Opinion

Answering objections to Wisconsin’s new abortion law (or how to get on a brony mailing list)

There are perks to being a writer, and they include hearing from people who’ve felt encouraged by something I’ve said. Of course not everyone’s impressed with my message, and some of them find ways to express that. One of the more creative methods involves copying my email address.

You sure did.

As a result, I get regular fundraising requests from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. I’ve also gotten messages pertaining to gay-themed erotica. At one point, I was receiving offers from a manufacturer of vibrators. While I have yet to place an order, their product does seem to garner largely positive reviews.

Other times people want to show me something they’ve seen online. That’s how I came across this:

Quote-2

That’s in reference to Wisconsin’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Passed by the state legislature this month, it bans most abortions after 20 weeks. Evidence suggests a baby can feel pain by that point, which is kinda disturbing given how an abortion involves ripping her or him apart one piece at a time.   

D&E

There is broad support (particularly among women) for restricting late-term abortion, and pro-lifers are promoting similar measures across the country. That means we’re probably going see more comments like the one above, so I figured it’d be good to practice answering them. Let’s get started:

They use codified language to claim they are protecting “unborn children” from pain but ignore the psychological and mental pain that the women who are in positions like this have to go through.

The first assertion here is definitely correct: Yes, the bill’s authors have expressed a desire to protect unborn children from pain. That’s probably why they called it the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

But while the commenter doesn’t address the issue of fetal pain, he does bring up the emotional suffering that women experience during difficult pregnancies. What’s left out is that for many women, abortion only makes that suffering worse. A study published in the British Medical Journal found that post-abortive women face an elevated risk of suicide. There’s also no shortage of women who’ve spoken publicly about a crushing sense of loss, sadness and guilt they’ve experienced after aborting.

The conversation is about the pain of the “unborn children” when in reality the main problem is that the state is legislating what a woman can and can’t do with her body. Most of the people voting are males and have no right to tell a woman what is right or wrong because they just have no clue. It is a slippery slope when you start advocating state sanctioned control over women’s bodies, it leads to less and less rights for women.

Although both the state house and senate versions of the bill were co-sponsored by women, it is true that most of those who voted on it were men… just like with every other piece of legislation. Yet if Wisconsin’s male dominated legislature really has “no right to tell a woman what is right or wrong,” then it’s unclear why that principle only applies to abortion; surely women should be exempt from male-imposed laws in general. For some reason there’s been no rush implement this.

It’s also true that the bill limits what people “can and can’t do” with their bodies. Then again, plenty of other laws already do that. Someone who’s caught behind the wheel after filling her body with vodka is going to have some legal problems.

Impaired driving laws (like the proposed late-term abortion ban) are designed to protect innocent parties from suffering a violent death, which is probably why most people are willing to accept the infringement on bodily autonomy. I would say that’s a reasonable idea, as opposed to the following: “In addition, the fact that there is no exception for incest or rape means that legislators are okay with rape and incest in our society.”

No, it just means they’re not okay with with killing people for their fathers’ crimes. You can see some of those people here if you like.

“What will stop men from simply raping women when they want to have a baby?”

Well, the threat of going to prison for one. And sometimes this:

woman gun - "No" means No. So does buckshot.

I admit I haven’t discussed the subject with too many rapists (the number currently stands at zero), but I have a hard time believing many of them commit sexual assault in the hope of delivering a child. In contrast, some of them do use abortion to hide their crimes and stay out of jail.

That was Gary Cross’ plan: he took his 13-year-old stepdaughter to Planned Parenthood after getting her pregnant. That she was below the age of consent didn’t seem to concern staff – they were quite willing to refer her for a late-term abortion. With the evidence gone, Cross went back to raping her when she came home.

He wasn’t unique, as fellow child rapists Timothy Smith, John Blanks, Jr., John F. Szorady and Adam Gault also used abortion to stay out of jail and keep abusing their victims. These 50 other sexual predators did the same. Far from being an obstacle to these men, abortion helped keep them in business.

“It’s absolutely surreal and just plain f***ed up.”

That would sum up America’s current approach to abortion. You can help change it by urging law makers in other states to follow Wisconsin’s example. You can also support pregnancy care centers, places that offers moms alternatives to abortion. Finally, you can sign Live Action’s petition demanding that Congress end its half billion dollar subsidy to Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion chain.

Naturally, doing those things means that you may have to answer comments like the one above, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. After all, practice makes perfect.

READ NEXT
Comments4
To Top