The political establishment and media outlets, including those in the so-called ‘alternative community’ are guilty of faulty narrative framing in order to create maximum conflict and division.
My goal with this post is to offer each side of the ‘abortion argument’ ways they might tweak their strategy in order to improve their position against their opponents. I don’t mean only the Right/Left positions, because a growing number of folks around the world have already left that reservation far behind and are entertaining other ‘spaces’—the new buzzword.
I will dare to conclude with a very easy solution that will never be accepted by any political or religious group, because it is the most individually empowering solution possible.
On the ‘Political, Religious Right-Conservative’—how might you improve your position?
Those who you deem to convince that abortion is wrong and should be heavily regulated, if not illegal, are not swayed by your terminology misuse. The science terms for the development of the fetus: from zygote to embryo to fetus to baby, are replaced in your arguments by the word ‘baby’ in all circumstances, and this is done even by those who consider themselves “alternative” and devoted to science, like Mike Adams, ‘The Health Ranger’, who rages on regularly about ‘baby killers.’
The popular ‘Let the states decide’ argument is not really an argument. It is a power-based position, one to choose in order to deflect taking a position personally based on individual circumstances, while allowing others (as in scientific authorities and politicians) to make the decisions for everyone. Local politics is hardly independent of federal influence. The Left’s concern is one of access. The notion that a teenage girl who wishes to terminate her pregnancy should hop on a bus (with her parent’s permission we assume) to travel across an entire state, or several, for this two-hour procedure does not address their primary issue. It’s not just about the money.
Slogans such as “on-demand abortions” and “using abortion as contraception” are misleading and ignoring the science. The ‘morning after’ pill (used to be called Plan B)* is considered here to be exactly equivalent to the surgical procedure in the first trimester, as it is in the last. In fact, these procedures are about as similar as an egg is to a chicken.
“Human life begins at conception.” Yes, but all life begins at conception, including synthetic life. This leads into the ‘murder is a slippery slope’, another faux-argument, because there is no evidence whatsoever that girls who have abortions go on to commit murders later in life.
If it is true that ending a pregnancy prematurely is the same as murder, and that it is making our society more cruel as a result, then war, all war, must also be included in that conversation. It appears that you wish to blame women for societal violence for ending the life of a zygote, while to fight in wars, sometimes to the death, is considered heroic. There is an inconsistency in your position that is seen by your opponents as weak, evasive and hypocritical.
On the ‘political-secular Left-Progressive’ —how might you improve your position? The abortion industry should be your main cause of concern, if you wish to influence your opponents.
Normalizing all forms of abortion and ignoring the crimes of the industry are two weaknesses making you appear callous and insensitive, which is not the image the Left is expected to be crafting.
Science is in your favor, but not as your periodic scapegoat. It is not logical to cling to science when it comes to terminology, but then to deny the religious mantra of “Human life begins at conception.”
What we used to call “Test-tube babies” prove human life begins at conception. As does all of life. In vitro fertilization is incredibly popular and reliable. If you’re going to use science to back up your arguments, then actually use the science.
Where is the science today? Our bodies, and our genetic make-up, are becoming technological tools in service to the ‘higher power’ of AI.
First came Petris, then came Wombs, then came Bubba in a baby carriage!
Demonstrate to “the Right” that their real enemy is not those who would choose to discard the zygote developing in their womb, but those who currently consider the womb, and in fact the entire body, as irrelevant to future life.
The social engineering component of this normalizing process is ‘equality’ for the “LGBTQ community”.
‘Assisted Reproductive Technology’ is the latest terminology for this ever-growing industry. ‘Abortion’ is rolled out for public consumption to obscure and obfuscate this fact. Abortion, as a moral issue, has been all but irrelevant for decades considering where the Science stands.
Unwanted pregnancies and ‘unwanted’ embryos.
Where once we had adoption, now we have surrogacy, and . . .
An emerging market!
“During the selection and transfer phases, many embryos may be discarded in favour of others. This selection may be based on criteria such as genetic disorders or the sex. One of the earliest cases of special gene selection through IVF was the case of the Collins family in the 1990s, who selected the sex of their child.[137] The ethic issues remain unresolved as no consensus exists in science, religion, and philosophy on when a human embryo should be recognised as a person. For those who believe that this is at the moment of conception, IVF becomes a moral question when multiple eggs are fertilised, begin development, and only a few are chosen for implantation.”
In vitro fertilisation – Wikipedia
That was then . …
This is now (actual already 5 years old, because, it’s proprietary). …
What do you think the new market(s) are going to be?
I bet you already know, that is, if you already know there are ‘Bio-bags’ used to grow lamb fetuses.
(Figure from a 2017 Nature Communications paper describing an extra-uterine life support system, or “biobag”, used to grow lamb fetuses.[1])
In 2017, fetal researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia published a study showing they had grown premature lamb fetuses for four weeks in an extra-uterine life support system.[1][6][7]
Gender equality and LGBT[edit]
In the 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex, feminist Shulamith Firestone wrote that differences in biological reproductive roles are a source of gender inequality. Firestone singled out pregnancy and childbirth, making the argument that an artificial womb would free “women from the tyranny of their reproductive biology.”[25][26]
Arathi Prasad argues in her column on The Guardian in her article “How artificial wombs will change our ideas of gender, family and equality” that “It will […] give men an essential tool to have a child entirely without a woman, should they choose. It will ask us to question concepts of gender and parenthood.” She furthermore argues for the benefits for same-sex couples: “It might also mean that the divide between mother and father can be dispensed with: a womb outside a woman’s body would serve women, trans women and male same-sex couples equally without prejudice.”[27]
This is a global industry.
“None of this is surprising of course. Russia loves genetic stuff.
In August 2019, the State Duma commissioned a report on how to upgrade Russia’s outdated laws so that humans could be genetically enhanced in cool new ways. The study examined:
… the possibilities of conflict-free development of a new generation of technologies for using assisted reproductive technologies (genome editing, metabolic management during pregnancy, etc.) to create a new (contractual) type of society based on more advanced legislation.
The first step was obvious: we need to know everyone’s genome.
In July 2021, Health Minister Mikhail Murashko revealed plans to issue “genetic passports” to all Russians, with special attention given to the little ones.”
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/genetic-russia?utm_medium=email
The most appropriate course of action for a concerned society is the same one that is most appropriate for the individual.
That is: Take Charge of Your Fertility!! — That’s the title of a book that’s been around since the ‘90s that should be taught in every school.
Why do schools teach more about sex education than reproductive education? I can think of many reasons, many of those centering on money, power and and the social engineering required to keep the proper channels well-greased.
I was taught the only choices for a girl are abstinence, or artificial birth control methods like: The Pill, IUD, sponge, condom, etc. Abstinence until marriage sounded as absurd to me then as it does to me now. Expecting a girl to ignore or erase her sexual maturity for a decade plus is simply cruel and is bound to create issues individually and for the society.
Yet each of these offered birth control methods require regular purchases from the drug store or doctor.
Imagine how empowering it would be for a pre-teen girl to understand her menstrual cycle, physically and emotionally. The process of Natural Birth Control is so easy and it trains a girl to listen to her body. Anyone who can remember to take a pill every day can learn how to read their basal body temperature every day.
Unfortunately I knew nothing of this method until I was nearly 40.
Of course, I understand it is not fool-proof, but then there is the ‘Plan-B’*. There are natural abortificants as well, if only the information were made available.
If a girl chooses against pregnancy, and she knows her body thanks to a proper education that tells her immediately when there is a fertilized egg just then attaching to her uterine wall thanks to her basal body temperature (as it is something she will most likely not feel) and long before that mass of cells should be called ‘a baby’, she can disrupt the development of the embryo, and not have to live her life with the label of ‘murderer’ thrown at her every time the socio-political engine decides to roll down those tracks, again.
Taking Charge of Your Fertility: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health by Toni Weschler, MPH
*Notice again the inflammatory language in the renaming of this product, “Emergency Contraception”. To take contraception daily is far more profitable than to take one pill a month only when you need it.
It is my sincere hope that biologically-informed, naturally-gendered girls will someday prove that they do not need the government, or the corporations, or the priest-class—scientific or otherwise—to control their fertility.
We are perfectly capable of managing our fertility and reproduction all on our own with the proper information and resources.
