As an elderly woman (in years, but not in spirit), I had my finger poised to delete, debunk, and/or terminate your post. As it happens, it is the only solution to preventing the grotesque and permanent mutilation of children. The numbers are not there to override the young ones who have no experience with motherhood or the full actualization of womanhood, so it remains with the more mature to hold the line, bar the door, prevent the Trojan horse of transgenderism to be confused with feminism and liberty. Please continue to use your voice and platform to persuade those who listen that your position is the only rational one. This is my hill to die on.
I have struggled with the morality of abortion for nearly three quarters of a century. We know that most fetuses are viable human beings after 20-25 weeks (and that keeps getting shorter due to advances in medical science). They are sentient beings even before that. Thus, at some point, abortion is taking a life - murder, if you will.
However, if a mother cannot love her baby, what kind of life is being taken? It is cruelly unfeeling to expect a mother to love a child born of rape. Further, while "thou shalt not kill" sounds absolute, it really isn't: we execute prisoners; we cheer the Ukrainians as they kill Russian soldiers.
My personal conclusion is that abortion is too fraught with emotion and too entangled with personal morality to be the subject of any law. This is for the mother (and the father, if involved) to decide. No matter how this is decided by the states or the federal government, there will always be exceptional circumstances that make the "legal choice" wrong for some mother / child.
I have no such qualms about banning the "transitioning" of youths. We KNOW that most children's minds are still developing throughout their teenage years. We KNOW that we don't know the long-term effects of puberty blockers, but the evidence so far signals potentially dire consequences. We KNOW that this is not really a moral issue, this is protecting children from themselves.
I truly rage when I hear some teacher or - worse - union boss say that teachers or guidance counselors or ... should help children make these decisions and hide them from their parents. As a matter of law, a parent is responsible for actions of their children (e.g., the recent arrest of a mother in VA whose child shot a teacher). How can I, as a parent, be responsible for my child's actions if someone else has changed that child in fundamental ways, and hid it from me?
If an adult wants to transition - fine. But until they have reached maturity, children need to be protected from themselves. In most states children must be 16 to drive, or 18/21 to drink. I would argue that transitioning should be delayed at least that long.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. I think the crux of the abortion issue hinges on time -- at some point, the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother to self-determination, (note: NOT her right to health or life), regardless of how it was conceived. I would put that time at 12 weeks at the very latest. Re surgical and medical "transition" I would say 25 is the youngest age that it should be allowed.
It drives me nuts when I see conservatives all lumped into an 'anti abortion' bucket. I'm 66, never voted for a Democrat for President, but have always supported a woman's right to choose, within boundaries. I like three months, but could live with longer. Where the majority of the country has a problem is for the crowd that (as Chris Rock says) advocates abortion until they start kindergarten. Also, a surprising number of Dems, and disproportionately higher among females than males, are pro life.
I agree with everything you said about women born in the 80s-90s. I wish I could figure out what happened back then to cause their current mind set. I have daughters of 36 and 43, and they were sparred, but their friends are pretty radical.
Anyway, today was good because both you and Sasha Stone published great columns. I'm so disgusted with our country's state of mind right now, I'm off Twitter, right/left corporate media, and in fact all of my SubStacks except you and Sasha.
I think what happened to Millennial women was a mixture of parenting style changes that made those kids far less tolerant of any kind of pushback and wider societal infantilisation of youth. Those of us not of that generation also remained too enamoured of our own "radical" past and passed on the idea to the younger ones that protesting was a sign of intelligence and virtue. And all our institutions became ideologically captured, which hugely incentivised people to be more and more intolerant to gain advancement in said institutions.
I think, too, the infantilisation angle has a specific line to be followed toward the criminalization of risk. When the risk of harm becomes "harm" the end result is law-abiding citizens that are extremely fragile. That fragility is openly expressed in the desire for authoritarianism.
I really like bluntness. I was very blunt in a comment I made elsewhere, and I upset both "sides." I've received an amazing amount of support from both men and women, 157 people so far in one day. It's clear to me most of us want compromise. For the sake of our children the middle needs to win. This is what I said: A 12-15 week limit would prevent the horror of aborting a fetus with a neurological system developed enough to feel pain. The fundamentalist extremists on both ends are never going to compromise and the great middle needs to get this done. If someone argues that some women don't know they're pregnant until too late, I tell them a year's supply of test strips costs about $24, based on using one per week. If males can be sent to the front lines, then women can use test strips.....I also added in another post there's no reason paternity can't be traced through genetic mapping, as is being used today in crime solving. Imagine requiring genetic tracing for anyone receiving taxpayer support for a baby, and males weighing the possibility of having wages garnished over a condomless one-night stand. Condom sales would skyrocket, unprotected sex and conceptions would drop, and we would also have the additional benefit of reducing STDs. I also realize there are some sociopathic men who would rape a woman just to force her to carry his DNA, and for this reason I will always support abortion up to 12 weeks. It's not a decision to be taken lightly, but life is full of difficult decisions. Some are making the decision to stick to their "no compromise" stance on abortion, but as Jenny points out, there will be consequences and children will be damaged.
Yes -- I absolutely support banning abortions after 12 weeks (max) unless the health or life of the mother is at stake. There is absolutely no defence of it if it is just because a woman wants to.
I believe it has been a huge mistake in our culture to focus on the condition (pregnancy) after the deed (unprotected sex) is done, or on the other side, to browbeat females about abstinence. I read a very interesting article many decades back about a paper a grad student wrote on marriage and birth back in colonial America. The student looked at marriage and delivery dates and found, even accounting for some early births, most of those couples had sex prior to marriage. She concluded that social pressure kept males and females committed once the deed was done. Once the BCP came on the scene, the entire focus has been on the female. Female biology (pregnancy) is discussed as almost a pathology, rather than the uncommitted and unprotected casual sex by both involved parties being the pathology. It's as if we believe social pressure won't work on males, but the grad study indicates otherwise. Back when our son entered adulthood, I remember telling him if he did choose to have sex, choose carefully and wisely and if he didn't use protection and ended up impregnating a woman, I expected him to convince her to marry and make a family. I believe he would do the right thing. I saw for the first time in my life a few months ago a billboard about sex and reproduction aimed at males. Better late than never. I have an abortion in my past and hope to see the numbers decreased.
I'm afraid this is noble but unrealistic. Roe v Wade already requires the doctor's certification that the "health or life of the mother" is at risk; but since "mental health/wellbeing" has been loosely defined to include emotional distress, it has led in many states to (effectively) abortion at any time for any reason. How else could there have been 63 millions abortions in the US since 1973?
100%. I was just saying yesterday that probably 75-80% of Americans agree on abortion limits and gun laws and gender trans laws, but the politicians don’t even pretend to listen to the people. Truth from DC or media is a dead concept. The Dems have utterly lost their minds.
Abortion is the latest in their zest to control people's lives. Partly it is because as I get older I feel more compassion for people caught in poverty. Less of my former feeling that they ought to just get their act together. I also began to wonder some 10 years ago as to exactly what the Republicans had accomplished since Gingrich started his war on commonsense. And I couldn't think of anything worthwhile they have accomplished. They seem to be the party of culture wars and keeping the wealthy wealthy and they aided and abetted (and still do) Trump whom I absolutely despise. They have completely devolved into authoritarian culture warriors with no good ideas on actually running the country. So, that is why.
Respectfully, I don't agree with most of that. We on the right just want to live our lives and be left alone, and the Left is imposing transgender ideology on children and propagating the lunacy of BLM into EVERYTHING in culture. I had to pledge to support anti-racism (i.e. upholding different standards for each different race) as a requirement to join my company (Fortune 500)
As for what the GOP has accomplished, you're not wrong. The main thing they've done is resisted the democrats from putting far-left activists on the courts, trying to enforce immigration laws, and passing laws to reduce the regulatory burden on free enterprise.
I don't disagree that the GOP is fairly useless, but that's because its politicians are grossly out of sync with its voters
It is absolutely insane that you had to make an ideological pledge in order to work. That is just chilling. I know this happens all the time but it never stops being shocking.
Making an ideological pledge to get a job is almost as insane as forcing people to inject experimental chemical/ medical agents into their bodies to keep their jobs. But at tkeast signing a pledge doesn’t carry the possibility of lifelong physical harm. Our gov’t. and our large institutions are absolute control freaks. And it seems the younger Americans are eating it up.
I prefer a softer approach than the usual polarizing approach to abortion. I have been very impressed with a pregnancy center in my area (representative of many others, I suspect) which simply helps women in difficult pregnancies with everything from diapers and baby clothes to nurturing and encouragement. The Christian women who run the place really care about both mother and baby (unlike far too many zealots who either focus solely on the mother and don't care much if at all about the baby or who focus solely on the baby and don't care much if at all about the mother). A pregnancy involves both.
Agree completely. The Left I grew up with was concerned about US treatment of our indigenous and other nations' peoples, human rights, anti imperialism, anti-war, truly life and death issues. Sorry pronouns didn't seem to be up at the top of the list..... It fought for equality of all races, all genders. Sure we had our colorful characters prone to egotism, but we were serious about making change. The new crowd I often find as little more than over-indulged brats, with victim-hood mentality flowing from every pore. Racist, sexist, hateful overfed under-educated loudmouths . I can't believe I actually agree with some of the Right Winger's descriptions, but I DO Find the terms "virtue signalling" and "social justice warrior" to be quite appropriate.
Beautiful and thoughtful as usual Jenny. Always feel a bit of sanity has arrived to lift my spirits when I see you have authored something new for us. Patrick :-)
How did we get to such a polarized place, with voters asked to choose between one party that seems committed to an extreme restriction on reproductive rights and another party that seems committed to an extreme position on gender? Like you, Jenny, if forced to choose, I would very reluctantly take the Republican option, accepting the restriction of women's reproductive rights in order to protect children against premature medicalization of gender dysphoria, and women against unwelcome elimination of protected sex-specific spaces. But my god, this is such an unnecessary choice for voters to have to make.
There is a huge opportunity, it seems to me, for either major U.S. political party to win a large share of the electorate by backing away from their current extreme. While we will debate forever these issues, there is a common ground that I think a large majority would find acceptable. On abortion, this likely would be a European-style law that begins to place restrictions no sooner than 12-15 weeks. On trans athletes, this likely would allow/encourage young boys and girls to participate in co-ed, gender-neutral sports up to something like 10-12 years old, at which point separate categories for biological females would be enforced, as necessary, to promote fair competition (recognizing the profound categorical differences in terms of size, speed, and strength between the sexes post-puberty.) On the treatment of individuals with gender dysphoria, strict rules against medicalization among minors while also promoting a culture that recognizes and respects the duality of a world in which cultural/psychological gender is fluid and multidimensional, and biological sex is recognized as the natural binary it is. I so often hear people in debates acknowledge that sex and gender are two separate concepts, only to then make one concept subservient to the other—so dumbfounding this is to those of us in Gen X who were raised "free to be you and me".
I completely agree, except that I disagree that "gender is fluid". I have looked over 7th grade textbooks that say that gender is a spectrum, and they say that if you are not stereotypically male or female, you might be elsewhere on the spectrum. The example given was males who cry at movies. I liked better what we all learned in the nineties, that the differences within the groups was greater then the difference between the groups. A woman can be and do whatever she wishes. As can a man. Confusing that with "gender fluidity" brings the gender stereotypes that everyone fought so hard to overcome back and more powerful then ever.
We're on the same page, Lynn. And I think you're right that in today's lingo, "gender fluidity" suggests to many the opposite of the liberated, de-stereotyped notion that I/we have in mind. That people today can't agree on what any of these words mean seems to be a big part of the problem and a big part of the genius of Kellie-Jay Keen. She speaks in plain English: "woman = adult human female."
I think this set of comments together hits the nail right on the head. It’s so sad that “don’t bully the kid who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes” morphed into “let’s tell the kid he really is a she (or vice versa) and give him (or her) hormones/surgery.” What the heck happened to get us here?
A combo of very toxic educational policies and a big pharma monopoly that sees endless profits from trans-ing kids (ie gaining customers for a lifetime.)
I fear I think the opposite might be happening -- that people might be pushed into those extremes, not away from them. I hope you are right and I am wrong though!
Definitely. I’m so disappointed. If he had stood in the middle, as with the 15 week ban that has been previously in place in Florida , I really think he could have become president. I’ve lost hope for that now.
If it was just up to me, a ban after 6 weeks , or many 8 weeks at the most, would be in place nationwide with exceptions for a few rare medical emergencies. That being said, after what happened with the midterm elections , I am just really afraid that we aren’t going to be able to get Biden out of the White House if the republican presidential candidate doesn’t go a little more moderate on this issue. Ultimately all I want is for effective protection of every life possible. But, maybe my take on the whole thing is wrong. Maybe DeSantis did the right thing. I sure hope so.
I really, really, REALLY hate that you might be right about the choice between abortion rights and protecting kids from medical transition.
But as long as Trump is the defacto head of the GOP, voting Republican is out of the question at the national level. He makes it a choice between democracy itself.
In what way? What did Trump do that threatens democracy? Please compare to what Biden has and is currently doing? I just don’t understand this. I don’t want him to run but believing this (he’s a threat to democracy) is like believing the MSM, liars all.
Trump was more attentive to the constitution than any other recent President. I was surprised when he didn’t send in the NG to quell the BLM riots, but because those state governors refused, he held back. Unlike Obama and Biden, when the courts denied his actions, he obeyed their rulings.
And even though he believes the 2020 election was stolen, he followed every *constitutional* procedure to attempt to have the results overturned. And didn’t “not leave office” like all the Trump-haters where predicting. In fact, all the complaints about how he would screw up America have ACTUALLY been done by Biden. (A blatant example of Confession Thru Projection). Including not leaving office when he’s incapable of doing the job.
Trump is a narcissistic self-promoting womanizer. NGL, The DS learned how to play him and he made *lots* of mistakes on his own. But he was *still* the best POTUS since JFK.
Trump is a boor and a bullshitter. He writes mean tweets. But when he was in charge, we had the strongest economy in decades, low gasoline prices, oil independence, and a real and largely successful effort to control the border. I don't care how orange he is or what a blowhard he is, life was better when he was president. The moment Biden took over, he intentionally destroyed everything Trump had accomplished, bringing about the disaster we have now. I wouldn't want to hang out with Trump, but he was the best president we've had in a long, long time.
In the end what kept Trump from overturning the election were Pence and a few other Republicans and White House lawyers who refused to go along with the more unconstitutional things his crazier advisors told him he could do, and the military. You think he wouldn't have happily remained in power by claiming a mandate from the will of the people?
If he gets back into office, the risk of a major unconstitutional move will be much greater.
Slightly off topic but your comment is interesting to me because I feel the exact same way, about Joe Biden. In fact, his elevation to the nomination was such a violation against everything I thought the Dem party stood for, I will never vote for a Democrat again. There's a weird symmetry there that makes me think we are all being played for fools by the powers that be selecting truly terrible candidates and forcing us to chose between them.
My dear Jenny, this makes fascinating reading. As a conservative, I am astonished to find myself following and even financially supporting the likes of Glenn Greenwald (a Bernie supporter, no less!) Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss who are streets away from me in terms of social and economic policy. And for the very same reasons you articulate: humanity in America finds itself in a fight for its very life! It is interesting reading your call to self-described liberal women to rethink their voting habits. As I say, I am thinking along those lines myself - as a conservative. Perhaps I am being naive in thinking traditionally left and traditionally right can form alliances in a way unthinkable a few short years ago. Perhaps once our new alliances have brought us back from the brink, we will all fall apart bickering. I don't know. But my heart warms at perceiving the humanity and the humanitarianism in your position and your appeal as well as your humble willingness to rethink positions and call others to do so.
I myself have rethought my positions on a number of topics, to the point where, depending on who the Republican presidential candidate is, I may finding myself voting Democrat for the first time in my life. Robert Kennedy Jr has demonstrated a lifetime of integrity fighting what he calls crony capitalism. I commend this glimpse into his work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1yUOGGC_I8
And even Mr Trump, for whom I voted, fell to covid fear-nonsense which weakened him terribly, quite apart from his martyrdom by the powers that be. Kennedy did not, and has opened the eyes of many women like myself who never ever thought to question their pediatricians when our children were small. Now as I contemplate grandchildren, I am profoundly grateful that my own daughter is better informed.
On abortion - dear Jenny - I propose to you that it is not about bodily autonomy for women, but about recognizing that a second, tiny, helpless, defenseless body is involved in the abortion decision. I also humbly suggest that the freedoms you thought you were enjoying in the 60s and 70s were illusory freedoms that went against the one recipe that works, because it goes with the grain of our humanity: God's recipe, in the Bible, for human thriving. It involves voluntary self-limitation and keeping sex for marriage. This truly is what "emancipates" women, when done per the biblical injunction to men to love their wives as Christ loved the church - exclusively, with voluntary self-sacrifice and noble love.
And the Washington State Senator who put put out a press release extolling the bill that critics say will allow the state to take away children whose parents refuse to allow them to “transition" ran with the headline "Legislation to protect trans youth seeking lifesaving care passes the House". Protect, he says. Give me a break.
Couldn't agree more. The New Loony Left often uses Orwellian language twisted and tweaked to absurd proportion. As a lifetime progressive, and "used to be Far Lefty" I am deeply saddened,... appalled actually.
It's amazing how much us crazy conservatives actually have in common with you crazy liberals. Great article and a breath of fresh air to read that we may disagree on some things but we have far bigger issues we must come together and tackle as unified Americans rather than tribal activists.
I am a lifelong Democrat. Opposed to climate change, pro-choice, pro-gay rights and absolutely opposed to puberty blockers and unnecessary surgery for children. In addition, men don’t belong in women’s sports, dressing rooms and prisons. Otherwise , transgendered people should have the same rights as me.
GenX grew up in the backwash of the 60’s “counter-culture”. They were the first generation where girls were *expected* to have sex with their boyfriends and girls started feeling ashamed that they were virgins when graduating high school.
Consequently, abortion is high on their list of concerns as most had abortions or had close friends who did. To them the concept of having autonomy over their sexual lives was lost. (i.e. Don’t have sex, don’t get pregnant) I think millennials likely have more diverse viewpoints on the issue.
Love this essay as usual. I think it is interesting to link abortion and trans ideology together for means of discussion in more ways than what was necessarily discussed here.
For me, I often stand back and scratch my head because I feel like we are still fighting to fix our grandmother’s problems regarding abortion- never celebrating victories and never evolving our thinking and therefore the national discussion. It remains political red meat.
Here’s why I scratch my head:
1) being a single mother is no longer stigmatized- quite the opposite actually.
2) multiple forms of birth control are widely and easily available
3) pregnancy tests are easily available next to the m&ms in every local pharmacy.
4) morning after pills can be an option
5) Abstinence or only being with serious partners is an option.
With all of these changes why can’t we also admit science has shown us that we can help babies in the womb to live full healthy beautiful lives younger and younger. I have to check but isn’t it possible to have a baby out of the womb as early as at 5 months? We have to evolve our thinking in this area too because we are being shown new things all the time.
Anyway- I actually don’t believe in abortion but that does not mean that I have been perfect. I have had the experience in my life unfortunately too. But I never feel deep down that it is “right”. I can separate those two things.
Even not believing in abortion I still think from a legislative standpoint, it should remain legal, but not past 3 months ( see all the above reasons we can and should start to move on). If only we could all meet in the center - a more balanced place where there is still freedom to choose, to make mistakes, to learn and be balanced in our beliefs.
Let’s not eat the political red meat that’s thrown from both sides so voraciously.
YES -- this is eminently sensible. I think the earliest live birth in which the child survived was like 23 weeks? Plus you can test for pregnancy very early now too from the comfort of your home. Time to bring those limits down. I think even 15 weeks is too long. Except for medical reasons.
Even killing adults is either ethical or unethical and legal or illegal depending on the circumstances. On a separate note, I think coordinated moral reasoning takes into account rules, ethical principles, and mercy. So, a so called compassion orientation still has to consider whether the focus is an adult or a child and whether their interests may be at odds. If they are at odds, then why, and what alternatives exist to remove the conflict of interest with resorting to bigger and more vocal winning out.
As an elderly woman (in years, but not in spirit), I had my finger poised to delete, debunk, and/or terminate your post. As it happens, it is the only solution to preventing the grotesque and permanent mutilation of children. The numbers are not there to override the young ones who have no experience with motherhood or the full actualization of womanhood, so it remains with the more mature to hold the line, bar the door, prevent the Trojan horse of transgenderism to be confused with feminism and liberty. Please continue to use your voice and platform to persuade those who listen that your position is the only rational one. This is my hill to die on.
"This is my hill to die on" -- same here. 💚
I have struggled with the morality of abortion for nearly three quarters of a century. We know that most fetuses are viable human beings after 20-25 weeks (and that keeps getting shorter due to advances in medical science). They are sentient beings even before that. Thus, at some point, abortion is taking a life - murder, if you will.
However, if a mother cannot love her baby, what kind of life is being taken? It is cruelly unfeeling to expect a mother to love a child born of rape. Further, while "thou shalt not kill" sounds absolute, it really isn't: we execute prisoners; we cheer the Ukrainians as they kill Russian soldiers.
My personal conclusion is that abortion is too fraught with emotion and too entangled with personal morality to be the subject of any law. This is for the mother (and the father, if involved) to decide. No matter how this is decided by the states or the federal government, there will always be exceptional circumstances that make the "legal choice" wrong for some mother / child.
I have no such qualms about banning the "transitioning" of youths. We KNOW that most children's minds are still developing throughout their teenage years. We KNOW that we don't know the long-term effects of puberty blockers, but the evidence so far signals potentially dire consequences. We KNOW that this is not really a moral issue, this is protecting children from themselves.
I truly rage when I hear some teacher or - worse - union boss say that teachers or guidance counselors or ... should help children make these decisions and hide them from their parents. As a matter of law, a parent is responsible for actions of their children (e.g., the recent arrest of a mother in VA whose child shot a teacher). How can I, as a parent, be responsible for my child's actions if someone else has changed that child in fundamental ways, and hid it from me?
If an adult wants to transition - fine. But until they have reached maturity, children need to be protected from themselves. In most states children must be 16 to drive, or 18/21 to drink. I would argue that transitioning should be delayed at least that long.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. I think the crux of the abortion issue hinges on time -- at some point, the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother to self-determination, (note: NOT her right to health or life), regardless of how it was conceived. I would put that time at 12 weeks at the very latest. Re surgical and medical "transition" I would say 25 is the youngest age that it should be allowed.
It drives me nuts when I see conservatives all lumped into an 'anti abortion' bucket. I'm 66, never voted for a Democrat for President, but have always supported a woman's right to choose, within boundaries. I like three months, but could live with longer. Where the majority of the country has a problem is for the crowd that (as Chris Rock says) advocates abortion until they start kindergarten. Also, a surprising number of Dems, and disproportionately higher among females than males, are pro life.
I agree with everything you said about women born in the 80s-90s. I wish I could figure out what happened back then to cause their current mind set. I have daughters of 36 and 43, and they were sparred, but their friends are pretty radical.
Anyway, today was good because both you and Sasha Stone published great columns. I'm so disgusted with our country's state of mind right now, I'm off Twitter, right/left corporate media, and in fact all of my SubStacks except you and Sasha.
Thank you.
I think what happened to Millennial women was a mixture of parenting style changes that made those kids far less tolerant of any kind of pushback and wider societal infantilisation of youth. Those of us not of that generation also remained too enamoured of our own "radical" past and passed on the idea to the younger ones that protesting was a sign of intelligence and virtue. And all our institutions became ideologically captured, which hugely incentivised people to be more and more intolerant to gain advancement in said institutions.
I think, too, the infantilisation angle has a specific line to be followed toward the criminalization of risk. When the risk of harm becomes "harm" the end result is law-abiding citizens that are extremely fragile. That fragility is openly expressed in the desire for authoritarianism.
I really like bluntness. I was very blunt in a comment I made elsewhere, and I upset both "sides." I've received an amazing amount of support from both men and women, 157 people so far in one day. It's clear to me most of us want compromise. For the sake of our children the middle needs to win. This is what I said: A 12-15 week limit would prevent the horror of aborting a fetus with a neurological system developed enough to feel pain. The fundamentalist extremists on both ends are never going to compromise and the great middle needs to get this done. If someone argues that some women don't know they're pregnant until too late, I tell them a year's supply of test strips costs about $24, based on using one per week. If males can be sent to the front lines, then women can use test strips.....I also added in another post there's no reason paternity can't be traced through genetic mapping, as is being used today in crime solving. Imagine requiring genetic tracing for anyone receiving taxpayer support for a baby, and males weighing the possibility of having wages garnished over a condomless one-night stand. Condom sales would skyrocket, unprotected sex and conceptions would drop, and we would also have the additional benefit of reducing STDs. I also realize there are some sociopathic men who would rape a woman just to force her to carry his DNA, and for this reason I will always support abortion up to 12 weeks. It's not a decision to be taken lightly, but life is full of difficult decisions. Some are making the decision to stick to their "no compromise" stance on abortion, but as Jenny points out, there will be consequences and children will be damaged.
Yes -- I absolutely support banning abortions after 12 weeks (max) unless the health or life of the mother is at stake. There is absolutely no defence of it if it is just because a woman wants to.
I believe it has been a huge mistake in our culture to focus on the condition (pregnancy) after the deed (unprotected sex) is done, or on the other side, to browbeat females about abstinence. I read a very interesting article many decades back about a paper a grad student wrote on marriage and birth back in colonial America. The student looked at marriage and delivery dates and found, even accounting for some early births, most of those couples had sex prior to marriage. She concluded that social pressure kept males and females committed once the deed was done. Once the BCP came on the scene, the entire focus has been on the female. Female biology (pregnancy) is discussed as almost a pathology, rather than the uncommitted and unprotected casual sex by both involved parties being the pathology. It's as if we believe social pressure won't work on males, but the grad study indicates otherwise. Back when our son entered adulthood, I remember telling him if he did choose to have sex, choose carefully and wisely and if he didn't use protection and ended up impregnating a woman, I expected him to convince her to marry and make a family. I believe he would do the right thing. I saw for the first time in my life a few months ago a billboard about sex and reproduction aimed at males. Better late than never. I have an abortion in my past and hope to see the numbers decreased.
I'm afraid this is noble but unrealistic. Roe v Wade already requires the doctor's certification that the "health or life of the mother" is at risk; but since "mental health/wellbeing" has been loosely defined to include emotional distress, it has led in many states to (effectively) abortion at any time for any reason. How else could there have been 63 millions abortions in the US since 1973?
100%. I was just saying yesterday that probably 75-80% of Americans agree on abortion limits and gun laws and gender trans laws, but the politicians don’t even pretend to listen to the people. Truth from DC or media is a dead concept. The Dems have utterly lost their minds.
I, as part of the great middle, love this reply!
In a sane country (i.e. America in the 90's), I'd probably be a democrat. But in today's insane political climate, I'm a hard-right Trump supporter.
Phillip, I’m with you. Jenny, you hit it out of the park with this essay.
Thank you Ann!!
I went the other way. Voted Republican for 40 years and now will likely not come near them again.
How come? Abortion?
Abortion is the latest in their zest to control people's lives. Partly it is because as I get older I feel more compassion for people caught in poverty. Less of my former feeling that they ought to just get their act together. I also began to wonder some 10 years ago as to exactly what the Republicans had accomplished since Gingrich started his war on commonsense. And I couldn't think of anything worthwhile they have accomplished. They seem to be the party of culture wars and keeping the wealthy wealthy and they aided and abetted (and still do) Trump whom I absolutely despise. They have completely devolved into authoritarian culture warriors with no good ideas on actually running the country. So, that is why.
Respectfully, I don't agree with most of that. We on the right just want to live our lives and be left alone, and the Left is imposing transgender ideology on children and propagating the lunacy of BLM into EVERYTHING in culture. I had to pledge to support anti-racism (i.e. upholding different standards for each different race) as a requirement to join my company (Fortune 500)
As for what the GOP has accomplished, you're not wrong. The main thing they've done is resisted the democrats from putting far-left activists on the courts, trying to enforce immigration laws, and passing laws to reduce the regulatory burden on free enterprise.
I don't disagree that the GOP is fairly useless, but that's because its politicians are grossly out of sync with its voters
It is absolutely insane that you had to make an ideological pledge in order to work. That is just chilling. I know this happens all the time but it never stops being shocking.
Making an ideological pledge to get a job is almost as insane as forcing people to inject experimental chemical/ medical agents into their bodies to keep their jobs. But at tkeast signing a pledge doesn’t carry the possibility of lifelong physical harm. Our gov’t. and our large institutions are absolute control freaks. And it seems the younger Americans are eating it up.
I don't agree with you but I do find this perspective very interesting. Thank you for sharing it!
I prefer a softer approach than the usual polarizing approach to abortion. I have been very impressed with a pregnancy center in my area (representative of many others, I suspect) which simply helps women in difficult pregnancies with everything from diapers and baby clothes to nurturing and encouragement. The Christian women who run the place really care about both mother and baby (unlike far too many zealots who either focus solely on the mother and don't care much if at all about the baby or who focus solely on the baby and don't care much if at all about the mother). A pregnancy involves both.
I used to say that politically I was a centrist, I can no longer support the left. They have veered so far to left that I can't even see them anymore
Agree completely. The Left I grew up with was concerned about US treatment of our indigenous and other nations' peoples, human rights, anti imperialism, anti-war, truly life and death issues. Sorry pronouns didn't seem to be up at the top of the list..... It fought for equality of all races, all genders. Sure we had our colorful characters prone to egotism, but we were serious about making change. The new crowd I often find as little more than over-indulged brats, with victim-hood mentality flowing from every pore. Racist, sexist, hateful overfed under-educated loudmouths . I can't believe I actually agree with some of the Right Winger's descriptions, but I DO Find the terms "virtue signalling" and "social justice warrior" to be quite appropriate.
Beautiful and thoughtful as usual Jenny. Always feel a bit of sanity has arrived to lift my spirits when I see you have authored something new for us. Patrick :-)
Thank you Patrick!
How did we get to such a polarized place, with voters asked to choose between one party that seems committed to an extreme restriction on reproductive rights and another party that seems committed to an extreme position on gender? Like you, Jenny, if forced to choose, I would very reluctantly take the Republican option, accepting the restriction of women's reproductive rights in order to protect children against premature medicalization of gender dysphoria, and women against unwelcome elimination of protected sex-specific spaces. But my god, this is such an unnecessary choice for voters to have to make.
There is a huge opportunity, it seems to me, for either major U.S. political party to win a large share of the electorate by backing away from their current extreme. While we will debate forever these issues, there is a common ground that I think a large majority would find acceptable. On abortion, this likely would be a European-style law that begins to place restrictions no sooner than 12-15 weeks. On trans athletes, this likely would allow/encourage young boys and girls to participate in co-ed, gender-neutral sports up to something like 10-12 years old, at which point separate categories for biological females would be enforced, as necessary, to promote fair competition (recognizing the profound categorical differences in terms of size, speed, and strength between the sexes post-puberty.) On the treatment of individuals with gender dysphoria, strict rules against medicalization among minors while also promoting a culture that recognizes and respects the duality of a world in which cultural/psychological gender is fluid and multidimensional, and biological sex is recognized as the natural binary it is. I so often hear people in debates acknowledge that sex and gender are two separate concepts, only to then make one concept subservient to the other—so dumbfounding this is to those of us in Gen X who were raised "free to be you and me".
I completely agree, except that I disagree that "gender is fluid". I have looked over 7th grade textbooks that say that gender is a spectrum, and they say that if you are not stereotypically male or female, you might be elsewhere on the spectrum. The example given was males who cry at movies. I liked better what we all learned in the nineties, that the differences within the groups was greater then the difference between the groups. A woman can be and do whatever she wishes. As can a man. Confusing that with "gender fluidity" brings the gender stereotypes that everyone fought so hard to overcome back and more powerful then ever.
We're on the same page, Lynn. And I think you're right that in today's lingo, "gender fluidity" suggests to many the opposite of the liberated, de-stereotyped notion that I/we have in mind. That people today can't agree on what any of these words mean seems to be a big part of the problem and a big part of the genius of Kellie-Jay Keen. She speaks in plain English: "woman = adult human female."
I think this set of comments together hits the nail right on the head. It’s so sad that “don’t bully the kid who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes” morphed into “let’s tell the kid he really is a she (or vice versa) and give him (or her) hormones/surgery.” What the heck happened to get us here?
A combo of very toxic educational policies and a big pharma monopoly that sees endless profits from trans-ing kids (ie gaining customers for a lifetime.)
I fear I think the opposite might be happening -- that people might be pushed into those extremes, not away from them. I hope you are right and I am wrong though!
I felt so sad this morning seeing that DeSantis signed the new Florida law. It would have been the perfect opportunity to stand in the middle.
Definitely. I’m so disappointed. If he had stood in the middle, as with the 15 week ban that has been previously in place in Florida , I really think he could have become president. I’ve lost hope for that now.
So we have to allow the murder of children to be allowed to be able to win an election? We do know most countries do a six week ban on abortion.
If it was just up to me, a ban after 6 weeks , or many 8 weeks at the most, would be in place nationwide with exceptions for a few rare medical emergencies. That being said, after what happened with the midterm elections , I am just really afraid that we aren’t going to be able to get Biden out of the White House if the republican presidential candidate doesn’t go a little more moderate on this issue. Ultimately all I want is for effective protection of every life possible. But, maybe my take on the whole thing is wrong. Maybe DeSantis did the right thing. I sure hope so.
I really, really, REALLY hate that you might be right about the choice between abortion rights and protecting kids from medical transition.
But as long as Trump is the defacto head of the GOP, voting Republican is out of the question at the national level. He makes it a choice between democracy itself.
In what way? What did Trump do that threatens democracy? Please compare to what Biden has and is currently doing? I just don’t understand this. I don’t want him to run but believing this (he’s a threat to democracy) is like believing the MSM, liars all.
Both are true. Life is complex like that. There are no 100% good guys and 100% bad guys. The MSM lies but not all the time. Same with other media.
Trump thinks he’s bigger than the Constitution. No one is bigger than the Constitution.
Totally disagree. Sorry, not sorry.
Trump was more attentive to the constitution than any other recent President. I was surprised when he didn’t send in the NG to quell the BLM riots, but because those state governors refused, he held back. Unlike Obama and Biden, when the courts denied his actions, he obeyed their rulings.
And even though he believes the 2020 election was stolen, he followed every *constitutional* procedure to attempt to have the results overturned. And didn’t “not leave office” like all the Trump-haters where predicting. In fact, all the complaints about how he would screw up America have ACTUALLY been done by Biden. (A blatant example of Confession Thru Projection). Including not leaving office when he’s incapable of doing the job.
Trump is a narcissistic self-promoting womanizer. NGL, The DS learned how to play him and he made *lots* of mistakes on his own. But he was *still* the best POTUS since JFK.
Trump is a boor and a bullshitter. He writes mean tweets. But when he was in charge, we had the strongest economy in decades, low gasoline prices, oil independence, and a real and largely successful effort to control the border. I don't care how orange he is or what a blowhard he is, life was better when he was president. The moment Biden took over, he intentionally destroyed everything Trump had accomplished, bringing about the disaster we have now. I wouldn't want to hang out with Trump, but he was the best president we've had in a long, long time.
In the end what kept Trump from overturning the election were Pence and a few other Republicans and White House lawyers who refused to go along with the more unconstitutional things his crazier advisors told him he could do, and the military. You think he wouldn't have happily remained in power by claiming a mandate from the will of the people?
If he gets back into office, the risk of a major unconstitutional move will be much greater.
Slightly off topic but your comment is interesting to me because I feel the exact same way, about Joe Biden. In fact, his elevation to the nomination was such a violation against everything I thought the Dem party stood for, I will never vote for a Democrat again. There's a weird symmetry there that makes me think we are all being played for fools by the powers that be selecting truly terrible candidates and forcing us to chose between them.
Yeah, I don't think we can trust either party with control of all 3 branches, unless DeSantis can get the GOP nomination.
My dear Jenny, this makes fascinating reading. As a conservative, I am astonished to find myself following and even financially supporting the likes of Glenn Greenwald (a Bernie supporter, no less!) Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss who are streets away from me in terms of social and economic policy. And for the very same reasons you articulate: humanity in America finds itself in a fight for its very life! It is interesting reading your call to self-described liberal women to rethink their voting habits. As I say, I am thinking along those lines myself - as a conservative. Perhaps I am being naive in thinking traditionally left and traditionally right can form alliances in a way unthinkable a few short years ago. Perhaps once our new alliances have brought us back from the brink, we will all fall apart bickering. I don't know. But my heart warms at perceiving the humanity and the humanitarianism in your position and your appeal as well as your humble willingness to rethink positions and call others to do so.
I myself have rethought my positions on a number of topics, to the point where, depending on who the Republican presidential candidate is, I may finding myself voting Democrat for the first time in my life. Robert Kennedy Jr has demonstrated a lifetime of integrity fighting what he calls crony capitalism. I commend this glimpse into his work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1yUOGGC_I8
And even Mr Trump, for whom I voted, fell to covid fear-nonsense which weakened him terribly, quite apart from his martyrdom by the powers that be. Kennedy did not, and has opened the eyes of many women like myself who never ever thought to question their pediatricians when our children were small. Now as I contemplate grandchildren, I am profoundly grateful that my own daughter is better informed.
On abortion - dear Jenny - I propose to you that it is not about bodily autonomy for women, but about recognizing that a second, tiny, helpless, defenseless body is involved in the abortion decision. I also humbly suggest that the freedoms you thought you were enjoying in the 60s and 70s were illusory freedoms that went against the one recipe that works, because it goes with the grain of our humanity: God's recipe, in the Bible, for human thriving. It involves voluntary self-limitation and keeping sex for marriage. This truly is what "emancipates" women, when done per the biblical injunction to men to love their wives as Christ loved the church - exclusively, with voluntary self-sacrifice and noble love.
Thanks for your writing - always interesting.
And the Washington State Senator who put put out a press release extolling the bill that critics say will allow the state to take away children whose parents refuse to allow them to “transition" ran with the headline "Legislation to protect trans youth seeking lifesaving care passes the House". Protect, he says. Give me a break.
Couldn't agree more. The New Loony Left often uses Orwellian language twisted and tweaked to absurd proportion. As a lifetime progressive, and "used to be Far Lefty" I am deeply saddened,... appalled actually.
Same. They are beyond the pale. They are a danger to us all.
It's amazing how much us crazy conservatives actually have in common with you crazy liberals. Great article and a breath of fresh air to read that we may disagree on some things but we have far bigger issues we must come together and tackle as unified Americans rather than tribal activists.
Exactly! Divide & conquer is the oldest trick in the book. 🙏🙏
I am a lifelong Democrat. Opposed to climate change, pro-choice, pro-gay rights and absolutely opposed to puberty blockers and unnecessary surgery for children. In addition, men don’t belong in women’s sports, dressing rooms and prisons. Otherwise , transgendered people should have the same rights as me.
Same rights but also the same responsibilities. Also it’s kind of nuts that your very sane position would be considered extreme by many.
GenX grew up in the backwash of the 60’s “counter-culture”. They were the first generation where girls were *expected* to have sex with their boyfriends and girls started feeling ashamed that they were virgins when graduating high school.
Consequently, abortion is high on their list of concerns as most had abortions or had close friends who did. To them the concept of having autonomy over their sexual lives was lost. (i.e. Don’t have sex, don’t get pregnant) I think millennials likely have more diverse viewpoints on the issue.
Yes!! We absolutely did. I'm surprised to hear you say that you think Millennials have more diverse viewpoints -- I hope you are right!
Love this essay as usual. I think it is interesting to link abortion and trans ideology together for means of discussion in more ways than what was necessarily discussed here.
For me, I often stand back and scratch my head because I feel like we are still fighting to fix our grandmother’s problems regarding abortion- never celebrating victories and never evolving our thinking and therefore the national discussion. It remains political red meat.
Here’s why I scratch my head:
1) being a single mother is no longer stigmatized- quite the opposite actually.
2) multiple forms of birth control are widely and easily available
3) pregnancy tests are easily available next to the m&ms in every local pharmacy.
4) morning after pills can be an option
5) Abstinence or only being with serious partners is an option.
With all of these changes why can’t we also admit science has shown us that we can help babies in the womb to live full healthy beautiful lives younger and younger. I have to check but isn’t it possible to have a baby out of the womb as early as at 5 months? We have to evolve our thinking in this area too because we are being shown new things all the time.
Anyway- I actually don’t believe in abortion but that does not mean that I have been perfect. I have had the experience in my life unfortunately too. But I never feel deep down that it is “right”. I can separate those two things.
Even not believing in abortion I still think from a legislative standpoint, it should remain legal, but not past 3 months ( see all the above reasons we can and should start to move on). If only we could all meet in the center - a more balanced place where there is still freedom to choose, to make mistakes, to learn and be balanced in our beliefs.
Let’s not eat the political red meat that’s thrown from both sides so voraciously.
YES -- this is eminently sensible. I think the earliest live birth in which the child survived was like 23 weeks? Plus you can test for pregnancy very early now too from the comfort of your home. Time to bring those limits down. I think even 15 weeks is too long. Except for medical reasons.
Even killing adults is either ethical or unethical and legal or illegal depending on the circumstances. On a separate note, I think coordinated moral reasoning takes into account rules, ethical principles, and mercy. So, a so called compassion orientation still has to consider whether the focus is an adult or a child and whether their interests may be at odds. If they are at odds, then why, and what alternatives exist to remove the conflict of interest with resorting to bigger and more vocal winning out.
.. without resorting to
Yes - when did we lose the idea that sexual intimacy is important and not something to do in throwaway fashion?