Blue State

Abortion Policy: Can We Ever Solve This Problem?

Look, I’m a straight male with no kids, so to read my opinions on abortion might not be something you thought you’d do on your regularly scheduled weekday. But like most people with a mind capable of independent thought, I have my feels and things on abortion.

For starters, it really ticks me off that even the way in which we frame the sides of the debate is wholly inaccurate. Proof: The people who are pro-choice do not approve at all of the pro-life people. Hey! I thought you were pro-choice!? Being for life is a choice, is it not? So, already we have a lie, some muddy waters, before we even gallop out the gate. The pro-choice side is quite literally pro-abortion, just afraid to say so because the term “baby killers” would definitely stick and stay.

What about that term, “baby killers”? Is it fitting? Is a fetus a baby? Are the cells a baby? Biology dictates that these are living cells, so that it’s life, even from the microsecond of conception, is objectively true. The term “baby” is another area where things get muddied up. You can say whatever you want. After all, a toddler is not an adult; though it is a living organism with the potential to become one. So, at some point, we have to be honest and look at what these cells become, not what they are at the time of their potential destruction. When looking at it through that lens, we’re looking to shit and sleigh-ride in it. Because what if the argument is that “person-hood” isn’t viable until which point a baby can speak, or write its name, or pass some other arbitrary measure? Again with biology, I’m sorry, but we are dealing with life here. Which begs an unrelated question: Are there any vegan pro-choicers? And if so, aren’t they incredibly immoral and evil people?

I swear I don’t want to drag this out too far, but I feel we must establish some baselines if we’re to speak honestly about this topic. So far, I think it’s pretty clear we have established that the two sides are pro-life and pro-abortion, and that whatever’s in the womb is actual life. Don’t have to take my word for it; look up what “life” is.

In the same vein, we can say objectively that a fetus/baby/clump-o-cells is not a parasite. Why is it not a parasite? Not to trigger the pro-abortion crowd, but if it were a parasite, we would have classified it as such. I mean, we’ve only had since the dawn of mankind to do so. The same species, symbiosis; pregnancy is not parasitism, sorry to break it to you.

Rough segue into policy: Nobody needs the refresher course here on abortion availability or legality. It’s nasty business, even if you are pro-abortion. The pro-lifers insist no abortions should be granted, and the pro-abortion lot preach that a woman has every right to do away with whatever’s growing inside of her. I fall somewhere in the middle. And so I’ll propose my policy idea:

Up until the third trimester of pregnancy, any woman seeking an abortion can have one…if they pay the fee of $50,000. That’s what they should cost, at a minimum. Oh, I know, I can hear the pro-abortion people screaming in my ear already: “But the idea is to have free and easy access to abortion, asshole! It’s a human right!” Okay. Being a human is a human right also, is it not? And humans have a right not to be snuffed out arbitrarily because someone decided, after the fact and after conception, that being a mother wasn’t a good lifestyle choice.

not a real feminist

Well, at least the ten day old baby has a cape. Sort of. #Superhero

Let’s not kid ourselves. Having affordable or free and easy access to abortions is just another form of birth control, and thus we find women have abortion—kids sometimes have abortions!—just as a birth control measure. No lives being threatened. Just an inconvenience that’s snuffed out, to spite the baby, on the whims of the women carrying the life.

What $50,000 does, in my opinion, is two things:

1: It still gives access to legal abortions, nationwide, so no one can say—or at least be honest in saying—that women’s rights to their own bodies are being trampled upon. All of the pro-abortion people get exactly what they want: Nationwide legal abortion, no President Trump reversal of Roe V Wadeparanoia – just abortion when you want an abortion, given that it’s not late-term (i.e. a viable fetus).

2: It finally preaches some responsibility! Look, in the western nations of the globe, we have infantalized women (ironically enough for this discussion) to the point where they are never, ever, in a million years, to blame for anything that ever happens to them, even if they are the direct cause of it happening. This has got to stop! Unless we are talking about cases of rape, for which exceptions to this theoretical policy could be made, the woman consents to having sexual intercourse with the man. And please shut up with this “two to tango” nonsense. A) Women have far more birth control options than men! Men have condoms, or getting snipped! Women have pills, patches, shots, inserts, implants, and the list goes on. “But the point is that there isn’t free and easy access to these measures, asshole!” That’s a lie in most cases, for starters. For the price of a cup of coffee per day, you can afford the best birth control on the market. Also, not having sex is always an option! Imagine that. B) The man is considered in society to be nothing more than the deliverer of the seed. Once the seed is planted, the father has zero say on whether the woman gets an abortion or not. He has to live with the decision and is powerless to stop it. Assuming the child is born, the seed planter is ironically on the hook for the next 18 years in terms of support. So let’s not act like it’s a 50/50 shake here. Women have orders of magnitude more rights and responsibilities when it comes to bearing and raising children, so the fact that they should be acting more responsible to avoid unwanted pregnancies is axiomatic.  Plus women are the only ones capable of having children. You’d have to be stupid to believe otherwise.

abortion money

Many women cannot afford abortion, even more cannot afford to raise a child

Sure, not every woman could afford such a price tag. But that is quite literally the point. If you’re a sexually active young woman in the west and have the knowledge that, if any time you slip up and become pregnant you can simply go and terminate it for a few bucks, doesn’t that embolden you to become more risque in your behavior? Of course it does. Every statistic on the amount of sex girls are having this millennium bears that out. Though what if you know that getting pregnant wasn’t something you could easily handle, and that pregnancy meant being a mother and not a subsidized trip to Planned Parenthood? That would actually require women to exercise more personal responsibility and would require better decision making on their part. Oh, I know, that’s just out-and-out the most horribly oppressive thing imaginable. I mean, in what sort of sick patriarchal word do we live where we’d except half the population to act a little more responsibly just because they’re the half able to bear children?

The nerve of us! More like: The irony of it all! Feminists gripe and moan and complain that women have every bit the agency and intelligence of men. Okay. I’ll buy that for a dollar. Now, prove it! Make abortions a luxury item in the west. That’s not asking a lot! Make abortions something that not everyone can afford. You know what might happen then? Maybe, just maybe, irresponsible women will realize they cannot afford the $50,000 price tag, but can actually afford the $30 insert or the $12 pill. Yeah, sure, a horrible patriarchal world that creates, where all these women are victims of oppressive male domination.

Though let’s be clear here. No matter where you fall on the abortion topic, the fact is that it’s not about men, and it’s not even about women; It’s about the babies.

Scroll to top