Facing a Post-Roe Future

Pregant - photo by Mustafa Omar (unsplash.com)Photo by Mustafa Omar

Thought for the Week

I have friends on both sides of the abortion fence. And so, although it’s no small task, I want to speak to both. That doesn’t mean I have no views on the subject. I was convinced years ago by an atheist girlfriend that fetuses are not “property,” the constituional basis for the original Roe v. Wade decision (grounded in a since-disproven medical theory). Rather, they are human beings protected under the same laws that protect newborns and adults, whether able-bodied or incapable of living without assistance. Dr. Dianne N Irving, renowned neurobiologist and lecturer in medical ethics (National Institutes of Health, Georgetown University), proves in the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy that fetuses are both human beings and persons.

But whether Roe was right or wrong is moot. Each American state must now decide (since the U.S. is more comparable to, say, Europe than England or France) how they will address the issue of unwanted pregnancy. Because that is the real issue.

The key word is compassion. States must address the issue with compassion–not just for unborn children, but for women who are facing unwanted pregnancies, as well. States that limit or abolish abortions should require and monitor: 100% equal financial responsility for men involved in unwanted pregnancies; guaranteed career and education protections for pregant women, requiring, e.g., no loss of college placement status and no loss of funding, scholarships due to delays, etc.; 100% medical and living assistance for women facing unwanted pregnancies; and more.

It is often argued that there are not enough adoptive parents for unwanted babies, especially minority children. This is incorrectly based on conflating adoption statistics with foster care statistics. But babies put up for adoption do not go into foster care. There are, in fact, far more parents waiting to adopt babies–including minority and disabled ones–than there are babies available.*

I long to hear two things in the post-Roe era:

  1. That no unwanted pregnancy carried to term is regreted
  2. That no baby is born unwanted!

*Two valuable resources: Adoption.com (placement, medical/financial care, and more); Considering Adoption (facts, guidance, support services)

β™₯

About mitchteemley

Writer, Filmmaker, Humorist, Thinker-about-stuffer
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Facing a Post-Roe Future

  1. I was adopted. I was only 1 week old when my parents brought me home. My mother could never have children of her own, but I was definitely a very loved and very wanted child. My parents are the only parents I have ever known. My mom always used to tell me “I was chosen”.

    Liked by 11 people

  2. pastorpete51 says:

    Good points Mitch. Starting a reasoned dialogue sure beats yelling at one another or burning down buildings. Though I have my doubts that there are many on the pro-choice side of the issue who are willing to tone things down or be willing listen to anything outside the media echo chamber. I do sincerely wish you all the best in your efforts.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Jack Gator says:

    Well said Mitch: Conversation quality. No bullhorns, no self righteous ranting. Just honesty

    Liked by 2 people

  4. ejstoo says:

    Sounds fair…for taking abortion as a right to life issue. However, there is the other side to it. That is the side that do we have a right to tell someone what to do with their bodies? The problem is that it goes deeper than just the viewable issue…there are other issues as part of it. Then it gets into LBGTQ issues….do we have a right to go into people’s bedrooms. In my opinion only, and doesn’t necessarily agree with anyone else or might, we have enough people who underpay us for being women. Disregard how women feel. Then this further down the line includes other rights. So, it’s not cut and dried. The other thing, if your daughter was pregnant by someone she didn’t love and she was suffering as a result, would you tell her she should keep the baby…even though her mental health was suffering. Could you look at the lovely face in your wedding pictures and tell her to keep it even if she was living an experience of a living he**? Would you tell her that the baby was meant to be if she was raped? Could you look her in the eye with that? The problem isn’t the problem…or at least there is a bigger problem that is being dealt with. It isn’t the right to life as much as the right to feel safe, to feel accepted, to feel some control over a situation that is in one’s own body. Anyway, just another viewpoint. Sometimes the perceived problem is the problem.

    Liked by 2 people

    • ejstoo says:

      Other times, the perceived problem is not the actual total problem…and that is why life is hard.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Those are all good, valid points, but the question “do we have a right to tell someone what to do with their bodies?” Does that also apply to vaccines and medical procedures. it should. You cannot use the argument one way and then change it for something else.

      Liked by 4 people

      • ejstoo says:

        The right not to was never removed and no legislation was enacted telling you that you had to Have vaccines.. It was encouraged and some work places privately made decisions based on operations. Unlike abortion which they are legislating that women cannot have abortions in certain areas of the country. But nice try πŸ™ŠπŸ™‰πŸ™ˆ. The old oranges and fish mixed and try to tell .me it’s fruit salad.

        Like

      • Well, let’s just agree to disagree.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hetty Eliot says:

        There was no legislation to make you get a vaccine. It’s just that you’ll have to lose your livelihood and possibly family if you choose not to.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Nancy Ruegg says:

    You raise some important issues that need to be addressed, Mitch, for those states that choose to abolish abortion. Who can argue that we need to protect the mothers and their futures as well as the unborn babies and theirs? Or, that fathers need to take responsibility for their actions as well as mothers? Lord, give us wisdom to choose the right course, and the wherewithal to accomplish it.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. rwfrohlich says:

    Thanks Mitch, for laying it out so well. We have to recognize there are two lives involved in every pregnancy. And we have to show love and compassion for both.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I know of one baby who was put up for adoption by the mother, but the biological father (while he did not want to raise the child) would not sign off on adoption, so that child was in foster care for the first five years of his life, until the biological father signed off. She chose not to abort, but her wishes to have her baby adopted were not carried out for five years.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. C.A. Post says:

    A friend noted that if the government can tell someone they CANNOT have an abortion, they can change and REQUIRE abortions. These decisions should not even be on legislative agendas. The underlying (and emphasis on the “lying” part) is that government should have any say in a woman’s pregnancy at all.
    The primary issue of our culture, that Christianity has lost, is that we who follow Jesus must show Father’s love to both the unborn baby and the mother who does not want her child. We do not need protestors with megaphones shouting down each other outside the Supreme Court, and certainly not at the Justices’ homes.
    “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” 2 Timothy 2:24-26
    Note: those with whom Christ-followers disagree are most often not evil in and of themselves, but they are caught in the devil’s snare, deceived and pushed into unthinking obedience to a merciless master. They need our mercy, not our hatred.
    ❀️&πŸ™, c.a.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Pam Webb says:

    A courageous and thoughtful post, Mitch. As people shout down each other on each side, I wonder how many people are listening to the quiet voice of the unborn child.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Here is an MD’s account of a life-threatening pregnancy and the difficult decision to end it:
    https://edgeofhumanity.com/2022/05/09/an-abortion-story/

    Liked by 1 person

  11. TEP336 says:

    For me, I believe that the less the government is involved the better. The government can’t be trusted to act in the best interests of the people, especially considering they’ve turned their service into an all-you-can-eat buffet of self-service, narcissistic pandering, and chicanery.

    The frustrating part of removing government from this realm is that there are two problems that immediately present themselves. First, we must convince people to step away from the government handouts. Second, we need to get the Church to do more in the area of helping the poor and needy. These two issues are the most egregious obstacles to progress we could possibly have.

    Until we are able to accomplish these two goals on a large scale, there will be issues. I like the way Apologia Church in Tempe, AZ does things. When they set out to help a woman in crisis, they make sure she lacks nothing. Literal truck loads of supplies roll in, and kids are taken care of. This needs to happen everywhere, without the help of the government.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. pkadams says:

    Thanks for writing this. I think it’s an important subject to discuss.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Thanks for exposing the myth of the “unwanted babies,” Mitch. If the people who long to adopt and love children but don’t have any and those who have a child but don’t want it would just get together, there’s an obvious way to help both parties, and most of all, that child.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Damyanti Biswas says:

    What a heart-warming theme! Thank you for sharing this πŸ™‚

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Sherry says:

    Hi Cuz, thank you for starting this conversation. As a retired diagnostic medical sonographer (ultrasound tech) I’ve seen pre-born babies in every stage of development, which makes me appreciate their personhood at a very early age. One example that stands out is a set of twins I had the opportunity to examine during serial ultrasound procedures. One twin was larger and more aggressive than the other smaller twin. After they were born, the mother brought the babies in so I could meet them and she commented on how the bigger twin was still aggressive, just like before birth. Pre-born babies are no less human beings than those after birth, with personalities and a fight for survival.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Ann Coleman says:

    Thank you for this thoughtful and reasoned presentation. Like you, I have friends and family on both sides of the issue. And personally, I believe both sides of valid points. The problem is that people aren’t listening to those on the “other side.” Right to Lifers tend to consider only the baby, and Pro Choicers tend to consider only the pregnant woman. But this issue impacts both, and so the answer must acknowledge both as well, I believe. Short term-the answer is compassion and accountability, I think. Long-term, the answer will come when no woman can get pregnant against her will, because that takes abortion off the table completely, I hope. Thanks again! We need more people to think and talk about this, rather than simply react and attack!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Bellissimo articolo
    Se vuoi segui anche il mio blog 😘

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Simone E says:

    Great post, I really enjoyed your thought out words!

    Liked by 1 person

  19. IThoughtThis says:

    We are currently trying to adopt and everywhere I can see the lists of people waiting to adopt. The issue isn’t the number of people wanting to adopt, it’s how hard to make it to adopt. When they tell you it’ll take over a year and is likely going to cost $40000 or more in order to get a child, it makes it hard for most people to do so. I’m going through searching for means of getting grants or loans in order to do so. If they want to get rid of abortion then they need to make it easier to adopt. Yes there needs to be background checks, and home checks, but why do they make it all so difficult?
    They also need to make it easier and cheaper for women to get birth control, and have better sex education for everyone out there in order to lower the chances of women accidentally getting pregnant. But yes I agree, men need to be held just as much accountable as women in these things.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. annieasksyou says:

    Well, I would agree with your two-point conclusion if point 1 were feasible. I think it’s an impossibility based on existing information about the physical, psychological, and economic pressures/dangers of unwanted pregnancies.

    And the belief that a fetus is a person carries with it enormous potential societal legislative impositions on women.

    I think the best approach is massive funding, education, and availability of long-term birth control, including greater emphasis on male contraceptives.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Madeline Bialecki Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s