mentally. . . .
The Supreme Court did not abolish abortion. Some states have exercised their franchise under the Constitution to legalize abortion. If your state has outlawed abortion then get off your ass, participate in governing, and change the law. Don't expect a benevolent bureaucracy or some magnanimous judge to give you the government you think you deserve.
The United States was founded and established with legal, peaceful mechanisms to government ourselves. If we won't do the work to earn the government we want then we'll just have to settle for whatever we're given.
No, the Supreme Court voided American women's rights to terminate for their own PRIVATE REASONS. For the record, making abortions illegal did not, cannot and will never abolish abortions. It just made getting abortions more dangerous, harder to get and it made women and doctors criminals.
That is incorrect. The verifiable fact that abortion is still legally available in the United States proves that statement is a lie.
the verifiable fact is that american women don't have equality to men in all 50 states, thanks to bible thumpers ...