Tag Archives: abortion

February 28, 2024 · 6:59 am

Abortion, IVF Treatments, And The (Distressing) Trend Of Criminalizing Women

A few years back, I did a detailed breakdown of the potential implications of the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and effectively undoing a woman’s right to an abortion. When I wrote that, I did so with the sinking gut feeling that it would eventually happen. Ignorant, cruel, fun-hating, sex-hating, misogynistic right-wing assholes have spent decades of time and billions of dollars to undo this ruling.

It was never a matter of if this fundamental right would be overturned. It was only a matter of when. It just happened a lot sooner than I expected. And while there has certainly been backlash, the full extent of that backlash is just beginning. We won’t know how it’ll fully manifest for a number of years.

However, the same assholes who fought so hard to undermine abortion rights were never going to be content to stop there. I’ve met and dealt with enough of these people to know they weren’t going to be satisfied with stopping women getting abortions. Even with the backlash their efforts incurred, they were always going to keep moving forward. They just have too much time, money, and cruelty to stop.

And the recent ruling with the Alabama Supreme Court that effectively criminalized in-vitro (IFV) fertilization is yet another instance of where these assholes will be focusing their efforts. I certainly didn’t expect something like this to happen so quickly after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but I can’t say I was surprised.

The details of this case are remarkable, and not in a good way if you have any shred of humanity. But what’s more important, in terms of the bigger picture, is what this ruling does to the very perception of what IVF is and why it matters.

Because this is not some new, untested, unknown technology that most people haven’t heard of. IVF has been around since the late 1970s and to date, over 8 million children have been born through IVF that probably wouldn’t have otherwise been born. Keep in mind, these are all children born to parents who genuinely wanted to have a child, but couldn’t conceive due to various reasons.

These are not people who are in any way unnatural or less-than-human. And their parents are that much more admirable for seeking to have a child that they otherwise could not have had. Now, this ruling has completely reframed these millions of people and their parents by ruling that the procedure that helped them become a family was somehow immoral.

At the heart of the ruling is the notion that IVF requires fertilized embryos. And, according to the twisted logic and ethics of these religiously motivated judges, fertilized embryos are no different than infant children. That mirrors how the same logic these people utilize when they call abortion murder because for them, life begins at conception when the sperm and egg meet to create an embryo. So, for them, it means the destruction of any embryo constitutes the loss of a human life.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, a judge, or a legal expert of any kind. But even I have enough brain cells to understand why that logic is complete bullshit. You don’t even need to make any religious or philosophical arguments to prove it wrong.

It’s a simple matter of observable fact. You can place a tube full of embryos in the freezer, which preserves them for future use. But you can’t do that with an infant child.

They are two different things. That’s why we use different words to identify them. It really is that simple.

But in this particular case, the Alabama Supreme Court focused on a single incident in December 2020 at an Alabama fertility clinic in which a special container of embryos was mistakenly destroyed. And plaintiffs in this case argued that constituted the wrongful deaths of living children.

Again, these were embryos in a freezer. If they were children, they would be dead. I wish I didn’t have to make that distinction, but this is apparently where we are with the discourse surrounding women, children, and health care.

But the court didn’t care for that distinction. Whether because of their religious convictions or ideology, these judges ruled these embryos are children. As such, IVF treatment cannot continue because it often involves the destruction and disposal of embryos, usually those that are not viable. It’s twisted, absurd, and irrational logic. But because these are judges, it’s now law in Alabama.

However, don’t expect it to stop there.

Remember, the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court includes the judges that eagerly jumped at the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade. And at least one of those judges has publicly stated that there are just as eager to revisit other rights regarding women and the LGBTQ community.

Do not discount these musings as wishful thinking or unwarranted speculation. When bigots, assholes, misogynists, and wannabe authoritarians tell you what they want to do, assume they’re going to make a serious effort to do it. Don’t assume that our current safeguards, be they laws, norms, or basic human decency, will be sufficient to stop them.

In the meantime, this ruling is another instance of a trend that has been unfolding since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The same people who advocated for it are pushing beyond the scope of abortion to basically legislate anything having to do with women exercising any level of agency or autonomy. More than anything, this ruling further proves their agenda has little to do with protecting or promoting children.

In one act, they fought to criminalize abortion in the name of saving unborn children.

In another, they fought to criminalize a procedure that actually helps couples have children.

But even if the hypocrisy doesn’t disgust you, just note the common denominator here. It all comes back to women, their bodies, and their role in rearing children. That’s what these court rulings and all the efforts behind them seem to revolve around. It’s about micromanaging how they use their bodies and criminalizing anything that gives them more agency than their religion or ideology commands.

And that’s wrong, plain and simple. I won’t even present to hide my bias on this. No court or judge, no matter how supreme their building claims to be, has a right to legislate what women do with their bodies. They may not like that some women do things they don’t approve of, be it having abortions, enjoying sex, or using science to have children they couldn’t otherwise have. But that’s their problem.

Unfortunately, these people and the right-wing assholes who support them are determined to make it everyone’s problem. That means it’s up to us, those who can actually discern the difference between a child and an embryo, to be just as determined in opposing them.

Why You Should Be (Very) Skeptical Of The “He Gets Us” Commercials

In general, I don’t care for commercials. Unless they’re for an upcoming movie I’m excited about or some local pizza shop I haven’t tried, I tend to ignore or skip them. I’ll even mute them during a live broadcast. I just find them that unremarkable.

But every now and then, a commercial will come along that really annoys me. It’s not just the aesthetics of the commercial, the cheesy nature of the scenario, or the annoying jingles that some devious marketing team conjured. It’s the overall substance of the commercial and what it’s ultimately selling. Because it’s one thing to advertise in hope of selling a product. It’s quite another to advertise in hope pushing a questionable agenda.

This is how I feel about the recent flood of the “He Gets Us” commercials that have been popping up lately. If you’ve been awake and coherent for any commercial break lately, you’ve probably seen them. They’re part of a PR campaign by Christian organizations like The Signatry and billionaire activists like David Green, the co-founder of Hobby Lobby.

And it’s not a cheap, low-level campaign either. According to NPR, it’s part of a multimillion-dollar effort intended to change or influence the public perception of Jesus Christ and Christianity, in general. There’s even plans to air a special commercial during the Super Bowl, which is not a cheap endeavor.

That alone should hint at the ambition behind this effort, as well as the deep pockets of those funding it. As for the commercials themselves, they all have a very distinct tone.

You’ve got these dark backgrounds depicting people who appear real and genuine.

They’re often include messages about how Jesus was a refugee, hated hypocrisy, and was unfairly persecuted for his beliefs.

They often end with the tagline message that Jesus gets us and with references to the organization.

Anyone who has a passing familiarity with Christianity and the bible probably knows these details about Jesus Christ, already. Even if you’re not a Christian, it’s nearly impossible to live in the United States and not be aware of basic Christian ideas. That alone makes the idea of a campaign to inform and educate people about Jesus’ life seem somewhat redundant.

However, it’s the bigger picture behind the message and the larger trends in organized religion that genuinely concern me. Because even though the message seems uplifting and benign, it’s important to understand who it’s coming from and why.

In case anyone has forgotten, the family behind Hobby Lobby has also been behind a number of court cases and legal efforts to promote “religious freedom.” I put that term in quotes because it’s a very politically charged term. In America, when most people talk about religious freedom, they’re usually referring to the rights of mainstream Christians to oppress, denigrate, or discriminate against minorities, usually individuals of the LGBTQ+ community.

To them, religious freedom means the ability to refuse service to people based on their sexuality, race, or gender identity.

To them, religious freedom means the ability of their particular religion to get special treatment and protections by the state. They’ll rarely say anything about Jewish or Islamic communities getting similar treatment.

To them, religious freedom means being exempt from laws or policies about women’s health care, adoption, or science.

To them, religious freedom means the ability to indoctrinate their children on their terms through things like homeschooling or private schooling.

In essence, their struggle for religious freedom usually boils down to an effort for their brand of religion to have power, influence, and some measure of preferential treatment over the competition, be it other faiths or no faith at all.

Now, as always, I need to make clear that organizations and efforts like this do not reflect on the character of most Christians. As I’ve said before, most of the people in my family identify as Christian. Some are very active in their church. They are good, decent, loving people. And most of them couldn’t care less about the politics or private lives of others.

They’re goals are actually perfectly in line with the teachings of Jesus. They seek to help and comfort others through meaningful community-centered efforts. They don’t need multi-million dollar campaigns to do it. Their faith is enough for them. And if others join them in that effort, then everyone benefits. That’s a legitimately beautiful thing.

But efforts like “He Gets Us” attempt to go beyond those simple, smaller acts of piety. It’s attempting to reshape perceptions of the notion that being a Christian means being an intolerant, anti-science, anti-fun, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-woman, anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-capitalism, anti-environmentalist bigot. Considering the damage the religious right has done to perceptions of Christianity, I totally understand that.

The problem is that those behind “He Gets Us” actively contributed to that perception. They’re the ones who funded organizations that opposed same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination bills, and political candidates who claim global warming is a hoax. They’re the ones who seek favorable treatment by the courts when it comes to refusing services to certain minorities or getting special exceptions from general business practices.

On top of that, organizations like Hobby Lobby and The Signatry have close ties to organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom, a recognized hate group that often leads the charge in pursuing anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion policies. You can definitely make the case that they actively contributed to the current situation regarding abortion in the United States.

It’s this disconnect that I find so troubling about these commercials. They send a message that the message of Jesus and Christianity is for everyone. It’s somehow a necessary message in the current cultural landscape. But it ignores the fact that religious right has effectively co-opted Christianity to create this current situation. And at no point in these commercials or in their promotional material does “He Gets Us” or the organization behind it apologize for that, let alone acknowledge it.

This initiative claims to want inclusivity, but ignores where that lack of inclusivity came from. It also ignores that Christianity, as an organization, has become a political force that advocates egregious injustices, outright inequality, and a distinctly fascist form of governance that a large segment of the population has embraced. Like it or not, Christianity is closely tied with a brand of politics that is completely antithetical to nearly every core teaching Jesus Christ ever espoused. To not acknowledge or confront that is like trying to change a tire on a car that’s actively on fire.

In that sense, the agenda “He Gets Us” feels less like an effort to redress actual missteps of modern Christianity and more like damage control. It comes off as oil companies trying to shirk responsibility for climate change by claiming they care about the environment too, but refuse to stop polluting.

Again, I’m not trying to say every Christian is responsible for the misdeeds of a select few, nor am I saying someone is a bad person for identifying as a Christian or even contributing to organizations like this. It’s critical to distinguish the individual people from the nefarious agendas that organizations push. If there’s one message I’d like to convey about “He Gets Us” and the message they’re trying to sell, it’s this.

Be very skeptical of their agenda.

Be very skeptical of any religious organization that chooses to spend millions of dollars on TV ads to address a PR problem that they’re responsible for.

If you truly do believe in the values and teachings of Jesus Christ, then you don’t need commercials or politically connected organizations to practice them. You just need faith and a desire to be decent to other people, even if they don’t agree with you.

More Young Men Are (Unsurprisingly) Getting Vasectomies (And Why I’m Considering It Too)

Every now and then, you come across news that’s so unsurprising that it should hardly qualify as news. To report it is asking to reporting that the sun rose the other day. You don’t need reporters, scientists, witnesses, or researchers of any kind to affirm you. Anyone with semi-average intelligence could’ve inferred the same events.

So when the United States Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and effectively ended the constitutional right to abortion access, most competent people could infer there would be consequences. You don’t strip half the population of a critical right that they’ve held for over 40 years without incurring some sort of reaction. While that reaction has played out in many ways since the ruling, I want to highlight one in particular. And it’s a story that I doubt will surprise anyone.

It has to do with men getting vasectomies. Because shortly after this ruling came down, there was a major uptick in men seeking vasectomies.

Many of these men were also quite young, some still being in their early 20s. Many didn’t even have any kids and were basically undergoing a procedure that would make it nearly impossible for them to do so.

Now, as a man and as someone who has a functioning news feed, I get it. This ruling was dramatic and far-reaching in so many ways. It’s enough to make anyone of any gender think twice about having kids. It has certainly given me pause. But I also think it’s worth putting this trend into perspective.

Yes, it will definitely impact women in a far greater way.

Yes, women will suffer much more as a result of this ruling.

That is beyond dispute. There’s nothing political about that statement. There have already been documented cases of just how much women are suffering because they cannot get an abortion. But for men, the concerns are still personal, albeit in a less direct way.

Now, depending on which state you live in, there’s a much greater cost to getting a woman pregnant, be it your girlfriend, your wife, or your mistress. Some of that can be measured in terms of dollars. If women are forced to carry that child to term, you’re paying for it one way or another. It might be in the form of child care, pre-natal care, or child support. Even without the emotional cost, you’ll still pay a high price.

Even if you’re happily married and actually want kids, you may still have to pay in other ways. If your wife can’t get an abortion and has a complicated pregnancy, then not only is she more likely to suffer greater, her life could very well be at risk. In the worst case scenario, she might end up dead because the state won’t allow her to terminate a pregnancy that’s doing irreparable damage to her body.

By nearly every measure, it’s a bad situation for everyone involved. A world where the state can force people to have kids they don’t want or deny them certain care that would alleviate their suffering is not a tenable situation.

For that reason, I don’t blame any man for seeking a vasectomy. Whether they just don’t want kids, they don’t want to put their partner in danger, or they just hate wearing condoms, it’s understandable. And there’s a high probability that this situation will get worse before it gets better. It may even never get better.

That’s because more than one conservative mouth piece has said that they’re going to go after contraception now that they’ve won the abortion battle. These reactionaries aren’t being subtle anymore.

They’ve made it clear that they want to turn the clock back.

They want to undo the sexual revolution.

They want to undo feminism.

They want to regress society back to a state where women were just breeding mares and men were just drones who only existed to work and sire more drones/mares.

While we can and should fight back against these right-wing fascists, I no longer have hope that we can win that fight. These people don’t play by the rules. They’ve proven time and again that they will lie, cheat, and bully their way to impose their agenda, even when it’s unpopular. And since too much of the population is stupid, gullible, and ignorant, they’ll go along with it in the name of trolling people they don’t like.

That is not a promising future, nor is it one I’m looking forward to. I do hope I’m wrong. But based on what I’ve seen these past few months, I am starting to accept that we’ve already crossed a point of no return.

I’m still relatively young. I currently am not married and I have no kids. Just a few years ago, I was fairly confident in what I wanted for my future. I wanted to find the love of my life. And I wanted to have kids of my own one day. But in wake of recent events, that sentiment has changed.

It’s not that I don’t want kids or oppose anyone else having them. I just feel like if I did have kids at this point, I would be bringing them into a world that’s going to get progressively worse for them. If I have a daughter, she’ll grow up in a world where the state will gladly make her suffer in the name of conservative values. And if I have a son, he’ll grow up in a world where many of the fun, freedoms, and joys that I had will have been taken away from him.

Again, I really hope I’m wrong. I really hope the current trends change in a major way. But I’m old enough to have noticed a recurring pattern in the global political landscape. Things will get worse because there are too many incentives for those who have or are seeking power.

For that reason, and a few others I prefer not to share, I’m seriously considering getting a vasectomy. I know it’s a big decision and one that would have a significant impact on my personal life, especially if and when I do meet that special someone. But given the current state of the world, it feels like the right decision for me and for whatever children might have been born in this increasingly distressing world.

That’s not to say I’m ready to make my appointment with my doctor. This is just something I’m seriously considering at the moment. And when I do ultimately make my decision, I want to be certain it’s the right one.

I also understand that I may have to make this decision sooner rather than later. Because if the courts are capable of banning abortion, then they’re just as capable of banning vasectomies.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, extremism, politics, sex in society, sexuality

Tagged as abortion, abortion rights, anti-abortion, conservative, Conservative Christian, democrat, health, judges, liberal, men's health, pregnancy, pro chocie, pro-abortion, pro-choice, public health, religion, republican, reversable vasectomy, Roe v. Wade, sex, sexuality, sterile, sterilization, Supreme Court, United States, United States Supreme Court, vasectomy

May 3, 2022 · 5:47 am

A Re-Re-Post In Wake of Recent Events: How Overturning Roe v. Wade Can (And Probably Will) Backfire

I know I reposted this once before after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I really hoped I wouldn’t have to repost it again, but I had a sinking feeling that I would. Given recent events surrounding the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, it looks like it’s about to be official. Abortion rights in the United States of America are going to backslide in ways we haven’t seen in over 40 years.

To anyone who has any appreciation of women, justice, and bodily autonomy, this should be very distressing. To those who support and celebrate this change, I hope re-posting this will offer some balance.

While I’ve generally avoided talking about issues like this in the past couple years, this is one I have a feeling nobody will be able to avoid. I also suspect it’s going to get uglier, meaner, and more volatile. I’m not looking forward to it, but there’s no way to avoid it anymore. This is the ugly world we live in. We just have to endure it.

As much as I dislike talking about abortion, I don’t deny that I’ve written more about it in the past year than I have since I started this website. I know that sends mixed messages, but I feel there are valid reasons for that.

I watch the news too, although never on a full stomach. I see the same thing everyone else sees with respect to the increasingly tenuous state of abortion rights. With each passing year, more and more restrictions are placed on abortion. As other parts of the world liberalize their laws, the United States is going in the opposite direction.

Now, in wake of shake-ups on the Supreme Court, it’s more likely than ever that Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, will be overturned. While I don’t think it’s guaranteed, I do think it’s possible. If I had to put betting odds on it, I would say that there’s a 50/50 chance that Roe v. Wade could be overturned by 2024.

If that happens, there are many implications. Many people who are more informed on this issue have already articulated as such. Making abortion illegal could lead to more unwanted pregnancy, increases in crime, increases in poverty, and serious health risks for women seeking back-alley abortions.

We’re already seeing some of these impacts play out in states where abortion is severely restricted. Several states have imposed so many restrictions that they’re down to only one abortion clinic. Due to these burdens, the impact on women, especially those who are poor, has been exceedingly harsh.

Those impacts are likely to intensify if Roe v. Wade is overturned, but I don’t want to get into that part of the issue. I also don’t want to focus on the legal issues, since I’m not a lawyer. Instead, I want to focus on unintended consequences.

I know that the anti-abortion crowd has this Utopian vision of a world after Roe v. Wade. They have this dream that the Supreme Court will overrule the 1973 decision and shortly after, every state will outlaw the procedure. They’ll throw a parade. They’ll proclaim to the world that they won.

Suddenly, women can no longer end an unwanted pregnancy. As a result, they have to start carrying their pregnancies to term. This will force the women, the men who impregnated them, and their families to take responsibility for their actions. They can no longer be sexually promiscuous. They now have to temper their behavior and live more restrained lives.

While nobody can predict the future, I can say without reservation that this dream will not come true. Human nature is never that simple, especially when it comes to law. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortion. It will not make women carry more pregnancies to term. It will not lead to a society consistent with Pat Roberston’s values.

That’s because there’s one law that no court can ever overturn and that’s the law of unintended consequences. Make no mistake. There will be unintended consequences for overturning Roe v. Wade, many of which I doubt the anti-abortion movement has contemplated.

What follows are several unintended consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade that will make the anti-abortion crowd cringe. Whether they oppose abortion for religious reasons or for ethical reasons, these are consequences that will do more than taint that abortion-free fever dream of theirs. At the very least, I hope it gives those who oppose abortion a moment of pause.

Consequence #1: Abortion Will Become More Common (And Harder To Protest)

Remember when the United States banned marijuana and shortly after that, it disappeared completely? Neither do I because not only did that fail to occur, the exact opposite transpired. Marijuana has been illegal for nearly a century in the United States and it’s more popular now than it was in the days before “Refer Madness.”

Abortion is not like illicit drugs, but it’s subject to similar influences. In the same way making drugs illegal didn’t make them go away, making abortion illegal won’t make it disappear. It’ll only send it into the depths of the underground economy where the red tape that helps regulate the procedure doesn’t exist.

The history of “back alley abortions” is already well-documented. On top of that, these locations are not clinics where people can gather and protest. That’s what happens when you send something into the shadows. It’s harder to see, study, and scrutinize. In that environment, abortion won’t just become more dangerous. It may become more common because the traditional barriers for entry aren’t there.

If you think that seems like a stretch, just consider the choices involving marijuana. Would you rather try to sneak into a liquor store with security cameras or buy it in a dark alley from someone who has just as much incentive to avoid cops?

Consequence #2: Organized Religion’s Decline Will Accelerate

Even though the influence of religion remains strong, the steady decline of religion is well-documented. This is especially true among the younger generations who are more educated and informed than any generation before them. As a result, they will notice when religious groups take credit for banning abortion.

While those same groups often present themselves as saving babies, that’s not how everyone else will see it. We already live in a world where every racist, misogynistic, theocracy-loving sermon is captured on the internet. The same people who are becoming less religious will have even more reason to resent organized religion.

They won’t see the religiously-motivated, anti-abortion crusaders as holy people who saved innocent babies. They’ll see those people the same way we see those who used religion to justify slavery and racial segregation. Unlike previous years, being non-religious isn’t nearly as taboo and for organizations that rely heavily on adherents giving them money, that’s a big problem.

Consequence #3: An Entire Political Party Will Become The Anti-Woman Party

In the same way banning abortion could accelerate organized religion’s decline, a sizable chunk of the political spectrum could take a similar hit. In the United States, it’s primarily conservatives who oppose abortion and frequently side with religious institutions. They too probably see banning abortion as protecting innocent babies.

Again, that’s not how others will see it. Instead, an emerging generation will see conservatives as the party that put a gun to the head of every pregnant woman and demanded that she endure nine months of bodily rigor to have a child she may not be able to afford. Since women vote and make up half the population, it doesn’t bode well for their ability to win support in the future.

Women already disproportionately lean liberal and banning abortion will likely widen that gap. History shows that it’s hard for any party to overcome those gaps and stay in power. As I’ve noted before, this already played out in the 1960s in Romania. Conservatives would be wise to heed that lesson because that did not end well for the communist party and its leader.

Consequence #4: More Advanced Contraceptives Will Emerge Faster (For Women And Men)

One of the most confounding aspects of the anti-abortion movement is how much certain segments of the movement also oppose contraception. It’s downright hypocritical since education and contraceptive use has definitively shown time and again that it’s the most effective way to reduce abortions.

The fact that the anti-abortion crowd so rarely promotes those policies implies that a sizable chunk of that movement is less concerned about babies and more concerned about sex. I’ve tried to distinguish this crowd from the more sincere segments of the movement, but the lines have become more blurred in recent years.

Those lines might become a lot clearer if abortion were banned nationwide because that suddenly makes the contraception market a lot more valuable. At the moment, there isn’t much incentive to improve on the current contraceptives we have. Granted, they’re much more effective than they were before 1973, but there’s still room for improvement.

Without Roe v. Wade, the need for those improvements will be far greater and it won’t just be focused on women. Contraception for men will also get a boost because unlike 1973, there are more laws in place affecting men with issues like child support. For once, men will have to be just as vigilant about avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

This means emerging technology like the male birth control pill and Vasalgel will get a sizable boost in investment. It also means long-term, more-effective birth control like IUDs for women will get a boost as well. When the same anti-abortion crowd starts protesting that, they’ll reveal just how little they cared for babies in the first place.

Consequence #5: Promiscuous Sex Will Increase (For Entirely New Reasons)

This could also be a direct result of the boost contraception research will get from banning abortion. It’s not just because people will have access to more effective contraception, though. This is one of those backlashes that has more to do with social forces than logistical forces.

For those who are sexually active and value their sexual freedom, overturning Roe v. Wade will come off as a direct personal attack. If you’ve been on the internet for more than five minutes, you know people rarely take personal attacks lying down. They’re more likely to fight back and do the exact opposite of what you hope.

In the same way people in a debate double down on their beliefs in a heated argument, those who supported Roe v. Wade will have another reason to engage in the kind of reckless behavior that the anti-abortion crowd hates. To them, it won’t just be a form of protest. It’ll be a form of trolling.

People already have plenty of reasons to have sex just for the fun of it. No government or religious institution has ever been able to stop that and banning abortion certainly won’t do the trick. While it’s true that banning abortion will make promiscuity more dangerous, it’s also true that people are attracted to danger. If it pisses off someone you already despise, then that’s just a bonus.

Consequence #6: Providing Abortion Services Will Become More Lucrative (And Harder To Regulate)

For every unintended consequence, there’s usually a basis in money. Even for issues that are fueled with high emotions and deeply-held beliefs, it often comes back to money. That’s why the drug war can never be won. That’s why Disney will never stop making movies with singing animals. It’s all about the money.

Abortion, in its current form, is not a huge money-making venture. It’s treated like a medical service. However, put it in the same black market as illicit drugs and suddenly, the profit margins go way up. Remove it from the current medical infrastructure and all the regulations that keep it from being profitable go with it.

Instead of skilled, licensed doctors doing this procedure, people with questionable qualifications can get into the mix. On top of that, they can charge as much or as little as they want without the AMA or the FDA condemning them. That’ll make it more dangerous, but if there’s money to be made, it’ll happen.

Remember, making abortion illegal doesn’t make the women seeking abortion disappear. If they’re desperate enough, they’ll brave that danger and they’ll pay that price. Those willing to navigate that danger and exploit those situations will gain the tax-free profit. For the anti-abortion crowd and the government, it’s lose-lose.

Consequence #7: An Entire Generation Will Despise Its Elders (And Their Traditions)

Throughout history, younger generations have rebelled against older generations. You don’t need to single out the hippie generation of the 1960s to see that. Young people and old people have always whined about each other. These days, you can’t go more than five minutes without seeing a story about how Millennials are ruining something we used to love.

With abortion, there is already an established divide. According to Pew, younger generations tend to be more pro-choice than older generations. On top of that, abortion laws are more likely to affect them because they’re still building their lives and they’re going to get horny/lonely along the way.

This same generation is already more accepting of things that older people resent. They’re more accepting of divorce, polyamory, homosexuality, and all sorts of sexual practices that make priests, monks, mullahs, and rabbis gag. It certainly doesn’t help that the people in power deciding these issues are often old men who will never need an abortion. In terms of optics, it’s a pretty ugly sight.

It won’t just stop at young people distancing themselves from organized religion. It won’t stop at distancing themselves from a political party, either. Overall, the emerging generations will see their elders as the ones who stripped them of a right that they got to enjoy all their lives. That doesn’t just paint them in a negative light. It turns their values and traditions into a target.

Young people don’t need many reasons to rebel against their elders, but this is bigger than someone who can’t work a cell phone. This is an issue that affects the ability of an entire generation to make choices about their bodies, their sexuality, and their future. When another generation takes that away from them, it’s going to evoke more than ridicule. It may get pretty damn ugly.

As always, I want to remind everyone that this is just speculation. I can’t predict the future and there’s no telling what other factors may emerge in this exceedingly controversial issue. That said, I still feel comfortable stating that overturning Roe v. Wade will have consequences, many of them unintended. Some will be minor, but some will result in a full-fledged backlash. It’s just a matter of how we’ll deal with them.

1 Comment

Filed under abortion, gender issues, human nature, Marriage and Relationships, men's issues, religion, sex in society, sexuality, women's issues

Tagged as abortion, abortion access, abortion activists, abortion rights, anti-abortion, anti-feminism, anti-woman, birth control, conservatism, conservative, contraception, Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, feminism, gender, gender equality, gender inequality, gender issues, human sexuality, liberal, liberalism, male birth control, men's issues, men's rights, Men's Rights Activists, Overturning Roe v. Wade, planned parenthood, politics, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, Radical Feminism, RBG, Roe v. Wade, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sex, sex in society, sexual health, Sexual Revolution, sexuality, social issues, social justice, Supreme Court, women's health, women's issues, women's rights

September 13, 2021 · 9:52 am

My Support, Advice, And Encouragement To All Those Fighting The (Horrible) Texas Abortion Laws

Texas enacts six-week abortion law without exceptions for rape or incest

Whenever I talk about politics, I try my best to be balanced. Even when I talk about hot-button issues like abortion, which I’ve done on multiple occasions, I make a concerted effort to see the bigger picture.

That said, I don’t think I can make such an effort with the recent events surrounding the blatantly draconian Texas abortion laws. There’s a line between being balanced on an issue and just being cruel, callous, and dense. I get the impression that those supporting this law aren’t even trying to be understanding.

In case you haven’t bee keeping up, Texas recently threw a massive grenade in the abortion debate. This new law wouldn’t just make abortion illegal by restricting it to six weeks, which is before most women know they’re pregnant. It would remove all exceptions while also allowing private citizens to sue those who aid women in seeking an abortion.

If you care at all about women having any control over their bodies, general women’s health, and the health of children, this law should concern you at the very least. At the very most, it should disgust you. In terms of allowing the state to both micromanage and punish women for what they do with their bodies, this is pretty damn blatant.

Now, there’s a lot I could say about this law and this issue. I think I’ve made my own position quite clear. I generally lean towards pro-choice side of the issue. It’s not that I think abortions are great and should be celebrated. I just find the pro-choice arguments more consistent form a moral, legal, and ethical standpoint.

Since I’m a man and I can’t get pregnant, I know those words can only carry so much weight. I really do try to take the arguments made by the pro-life/anti-abortion side seriously. I even try to empathize with it on some levels. However, I can only do so much. I just can’t get around the fact that the anti-abortion stance cannot be enforced without undermining a woman’s bodily autonomy.

In that sense, I’m very much in favor of bodily autonomy. I wouldn’t want the state to force me to donate my blood or my organs to someone else against my will. That’s a hard moral and ethical line for me.

As bad as this law is, it’s hardly the end of the abortion debate. If anything, it’s likely a catalyst for more legal, political, and social battles. I expect those battles to get ugly. I expect the anger, hate, and vitriol to escalate and it was already bad to begin with. I honestly can’t think of an issue that stirs up this much heated discord and I’ve been to 4chan.

In the near-term, the front line of debate will take place within the courts. There are serious legal consequences for this law, both for the women involved and those who attempt to enforce this it. I think it’s likely that the Supreme Court will eventually hear another case on abortion rights. Depending on the details, it could very well end with a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade.

However, we’re not quite there yet. I know the implications of that have many women and pro-choice advocates feeling anxious right now. I sympathize with that. Unfortunately, there too many women in situations in which they cannot wait for the legal system to sort this out.

Until that time comes, I’d like to offer some basic advice to all those affected by this law and anyone who might know someone who’s effected. At the moment, the simplest thing you can do is donate to organizations actively fighting this law and helping the women in Texas who are affected.

New York Magazine put together a list of 20 organizations who are actively involved. Donating to just one of them won’t fix the issue, but it will help.

Also, the American Civil Liberties Union has already filed a lawsuit to combat this law. Regardless of how you feel about the ACLU’s position on other issues, they are very much on the side of protecting women’s bodily autonomy. Consider donating to them as well, if only for this issue.

Another thing you can do is educate yourself and others on the use of contraception. At the moment, emergency contraception, also known as the morning after pill, is not illegal under this law. However, given how anti-abortion advocates tend to oppose contraception as well, despite the obvious hypocrisy, expect it to be a target by anti-sex, anti-promiscuity advocates.

It’s critical that women affected by this law and others like it understand the morning after pill and how to use it. We also can’t expect the education system to do it. States like Texas already have notoriously sub-par and politically motivated agendas when it comes to sexual education.

In that sense, women in Texas should refrain from seeking information about sex and pregnancy from most public school teachers. They also shouldn’t get it from anyone affiliated with a religious organization or politicians, many of whom don’t seem to understand how women’s bodies work. In general, they should talk to a private doctor or at least one who doesn’t work at a Catholic hospital.

Finally, and most importantly, I would recommend that women in Texas make connections with friends or family who live outside the state. Those connections will be critical, should you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to seek an abortion. Some out-of-state health facilities are already feeling he impact of people taking this recourse.

I know that’s not always possible, especially for those lacking money or connections. That’s why it’s critical to make the effort while you’re not in that situation. Make a plan for yourself. Get other women to help you. I agree it’s not right that you have to make such a plan in the first place, but this is the situation. It sucks, but this is where we are.

The last bit of advice I’d like to give is to simply remember this law whenever you vote in the next election, be it national or local. I know that’s a bit oversimplified. I also know that states like Texas are very conservative and some prefer not voting over voting for a non-republican.

I get it. Our political structures are awful and messy. However, we’re stuck with them for now. The only reason politicians in Texas are passing laws like this is because they think they can get away with it and they’ll get enough votes to stay in office. The only way that changes is if voters prove them wrong.

Most polls state that the majority of people support preserving abortion rights. The best way to ensure the laws reflect that sentiment is to vote as such. I know it’s not an immediate solution, but for an issue this divisive, it’s important to take a long view approach.

I don’t claim to know how the abortion debate will change as a result of this law. I fully expect things to get worse and more heated before they get better. For now, though, this Texas law presents a major challenge. We have to be ready, willing, and able to confront it.

In the meantime, take comfort in the fact that George Carlin still summed this issue up perfectly years ago. Until someone does a better job, I’ll keep referring to this.

2 Comments

Filed under abortion, politics, sex in society

Tagged as abortion, abortion laws, abortion restrictions, abortion rights, anti-abortion, bodily autonomy, conservative, freedom, liberal, liberty, organized religion, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, religion, Roe v. Wade, SB 8, sex ed, sexual education, Supreme Court, Texas, women, women's issues, women's rights

April 30, 2021 · 5:49 am

Why Don’t Anti-Abortion Advocates Talk About Vasectomies?

I don’t enjoy talking about hot-button issues like abortion.

I try to avoid talking about politics in general.

I know I’ve touched on controversial issues in the past, including abortion, but I’ve tried to get away from those topics this past year. A lot of that had to do with the 2020 Presidential election, which just brought out the worst in so many people.

Believe me, I had opinions on a number of issues, but I didn’t think sharing them would be very productive. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I think that was the right choice.

Now, the election is over. I know some people still haven’t accepted that, but the votes are in. Like it or not, we’re moving forward and a number of issues are not going away. Some are bound to get worse. One issue, I believe, that is almost certain to get more touchy is abortion.

It is the hottest of hot button issues and a while back, I even speculated that shake-ups on the United States Supreme Court could shift the legal landscape surrounding abortion. I think, given the current makeup of the court, that’s even more likely.

I’d even go so far to say there’s a good chance that Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion in the United States, will get overturned in the next two years. It’s not a guarantee, but it’s much more possible now than it was at this time last year. When that happens, the whole abortion debate will shift significantly.

However, the implications of that act is not what I want to talk about. Instead, I want to highlight one particular aspect of the abortion debate that never seems to get raised. I think there’s a not-so-subtle reason for that, but that’s exactly why I want to highlight it. It comes down to a simple question.

Why don’t anti-abortion advocates talk about vasectomies?

It’s not an irrelevant question. I would even argue it’s a question you can’t avoid if you’re primary goal is to reduce the number of abortions by any means necessary. I understand why making it illegal is the primary goal for the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd, but that cannot be the end of the debate.

Again, we have real-world examples of what happens when abortion is banned. They’re not pretty.

I’m still willing to set that aside for the sake of this question. I’ll even work under the assumption that those who identify as pro-life/anti-abortion are sincere when they say that abortion is the taking of a human life. I have reasons to question that assumption, but I’ll go with it anyways.

If you’re really serious about reducing abortion or just flat out ending it altogether, why not discuss vasectomies? By their nature, they eliminate the need for abortion.

A man with a vasectomy is exceedingly unlikely to impregnate a woman. It doesn’t matter how reckless and irresponsible they are with their sex life. The way vasectomies work ensure no sperm will ever come close to an egg. Even if you believe life begins at conception, this is critical. It means no abortion happens and no life is harmed.

Now, why am I singling out vasectomies instead of tubal ligation, which is the female equivalent? There is a reason for that and I promise it has nothing to do with sexism. It has more to do with logistics.

Simply put, a vasectomy is less costly and less invasive. On average, a vasectomy costs around $1,000 without insurance. By contrast, tubal ligation can cost up to $6,000 without insurance and has a slightly higher failure rate. The recovery period for a vasectomy is also shorter.

It’s simply cheaper and more effective. In addition, there’s also the matter of women being the one who bear the brunt of child-rearing for nine months at a time. Compared to that nine months of rigor, I think it’s also just more fair that men endure a few days of discomfort. That’s just my opinion, though.

Those opinions aside, I bring this back to the question at hand. Why aren’t anti-abortion activists talking about this? If they wanted to reduce abortions, shouldn’t they push for more men to get vasectomies? Should the male anti-abortion activists lead by example and get them as well?

That’s not to say this advocates full-blown sterilization. Both vasectomies and tubal ligation are reversible. Granted, it means undergoing another invasive procedure, but that will essentially guarantee that they’re serious about having children. They want a child and that matters a lot in the abortion debate.

In some cases, a reversal isn’t even necessary. Men can just freeze their sperm and preserve it so that it can later be used with in vitro fertilization. That’s an established procedure. There’s also another emerging procedure for creating sperm cells in a lab.

In the not-too-distant future, men won’t even need to freeze their sperm. They can just provide a cell sample, let a lab make sperm from that, and proceed to utilize standard in vitro to conceive children. Thanks to genetic screening technology like CRISPR, it might even produce healthier children overall.

All this would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for an abortion. This isn’t new technology. Vasectomies have been around a long time and, if anti-abortion activists were to push it, they could also support the development of technology like Vasalgel, which is basically a less invasive method that achieves the same result.

So, with all that being said, why don’t anti-abortion activists ever mention vasectomies? Why do they focus so much on the woman getting the abortion rather than the man who made it necessary?

There are many reasons for that, some more obvious than others. Many are mostly unspoken and indirect. There are those who simply oppose abortion because it removes consequences from promiscuous sex. If abortion had nothing to do with promiscuity, I doubt they would be as vocal.

There are also those who see abortion as a means of hindering the kind of population growth that they prefer. I’ve noted before how certain religious sects indirectly benefit by discouraging abortion. People with large, unplanned families are more likely to be in poverty and people in poverty are more likely to be uneducated. A less educated population tends to benefit certain people and anti-abortion is just an indirect way of pursuing those benefits.

In both cases, the issue isn’t entirely about abortion. It’s about the effects it leads to.

It’s understandable why that component of the anti-abortion stance don’t mention vasectomies. It’s for that reason I feel the question should be asked to those who don’t fall under that domain.

If abortion truly is a matter of life and death, as many anti-abortion activists sincerely believe, then shouldn’t any measure be on the table? A vasectomy, in this context, could both save life and ensure that no life is unnecessarily lost. Why not be more vocal about it?

For men concerned about fathering unwanted children, it wouldn’t be too hard a sell. If anti-abortion organizations even offered to pay for men in poverty to get vasectomies who wanted them, then wouldn’t that reduce abortion?

I don’t ask these questions to be facetious. With the abortion issue sure to face upheavals in the next few years, I think these sorts of questions are worth confronting. The longer the go unaddressed, the worse the abortion debate will get, along with the myriad of effects that surround it.

George Carlin (Still) Perfectly Explains The Abortion Issue For 2020

These are scary times for many people. Between pandemics and politics, a simple scroll through your daily news feed might as well be a horror movie. However, for those concerned about abortion rights in the United States, it’s even scarier.

There’s a very real possibility that abortion rights could regress. Now, with a new vacancy on the Supreme Court, it’s very likely that the laws surrounding abortion will change considerably in the next several years, regardless of how the election pans out.

If you’re a woman, I feel for you. I honestly have no idea how frightening it must be, the prospect of going back to a world where abortion had to occur in the shadows.

Now, with abortion being such a relevant issue, I’m tempted to write about it more. I’m also considering doing a video about it for my YouTube channel, Jack’s World. I’m not quite sure I want to invite those kinds of politics to this site or my channel just yet. If I do, I’ll be sure to announce it.

In the meantime, I still want to leave those debating the abortion issue with something of substance. Thankfully, the late great comedian, George Carlin, already masterfully broke down this issue years ago. To date, I’ve yet to see anyone make a more effective statement on the abortion issue and the absurdities surrounding it. Just watch and see for yourself.

He could’ve said every word of this today and it still would’ve been relevant. It still would’ve been true, accurate, and concise. Honestly, it’s kind of sad that this didn’t end the debate completely. It’s even sadder that neither side has come up with better arguments.

We miss you, George Carlin.

This world really needs someone like you, right now.

Abortion is such a sensitive issue and one that will only get more divisive in the coming weeks. I don’t know what the endgame is. I just know it’s going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

1 Comment

Filed under abortion, Celebrities and Celebrity Culture, Current Events, politics, religion, women's issues, YouTube

Tagged as abortion, abortion access, abortion rights, comedian, comedy shows, Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Election 2016, Election 2020, famous comedian, female sexuality, George Carlin, pandemics, politics, reproductive rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sex, sexual reproduction, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Vacancy, unborn, women's rights

September 21, 2020 · 5:51 am

A Re-Post In Honor Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg: How Overturning Roe v. Wade Can (And Probably Will) Backfire

First of, rest in peace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don’t care who you are or where you fit on the political spectrum. Justice Gisburg was an extraordinary woman who accomplished so much. Even if you didn’t agree with her, politically, at least respect how much she did for women’s rights, civil rights, and her country as a whole.

That being said, her death has caused a lot of upheaval and in an election year, no less. It’s impossible to overstate how impactful her death will be on the rhetoric moving forward. That’s especially true of the abortion issue.

It’s been one of the biggest fears of pro-choice advocates. The death of Justice Ginsburg means the Supreme Court can now be filled with a pro-life justice who will overturn the Roe v. Wade decision the first chance they get. That could very well return abortion laws to the spotty, and at times draconian system that existed before.

As scary as that is for millions of women, I want to offer a bit of perspective to those already dreading the political ramifications. To do so, I’d like to repost a piece I wrote a while back on the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade. I don’t expect it to provide much comfort to those still mourning the death of Justice Ginsburg, but I hope it offers some balance to the dread.

Again, RIP Mrs. Ginsburg. You really were an inspiration to millions, regardless of gender.

Consequence #1: Abortion Will Become More Common (And Harder To Protest)

Consequence #2: Organized Religion’s Decline Will Accelerate

Consequence #3: An Entire Political Party Will Become The Anti-Woman Party

Consequence #4: More Advanced Contraceptives Will Emerge Faster (For Women And Men)

Consequence #5: Promiscuous Sex Will Increase (For Entirely New Reasons)

Consequence #6: Providing Abortion Services Will Become More Lucrative (And Harder To Regulate)

Consequence #7: An Entire Generation Will Despise Its Elders (And Their Traditions)

5 Comments

Filed under abortion, gender issues, human nature, Marriage and Relationships, men's issues, religion, sex in society, sexuality, women's issues

August 28, 2020 · 5:55 am

The Fall (And Hypocrisy) Of Jerry Falwell Jr. And Why It’s Both Fitting And Infuriating

I don’t like talking about religion. I think I’ve made my opinion on organized religion and the extremists it enables very clear. Then, a story comes along that I find so distressing and infuriating that I just can’t in good conscious ignore it. That tends to happen when the same ugly religious extremism is mixed with outright hypocrisy. It’s happened before. It will happen again. That’s just the nature of organized religion.

This time, it involves Jerry Falwell Jr.

Now, if anyone follows religious hypocrisy as closely as I do, the name Falwell should be painfully familiar. Between this guy, and his grifting, theocracy-loving, power-hungry snob of a father, that name is associated with the worst parts of the religious right.

Think of the most regressive religious doctrines you can imagine. From killing homosexuals to subjugating women to racial discrimination to promoting creationism to draconian abortion restrictions, these people are for it. They see the repressive government in “The Handmaid’s Tale” with envy. There is really no difference between them and the Taliban.

They see religion and religious values as a means of gaining power and influence. They use it to the utmost and dare to claim they represent truth, virtue, and order. They are hypocrites and frauds of the highest order. I cannot belabor that enough.

If you are a Christian who sincerely believes in the values it preaches, you should be disgusted by the Falwells. They embody a form of Christianity that’s both perverse and backwards. They don’t value the poor. They don’t value truth. They don’t even believe in loving they neighbor if they don’t live, vote, and believe as they do. They couldn’t be more antithetical to Jesus’ teachings.

Now, Jerry Falwell Jr. is embroiled in a lurid sex scandal that forced him to resign from his position at the indoctrination center/college that his father founded, Liberty University. In terms of sex scandals, this is hardly the kinkiest. This doesn’t involve sex with gay prostitutes while on meth. It mostly involves extra-marital affairs with Jr. and his wife, along with some light voyeurism.

In terms of juiciness, this is pretty tame. That doesn’t make it any less hypocritical. Remember, this is a man who once ran a university that had strict rules against any kind of pre-marital or extra-marital activities. It was so repressive that they even had rules against extended hugging, R-rated movies, and dancing. Again, these aren’t that different from the rules the once Taliban enforced.

Falwell Jr. and his supporters all imposed these rules and enforced them, justifying their draconian nature with their religious dogma. It wasn’t just for show, either. I actually been to the Lynchburg area. I’ve met people who have attended the poorly-named Liberty University. These rules are taken seriously. They’re enforced, too. The only way to avoid them is to never get caught.

Well, Falwell Jr. couldn’t handle that last part. He committed the most egregious sin of the religious right, which is to get caught and exposed as a hypocrite. By day, he preached fire and brimstone for anyone who dared to have sex with anyone who wasn’t their Christian spouse, but put in the minimum effort to live by that same doctrine.

I want to say it’s fitting. This scandal did cost Falwell Jr. his job and his credibility among his theocracy-loving cohorts in the religious right. However, it’s hard to take much satisfaction in his downfall.

For one, he will not suffer significant consequences from this scandal. He won’t go to jail. He won’t pay any fines. In fact, by resigning from his indoctrination center/university, he received $10.5 million severance package. That’s right, this wannabe theocrat who protested and condemned any sexual relation outside a 1950s sitcom is getting $10 million to step away from his job.

Even if you consider yourself religious and a bible-believing Christian, how is this justified? How does anyone justify being rewarded for resigning from their job because they engaged in the same sexual relations they so gleefully condemned? Seriously, what kind of mental gymnastics does someone have to do in order to say that’s right on any level?

Now, if Falwell Jr. sincerely sought forgiveness, and I don’t think for a nanosecond he will, he’d donate every penny to charity. There are plenty of charities, both religious and secular, who could do plenty of good with that money. It would be the most Christian thing you can do, given how much Jesus himself preached helping the poor.

However, there’s no way Falwell Jr. will ever do something that virtuous. It’s just not his style, nor was it his father’s. He’s going to keep preaching the same dogma, pretending he was “sick with sin” and now he’s healed. He’ll probably fight even harder to promote a repressive worldview that would see homosexuals murdered, promiscuity punished, and abortion outlawed.

If that weren’t bad enough, the same people who made him resign will probably still embrace him. There will even be a large contingent of right-wing Christians who will eagerly overlook his transgressions because his name is so closely associated with their movement. He might not have the same authority he once did, but he’ll keep fighting for the same repressive world that is so antithetical to American values.

On top of all of that, he’ll do all of this while living comfortably and luxuriously on his $10.5 million nest egg. Keep that in mind if you have even a sliver of sympathy for the man. Jerry Falwell Jr. offers absolutely nothing of the sort. He’s still a perverse manifestation of the kind of people who use religion to seek power, influence, and authority. He’s just a hypocrite on top of all that.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, extremism, gender issues, media issues, outrage culture, politics, religion

Tagged as abortion, abortion rights, atheism, Christian Right, Christianity, conservatism, conservatives, hypocrisy, Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell Jr., LGBT, LGBT Rights, liberal, Liberty University, organized religion, pro-life, religion, religious extremism, religious right, religous culture, republican, republicans, right wing, sex and religion, Ted Haggard

December 16, 2019 · 6:04 am

Why Organized Religion Opposes Assisted Suicide (For The Wrong Reasons)

Most people under the age of 40 are too young to remember the controversy surrounding Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as “Dr. Death.” For a time, he was one of the most polarizing figures in the world because he made assisted suicide a major socio-political issue. From 1989 to 1998, he took part in approximately 130 assisted suicides. It’s because of him that every state has a law regarding the practice.

Before I go any further into this very sensitive, exceedingly emotional issue, I want to make one thing clear. I don’t have a strong position on assisted suicide. I’ve had a hard time arguing in either direction. On one hand, I can understand someone in chronic pain wanting to end their life. On the other, I also worry that making such a practice mundane could undermine efforts to treat debilitating conditions.

I have people in my family who have fought debilitating illnesses. Some have lost those fights. Others won out and are stronger because of it. I believe that if you had talked to them on a particularly bad day, they might have seriously considered assisted suicide as an option. It’s a heart-wrenching issue that I’m not qualified to debate.

Despite those qualifications, I believe I’m still capable of scrutinizing certain aspects of the debate. Reasonable people can make reasonable arguments for and against assisted suicide. I’ll leave that part of the debate to people smarter and more informed than me. For the bad arguments made by unreasonable people, however, I think I’m as qualified as anyone.

One of the most vocal opponents of assisted suicide come from organized religion, especially the Catholic Church. Their position is fairly clear. Suicide is an egregious sin and a crime against human dignity. Even if you’re in debilitating pain, it’s not your place to take your own life. Only the all-powerful, all-knowing deity of their faith can do that. Some go so far as to claim that suicide automatically condemns a soul to Hell.

Setting aside, for a moment, the kind of theology that would condemn suffering people to more suffering in the afterlife, it’s worth taking a step back to ask why assisted suicide is an issue for organized religion in the first place. What interest could any religion have for getting involved in such an immensely personal issue?

To answer that question, it’s also necessary to distinguish between organized religion and the personal faith that people have. Your personal faith is personal. It’s between you and your loved ones. When religions get organized, they become impersonal and subject to different influences. As demonstrated by corporations or governments, those influences aren’t always holy, to say the least.

An organized religion, be it a huge institution like the Catholic Church or just a small denomination of churches, temples, and mosques, are driven by the same incentives. They need money, adherents, labor, and support from as many followers as possible. How they go about obtaining those resources varies from faith to faith. When it comes to maintaining those assets, however, things get less varied.

I’ve noted before how religious institutions have used dogma to maintain and reinforce social inequality. Any institution, religious or not, has a strong incentive to keep its followers in a state of ignorance, poverty, and dependence. It also can’t have too many people questioning the dogma, nor can it have people with enough resources or comforts to function without its help.

With religion, those incentives are easier to codify because it can claim that their doctrine doesn’t come from law, money, or brute force. It’s ordained by a powerful deity that is on their side. People can argue against politicians, protest greedy businesses, and question long-standing traditions. They can only do so much against a powerful, invisible deity.

It’s within this context that organized religion clashes with assisted suicide. Like with inequality, assisted suicide directly undermines the manpower and resources of religious institutions. It doesn’t just take from them an adherent or a potential convert. It strikes at the foundation on which organized religion builds its influence on people.

In the same way that a business needs customers with money to spend on their goods, organized religion needs people who feel deficient, impoverished, or desperate. It’s a well-documented phenomenon. Those who are poor, hungry, and suffering tend to gravitate towards organized religion.

Sometimes, this is a good thing because there are religious organizations out there who provide food, comfort, and care. Even if doing so acts as an indirect way to recruit adherents, it still provides tangible help to people who need it. That’s an aspect of organized religion that deserves respect. When it comes to suffering and dying, however, the practices aren’t nearly as commendable.

When people are dealing with a suffering loved one, it’s incredible difficult. It takes an emotional toll on both the individual and their family. It’s heart-breaking on so many levels. It’s also an unscrupulous opportunity for organized religion.

While they won’t outright prey on someone else’s suffering, they’ll often act as a source of relief and comfort. They’ll try to act as a shoulder to cry on, telling both the person suffering and their families everything they want to hear. It earns them points from both them and the larger community. They can claim they’re helping a suffering family, but without actually helping them.

They stop short of paying for an expensive, life-saving procedure. They’ll also stop short of paying medical bills that might have piled up. They’ll sometimes promise to promote scientific research to treat whatever is causing so much pain, but in terms of over-arching incentives, that makes sense in the context that any organization wants to keep its adherents alive.

When assisted suicide enters the equation, the religious organizations miss out on that opportunity. Instead of comfort from a priest, mullah, rabbi, or monk, those suffering can get relief from a simple medical procedure. Their family can also enjoy a sense of closure in that their loved one isn’t suffering anymore. No religious influence is necessary here.

For some, that’s not just a problem. That’s a threat. Anything that subverts the need for the religious organization undermines its ability to maintain and grow its influence. Assisted suicide does all that and then some. However, it goes beyond simply not having the chance to endear themselves to sick people and their families.

From their perspective, assisted suicide sets a dangerous precedent. If too many poor, desperate, suffering people start killing themselves to escape, then they lose one of their best sources of new adherents. It’s the same reason why they discourage abortion and contraception, hoping that adherents produce more adherents for the organization. It all comes back to maintaining and growing the institution.

That usually isn’t the stated purpose. Almost every major religion that discourages assisted suicide will argue from a moral perspective. However, the indirect effect is certainly there. That’s not to say that the heads of these religious organizations secretly meet in dark rooms and craft their dogma with these factors in mind. It’s simply a byproduct of large groups of people responding to incentives.

Even if the implications of opposing assisted suicide are indirect, it’s still not a good reason to oppose the practice. It requires that people overlook the suffering and pain of others while convincing them that they don’t have the right to make important choices in their lives. That effort only leads to more suffering and that can never be justified, no matter how much dogma is applied.

As always, I want to make clear that I’m not calling all religious organizations malicious for opposing assisted suicide. I don’t believe that those within these organizations are out to cause more suffering. Most believe, in their heart of hearts, that they’re doing the right thing. The problem is that dogma, doctrine, and powerful incentives can overshadow those efforts.

There are good, legitimate reasons to oppose assisted suicide. Unfortunately, organized religion rarely relies on those reasons. On top of that, they have one too many incentives not to focus on those reasons.

2 Comments

Filed under health, philosophy, politics, psychology, religion

Tagged as abortion, assisted suicide, atheism, atheist, Catholic Church, Charity, compassion, conservative, dealing with death, death, dogma, Dr. Death, Euthenasia, God, Gods, health, Heaven, heaven and hell, ideology, injustice, Jack Kevorkian, liberal, mental health, organized religion, philosophy, politics, pro life ideology, pro-life, psychology, religion, religious dogma, religious extremism, religious right, religous culture, social inequality, social injustice, social justice, suffering, suicide, theology

Tag Archives: abortion

Abortion, IVF Treatments, And The (Distressing) Trend Of Criminalizing Women

Why You Should Be (Very) Skeptical Of The “He Gets Us” Commercials

More Young Men Are (Unsurprisingly) Getting Vasectomies (And Why I’m Considering It Too)

My Support, Advice, And Encouragement To All Those Fighting The (Horrible) Texas Abortion Laws

George Carlin (Still) Perfectly Explains The Abortion Issue For 2020

The Fall (And Hypocrisy) Of Jerry Falwell Jr. And Why It’s Both Fitting And Infuriating

Donations

Jack’s Sexy Novels

Latest Release

Recent Posts

Jack Fisher’s Twitter Feed