(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
An Abortion Discussion [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']
Date: 2022-08-29
Our species, Homo sapiens, has only one instinct; procreation.
From the beginning of recorded history up to and including the 18th century, societal norms encouraged large families. They were a symbol of success. A large percentage of children died at a young age. Big families provided assurance that that family name and our nation would live on and provide labor for an agrarian lifestyle.
Societal concerns about pregnancy were mostly about providing assurance that the mother and child would have adequate economic and emotional support. Sex was discouraged until those concerns were met. Often that meant that the man and the woman had formed a committed relationship, usually marriage. But once that committed relationship was established, sex was not discouraged and guided mostly by impulse and instinct. Family planning was limited.
And prior to the modern era, life expectancy was much shorter than today. In 1900 life expectancy in the United States was 50 years. Today it is 80 years. But we still have the same Homo sapiens genetics. The healthiest time for a woman to have a child is still between 17 years and 23 years. The sex drive for men and women revolves around this prime breeding age for women. For young adults delaying the family was not often a consideration. Abstinence in the pre-modern era was a normal and logical objective to prevent young women from having children without having appropriate economic and social support. Moral guidance, often religious doctrine, was based on good logic. And in this pre-modern era, this moral guidance did not substantially interfere with the best biological child-bearing years of the woman.
The modern era is different. We still have the same instinctual sex drive at the same biological age as in the pre-modern era, but the socially accepted connection between sex and childbearing has changed. Most couples no longer want large families. Large families no longer provide an increase in social status for the parents. In fact, large families can become an economic burden not a desirable increase in the labor force for a family in an agrarian society. And having children at the biologically ideal age will often decrease the woman’s opportunity to achieve economic success in the work force. But religious doctrine has not changed since the pre-modern era. Lawmakers need to understand that they cannot control the instinctual sex drive of young adults of prime breeding age. They must also understand the societal acceptance of women seeking to achieve career success.
Prior to the modern era we had a patriarchal society. Men, physically stronger, were in control. A woman’s place was in the home. Churches are patriarchal. Some men now feel threatened by the increase in the number of women in the workplace and in state and federal legislatures. These men often ally with the church in an effort to continue male domination.
Abortion is a moral decision. No one wants abortion, but when faced with the decision it’s a moral choice. The real question is whether men should have the legal right to control women’s actions. The church supports the archaic notion of male domination. But the church is autocratic and is slow to change with the times. And it must be noted that the Bible does NOT condemn abortion. Some of these same men would tend to favor a semi-religious autocracy. That is in total opposition to the separation-of-church-and-state intent of our Founding Fathers. It’s basically a power play by those men who are afraid of losing a male dominated society. Those same men argue for personal rights and argue against government intrusion. But they cannot explain why the government should be allowed to demand forced pregnancy against the woman’s wishes.
A moral government should not penalize woman for the unintended consequences of instinctual behavior. Forced pregnancy/forced motherhood does not conform to the pursuit of happiness aspiration stated in the Declaration of Independence. Ending a pregnancy is a moral decision. If government run by men can make moral decisions for women; that makes women second class citizens.
Both Roe and Dobbs represent a failure of the United States Congress. Only Congress can pass laws. Their failure to codify a decision on abortion kicked the can down the road and forced the Supreme Court to act. Roe and Dobbs created law. Neither decision was created by elected representatives who answer to the electorate. That’s a failure of our government and opens a dangerous door that allows the court to be the lawmaker when nefarious actors in Congress refuse to do their job for political reasons.
The Dobbs decision has caused chaos. Abortion tourism between states increases and perpetuates the controversy. The Supreme Court is not a lawmaking body and is not designed to investigate the consequences of the laws, that by default, they create.
Women bear the unequal burden of any abortion law. Legislative bodies should consider the views of women in the legislative body to have at least as much weight as the views of men within that legislative body. Anything else represents bad government where one group of Americans is able to unfairly dominate another group. In a responsible government, the views on abortion of all elected women would dominate the views of unelected members of the Supreme Court.
James Madison is often called the father of our Constitution. He did extensive research on laws in other countries before he helped to write our Constitution. Should we not follow his lead and consider the abortion laws in other countries before we create abortion law in this country? Most other countries are more in line with Roe than Dobbs.
We should not be fooled by legislators that hide behind their favorite religious doctrine. This religious morality argument can be a false flag. Dobbs is more about going back to a patriarchal society. It’s about men controlling women.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/29/2119458/-An-Abortion-Discussion
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
