"You're an absolute paranoid and deranged lunatic."
"Scrolling through your timeline makes me even more in favour of abortion." [When I asked this person to clarify whether they were suggesting that, because I had views that didn't match their own, I shouldn't have been born, they agreed they were.]
"You're an absolute piece of sh!t devoid of compassion and decency."
Just a small selection of some of the charming and articulate rebuttals I have attracted recently for sharing my views on the Wild West Web. And, of course, I get it. Drive-by trolls chucking a toy from the pram is par the course if you decide to have an opinion and share it publicly. Obviously, the bottom line is that it's encouraging. They have no counter-argument, so they just hiss and spit insults instead, before recoiling back into their lair.
This doesn't depress me (especially since I discovered you can silence them for good simply by professing your love). What does, however, is when this attitude infects people who really should know better (and do, in other areas). The world is currently being divided straight down the middle by perhaps the most divisive social issue in the world, abortion, and so many otherwise intelligent and astute people are playing right into elite "divide and conquer" hands by demonising those who have a different view, characterising them in the worst and most inhuman ways possible, and then refusing to have anything to do with them again.
I saw someone post on Facebook that a close friend of 20 years standing had publicly denounced her and refused to ever speak to her again, because they disagree on the issue of abortion (the denouncer is pro, the denounced is anti).
At the current time, the situation seems to be this: people who are against abortion are characterised by those who are for it, as evil oppressive rape enablers, who want to force women into pregnancy because they are fundamentalist Christian right-wing-extremists who would not look out of place in the Republic of Gilead.
In fact, a friend of mine asked the internet, where do babies come from? And the internet did not disappoint, by providing the following reply...
"You see honey, when an oppressor white NAZI MAN rapes a trans Jewslim disabled womxn of colour, 9 months later ze/zir is forced by the Republicans and Christian hetero-breeders at wrong-pronoun-point to give birth to another useless eater that will buy AR-15s, refuse LiFe-SaViNg vaccines, join the truckers convoy and pollute the planet under orders from Putin. And that's where babies come from."
Obviously that's satire, but like all good satire, it works because it's not a million miles away from the truth. That's close to what a lot of pro-choice people think about those on the other side of the argument.
Meanwhile, those who are for abortion, are characterised by those who are not, as degenerate murderous whores who want to kill their children with impunity so they can get back to their lives of reckless hedonism and promiscuity.
Whatever your beliefs on abortion, do you recognise yourself in either of the above descriptions? No? Well, consider this - nor does anyone else!
If we want to make any headway at all on this issue, and not cause even more irresolvable divides in our already dangerously divided culture, then we have to make some attempt to understand the alternative view. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it", as someone clever who might have been Aristotle (the internet is unsure) said.
All too often what happens in "debate" is that one totally closed-minded person aggressively tries to ram their allegedly superior view down the throat of a person who disagrees with them, whilst the person who disagrees does exactly the same in return, with the "debate" becoming more and more heated until it concludes with the inevitable insult-throwing and falling out (hence why I stay away from internet "debates" as much as possible).
Neither party is engaging with the desire to genuinely understand the other, or to consider an alternative view. They are only engaging to win. It's all ego, and no empathy.
I have an opinion on abortion (who doesn't?), but I understand what a highly personal and emotive issue it is, so I try to understand both sides without demonising anyone. What's key to recognise is that, whatever views a person has, they sincerely believe these are the right and moral views. No matter how much their opponent tells them what an evil monster they are, that's not where their views are coming from - they sincerely believe their beliefs are morally good. So arguing from the moral perspective, which is what almost always happens (some iteration of "you're subhuman evil scum"), isn't going to work at any level.
Whether your goal is to change someone's mind, or to seek understanding of an alternative view (and if it isn't either of these things, then why are you debating?), demonising, dehumanising, and denouncing isn't going to work.
I am not a fan of the cheesy and asinine phrase, "I respect a woman's right to choose", as this strikes me an intellectually dishonest and cowardly soundbite, designed to make a person look cool and liberal, whilst in fact abdicating them from having a real view. So, I prefer "I respect a person's right to have an opinion that isn't mine". That's saying: I have an opinion. I'm not a coward who's been browbeaten into silence by the bratty thought-police. But I don't expect that everyone is going to agree with me, and I respect that.
So, I will tell you my thoughts on abortion, and you can disagree. That doesn't mean I'm evil, or you are, or that we have to fall out.
In the first instance, I am well aware of the history of abortion, and that the legalising of it certainly was not about "liberating women", but was about hard racism and eugenics, and (to quote founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger) "cleansing the race". Abortion remains far more common amongst minority groups, than white people, and is often touted as a "solution" to conditions like Down's syndrome. You can read more about the history of legalising abortion, and the people who pushed for this (such as close friends of Hitler and those with direct ties to the Ku Klux Klan) here. So, of course, from the outset, that equips me with the knowledge that abortion is something the ruling classes want the masses to engage in (and as radical depopulationists, of course they do), whilst pretending they support it "to liberate women" in order to make it palatable to the general public. (So why have they now banned it if they support it?! Please see here - in short because most have been sterilised by the vax and so it's not needed on such a large scale.)
Depopulation isn't the only reason the elite have historically bankrolled and promoted abortion, though - it's also because the market for aborted baby parts is exceptionally lucrative. Many beauty products, foods, and pharmaceutical products (including some vaccines) use cell lines derived from aborted foetuses in their production. The babies selected for these products are intentionally delivered by water-bag abortion, meaning they are born alive, since cells from a dead body are useless.
So, those two reasons - depopulation and baby parts - are why the elite have made abortion legally available, and, in many cases, paid for it. It's certainly nothing to do with women's "rights", and that leads me on to my next point. I don't really understand how anyone can claim the inalienable "right" to do something that involves the time, skill, and commitment of so many other people. For a woman to claim her "right" to abortion, multiple different people have to invest huge amounts of time and money in training as abortionists and running abortion clinics. No woman who utilises state abortion services, performs her own abortion (whilst conversely, a couple do conceive their own child, with zero involvement from anyone else), so I can't see a moral argument for abortion as a "right" without insisting it is also your "right" to force others to train as, and practice as, abortionists.
What if they all decide they don't want to do that job any more? People employed in that field are frequently mired in conflict and many quit prematurely. What if the demand for abortion far outstrips the supply of doctors willing to perform it (something that is actually happening in the UK now)? How will the abortion "right" be claimed then?
If you are pro-choice, be honest: would you be prepared to work as an abortionist? Is that a line of work you would willingly choose to pursue? If not, you must ask yourself some hard questions about why you believe it is your "right" to expect other people to pursue it. If you agree that's not your right, and that nobody is morally obliged to practice as an abortionist if they do not wish to do so, then that reveals the truth that abortion is not a "right".
(Nor, indeed, is any service provided by another a "right", and yes, that includes healthcare. Is it "my right" to have heart surgery or whatever? No. Because it is not my right to force anyone to practice as a heart surgeon. If someone chooses to be a heart surgeon, and I choose to utilise their services, that's a different thing. That's a free voluntary exchange - not a "right".)
The whole "abortion as right" rhetoric is totally incoherent, because on the one hand, people are saying, "the state needs to stay out of the bedroom", and then on the other, "but the state also needs to facilitate and pay for the consequences of what happens in the bedroom". You can't have it both ways. Legal abortion involves the state - by definition.
The other issue I have with the promotion of abortion as a necessary tool to liberate women is that it is so disempowering and dishonest. It suggests that, without abortion, all women would be chained to the kitchen sink with 12 children running around their feet - and yet, the reality is that the vast majority of women (80%) never have an abortion in their lifetimes, and the birth rate in the UK (where abortion has been legally available since 1967, and is in almost all cases paid for by the state), the birth rate is just 1.65 children per woman.
So clearly, for most women, controlling their fertility without abortion is eminently possible. When you send the completely disingenuous and devious message to women that they NEED abortion to control their fertility (because you are a ruthless evil elite who wants to diminish the population and sell baby parts), you get a situation like we have in America now, where millions of people have had what look like complete nervous breakdowns, because they've been totally divorced from the reality about their bodies and don't know the first thing about how they work. If they'd never relied on the state to control their fertility in the first place, they wouldn't be in the position they are now (terrified, aghast, despairing, etc.), so always remember - whenever the state gives you a "right", then a) it's not a real right (those come from the majesty of nature, not the corrupt, slimy government), and b) the state can take it away again. So never, ever rely on anything the state provides for you, as an alternative to developing your own knowledge, autonomy, and personal empowerment. Because that's exactly what the state wants - you helpless, clueless, disempowered - and totally dependent on them.
In reality, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to go into a complete tailspin over the abortion restrictions, when there are a whole cornucopia of other options available to prevent pregnancy, including (as left-wing activists are now rediscovering) abstinence. If conception is something a person absolutely cannot cope with at any level (as no form of contraception is infallible), then that person is best served not being in a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex (at least, not until the female partner has passed menopause). Many people have made this choice historically ("spinsters" who preferred to pursue a career; monks and nuns who preferred the religious life, and many other groups), and lived perfectly happy and fulfilled lives. Many people in the present day are currently not in a sexual relationships and may go years without being in one, if they ever are again. They seem to manage perfectly fine, and I doubt they would get much sympathy if they started campaigning for their "inalienable right" to sex (I believe the group known as 'Incels' has tried this?).
I know that this perspective enrages some people, but these people are not accepting the immutable conditions of being an adult. Part and parcel of being a responsible adult is making hard choices, picking one thing over another, making sacrifices, and choosing what's really important to you and basing your life around that. You can't "have it all". No-one can, and having a sexual relationship is not a "right", for the same reason having an abortion isn't. Because it depends on another person's agency, and no other person is obliged to have a relationship with you - whether that's as a romantic partner, as your abortionist, or whatever.
Of course, abstinence isn't the only option. Contraception, when used properly, is generally very reliable (in the upper 90s, percent wise), and will work in the vast majority of cases. If you are prepared to use multiple methods - say, vasectomy, condom, and NFP - the chances of your becoming pregnant are as close to zero as is numerically possible.
But, they're not completely zero. Even sterilisations can fail (hence why my husband has a sister 23 years younger than him, born many years after his father had had a vasectomy and his parents were in their mid-forties.)
So if you REALLY CAN'T COPE with pregnancy under any circumstances, don't have sex - at least, not with a member of the opposite sex who hasn't gone through menopause. Be single, or consider same-sex relationships (some women choose lesbianism for reasons other than finding women more attractive than men, as some of my lesbian friends have told me).
And quite frankly, once society has collapsed and we're all living in underground tribal lairs aka Demolition Man, then relying on state services - most certainly including abortion clinics - isn't going to be an option, so better to take control, and personal responsibility, now. You're aware the state will make access to certain services dependent on vaccination status (as it has already done) - you don't think it could slap such conditions on access to abortion, too? Please don't be naïve. They can and they quite probably will. So adult up now and take responsibility for yourself, don't rely on the government to look after you.
Also, if you are a man who would expect a partner to have an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, then you need to get a vasectomy immediately (while you still can). Women, if your partner expects you to get an abortion if you become pregnant, but won't get a vasectomy, you need to terminate that relationship, not a pregnancy. Vasectomies are typically, and especially when compared to female sterilisation options, very safe and reliable. I have some friends who have been together since their early twenties and knew they never wanted children. So the man got a vasectomy, and now in their forties, they remain happily child-free. No abortions involved.
I also know practicing Catholics who have used Natural Family Planning (avoiding sex on fertile days) as the sole method of controlling their family size, and a couple who has been together 30 years (since their twenties) that have a grand total of.... one child.
The obvious conclusion here is that you don't need abortion to control your fertility. You just don't. That is a poisonous lie of the abortion and pharmaceutical industries, pushed by the ruling classes because it serves them so well.
Obviously, I know there's always the "but what about rape and incest" argument for abortion - well, in the first instance, these account for just 1% of all abortions so are very unrepresentative, but in the instances that rape happens, it's still not a good idea in a crumbling society to rely on the state to sort it out. What did societies do about rapists before legal abortion? I heard the argument, "in the case of rape, it would be better to kill the rapist, than the baby" (not advocating that necessarily, but it's an interesting point). Also the "but what about rape" argument is further dishonest as it strongly implies ALL women who conceive through rape MUST have an abortion - that it would be unthinkable to do anything else - when in fact women who conceive through rape don't always make that choice (and can you imagine how traumatic and awful for it must be for them for the fashionable press to constantly demonise and dehumanise their beloved children as "the seed of a monster" and so on?).
Then there are a small number of cases when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother (this isn't nearly as common as the usual suspects would have you believe, and, again, accounts for a tiny fraction of all abortions). Of course, in those circumstances, it would be far preferable that medical attention is readily available, and I would like to believe the state will always continue to make help unconditionally available in the unusual instances that progressing with a pregnancy would be fatal to the mother. But it's not something we can 100% rely on, just as we can't 100% rely on the fact that we won't get hit by a car when we cross the street, or that medical attention will arrive in time if we do (especially with the current huge ambulance delays). And even with the best help, some people will still prematurely die. It's life.
The reality of living a human life is that it's risky, and that we take calculated risks all the time. Most of the time those risks pay off, sometimes they don't. Having sex carries with it a small risk that a potentially fatal pregnancy may occur (just as giving birth carries a small risk of resulting in the woman's death). We can take steps to reduce that risk, but we can never mitigate it 100% completely. We can't live in a completely safe cocoon where our health and survival is guaranteed indefinitely. Life is inherently risky. Choose your risks. Make your choices. Live with them, as best you can.
That leads onto the, "but what about people who are in abusive relationships? They need access to abortion.". Well, those people are in a risky situation and they have a choice about whether to continue being in it. Is it an easy choice? No (few important choices are). But it's a choice. There is support available for people who want to leave abusive relationships. Many people do leave. So if they stay, that is a choice they are making. Is leaving completely safe? No. Nor is staying. Nor is any choice. So as I say, choose your risks. Make your choices, Live with the consequences, as best you can. (Maybe make different choices next time.)
To be clear, I am not unsympathetic or "judgemental" about people who have had abortions. In every case where I have known that to happen, it is in a situation where someone felt desperate and backed into a corner, and like they had no other option (some people regret their choice, some don't). I understand why people in desperate situations feel pressured to make that choice, and it's usually because they lack support, both in the form of their partner and own parents/family. When these people are offered genuine love and support and are assured they won't be abandoned alone with a baby, they often (not always, but often) make a different choice.
However, there are a small minority of people in favour of abortion who have views that I find profoundly sad and disturbing, and impossible to sympathise with. The journalist Caitlin Johnstone (who is a 47-year-old married mother of two) said this week:
"A woman gets to have sex with whoever she wants, whenever she wants, however she wants. That's how bodily autonomy works. If she gets pregnant and the fetus gets to live ten weeks as a result of that before she evicts it from her person, then that's ten more weeks of life than it otherwise would have gotten. You're welcome, fetus. Now time's up, out you go."
To speak about human life - her potential son or daughter - in such callous, sneering terms strikes me as indicative of some sort of severe spiritual sickness. This is a totally different - unrecognisably different - perspective to the far more common pro-choice view, that abortions are last-ditch choices made by desperate women in dreadful situations, but rather, Johnstone's perspective is actually endorsing the common pro-life view, that abortion is a result of promiscuous, immature, hedonistic women not taking responsibility for themselves or taking the realities of sex seriously. It's a shocking indictment of a generation of people mired in underdeveloped self-entitlement, trussed up - entirely unconvincingly - as "liberation".
It also has strong resonances of "spoiled toddler", as it is basically saying, nearly verbatim, "I get to do whatever I want whenever I want, nobody can stop me, WAAAAAH!".
No, love, you really don't. That's not how being an adult works. Being an adult involves personal responsibility, moral maturity, self-discipline and deferred gratification. Not mindlessly jumping into bed with whoever you want, taking no precautions, and then expecting the state and the tax payer to "evict a fetus" (what wonderful, liberational, pro-woman language that is, eh?). Grow up, for God's sake.
One thing about the abortion debate that really annoys me is how it is the ONLY area of life where we are frequently told self-discipline is not an option, and is in fact is oppressive and to be sneered upon.
In every other area of life, we recognise the importance of discipline and applaud it. If an overweight person has the discipline to diet and lose weight, we congratulate them. If an athlete has the discipline to train hard every day and reach the top of their field, we say well done. When people make sacrifices and hard choices to put themselves through school, study intensively, and pass exams, we think this is a great thing.
Yet where it comes to sex, pro-abortion extremists state that nobody should be expected to discipline themselves or control their impulses in any way, they should just do whatever, wherever, and to hell with the consequences. Sounds kind of Satanic to me (please note, abortion is protected as a religious rite by the Satanic Temple).
I absolutely realise not all pro-choice people think like that, but some evidently do, such as Ms. Johnstone above, and this is a profoundly disturbing - and completely unhelpful - point of view. It just seems to come from such an angry, snarling place (as someone who gets angrily snarled at a lot of the time, I recognise it...). I admire Ms. Johnstone's work in other areas and think she is a good writer - but I know I could never have a debate on abortion with her, without getting called some approximation of an evil right-wing oppressor Nazi religious extremist (and I'm not even a socialist, which should at least exclude the 'Nazi' part).
The concluding point is this: you can disagree with my views and I thoroughly respect your right to do so (I'm wholly with Voltaire on that one). But I don't respect the idea that I (or anyone) can be dehumanised as a "monster" by another because we disagree.
Be bigger than that. Be more human.