Tag Archives: reproductive rights

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, Current Events, politics, sexuality, women's issues

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

Abortion, Prostitution, And The Indirect (But Powerful) Link Between Them

Pic

When it comes to conflict between genders, there are many factors driving it. Chief among them is the unavoidable ignorance that comes with men not knowing what it’s like to be a woman and women not knowing what it’s like to be a man. Add those who identify as transgender into the mix and there’s a massive disparity in understanding.

While I consider that limited understanding to be the primary driving force behind gender-driven conflicts, there’s another force that is a close second. It has less to do with how people relate to one another and more to do with who determines the accessibility and availability of sex.

As an aspiring erotica/romance writer, this issue is more relevant to me than others. However, after a few notable news stories, one involving prostitution and another involving abortion, the issue is now relevant to everyone and that’s why I feel it’s worth talking about.

The concept of sex being this tangible commodity that certain people control is already bound to cause plenty of consternation among people from every part of the political spectrum, but for logistical purposes, this is how we treat sex in a modern context. It’s no longer something we do for survival or for the passing on of property.

Like food, sex has developed a more diverse role in the modern world. We treat it as a tangible asset that we must manage. Like any asset, though, there are logistics to it and those who do the managing wield a great deal of power. Why else would pimps be so glorified in popular culture?

Who actually wields that power, though, depends on the political affiliation of who you talk to. If you ask someone who is liberal, feminist, or left-leaning, they will claim that the power is held primarily by rich old men who try to manage sex by punishing those who do it in ways they don’t like.

Ask someone who is conservative, traditional, and right-leaning, and they’ll probably say the power is held by radical feminists and their submissive male allies who wield the power of sexual management. They’re just as convinced as those opposing them that they’re right. It’s difficult to convince them otherwise and I’m not going to try. That’s not the purpose of this article.

My goal here is to point out a connection from which the conflict has evolved. Given recent events in the political world, that evolution is likely to continue and not in a direction that benefits either side in the long run. To understand that connection, I need to dig a little deeper into the unspoken, but powerful link between abortion and prostitution.

I know that just talking about one of these issues is abound to send peoples’ passions into overdrive. I’ve discussed abortion before. I’ve discussed prostitution as well. I haven’t really touched on the link between them because they’re tied up in different political domains, but have enough similarities affect one another.

Prostitution is commonly known as the world’s oldest profession and for good reason. It only ever makes the news when there’s a scandal or a legal upheaval. For once, there has been an uptick in the latter rather than the former. It began with new laws that made it more difficult for prostitutes to operate online. In some respects, these efforts are the byproduct of a trend that has been going on since the early 2000s.

Most industrialized countries in the world accept, to some degree, that it’s impossible to stamp out prostitution completely. As a result, there have been more elaborate efforts to reduce it that don’t rely entirely on blanket prohibition. Currently, the most popular approach is known as the Swedish model.

In this setup, it’s legal for someone to sell sex, but it remains illegal to buy it. It’s akin to making it legal to set up a lemonade stand, but illegal to buy lemonade. While that sounds absurd on paper, the intent of the law is somewhat clever. It’s a means to criminalize the buyer of sex to give the seller more leverage. Since the seller is often assumed to be an exploited woman, it’s viewed as an equalizer of sorts.

Granted, the assumption that those selling sex are always exploited women is flawed, as an estimated 20 percent of prostitutes are men. There are people in the world who enter the business willingly, just as there are people who willingly work in coal mines.

There’s also plenty of data that indicates that the Swedish model doesn’t have the desired effect. There’s also no evidence that it has reduced human trafficking, either. That hasn’t stopped it from spreading to other countries. In the process, it has had another effect that goes beyond the issue of prostitution.

Essentially, this approach to combating prostitution places more power in the hands of women with respect to managing sexuality. Since they make up the majority of the prostitutes in the world and men are the primary clients, this dynamic ensures they have more leverage. They can, under this model, decide whether or not their client becomes a criminal. That’s a lot of leverage and not the kinky kind.

This is where the link to abortion comes into play. It’s an indirect link, but it utilizes the same dynamics. In countries where abortion is legal, the women wield a significant amount of power in terms of sexual decision-making. In the context of abortion, they can decide how the consequences of sex play out.

Women can, in this dynamic, decide whether or not to have a child if she becomes pregnant. Whether or not the father wants to child is irrelevant. The woman can abort the child against the father’s wishes. She can even have the child against his wishes, in which case he would be on the hook for child support for 18 years.

Again, that’s a lot of power for one gender to wield. That’s not to say it isn’t understandable. Women are the ones who bear children. They’re the one whose bodies undergo the 9-month rigor that is pregnancy. It’s totally logical that women would have more leverage in this situation because they’re putting themselves at greater risk.

However, and I know this is where I’ll upset a few people, there comes a point where that leverage can become excessive. There are cases where men lose their money and their freedom because of what a woman chooses. There’s no way for them to opt out of their parental responsibilities. That hasn’t stopped some from attempting to create a legal mechanism for that choice, but to date those efforts have not been successful.

Within this context, it shouldn’t be that surprising that abortion rights are steadily eroding. In the United States, it’s looking more likely with recent upheavals in the Supreme Court that this erosion will accelerate. Some are already claiming that we’re on our way to becoming the kind of oppressive society depicted in “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

While most of those concerns are overly apocalyptic, I think part of that effort is tied directly to who wields the power in the sexual landscape. Women are poised to gain more of that power as prostitution laws in the mold of the Swedish model spread. They’ve also gained even more leverage socially through the anti-harassment movement.

From the perspective of men, who cannot turn off their sex drives, women already wield so much authority in matters of sex. They’re the ones more likely to get paid to do it. They get to decide when and where it happens. They get to decide whether or not a sex act was consensual. They don’t even face the same stigma or consequences when sex crimes does occur and are granted greater protections by the law.

That perspective is not going to sway most women, though. The same women arguing for abortion rights are just as likely to argue for the Swedish model in combating prostitution. It’s a common thread among certain brands sex-negative feminism that see prostitution as an inherently oppressive force for women in every circumstance.

This is where the paths converge and where the fuel for the conflict gets a boost. Whether intentionally or by accident, both prostitution and abortion eventually link back to who wields authority in sexual matters. Both sides can claim some form of oppression. Both sides can even be right to a limited extent. By fighting to secure the most leverage though, they inevitably invite more backlash.

I don’t claim to know what the endgame is. I have a feeling that once sex robots enter the picture, and they have to some extent, there will be a major upheaval in the whole sexual landscape that neither side will be able to confront. Until then, though, the conflict over sexual leverage will continue. In the end, though, it’s unlikely that anyone will ever be truly satisfied.

1 Comment

Filed under gender issues, human nature, Marriage and Relationships, political correctness, prostitution, psychology, sex in society, sexuality