This business about "Abortion"

[Maxmars]

When the right to choose is taken away, ....

There are no winners here.

I think we must directly acknowledge that abortions are NOT something that is "going away."  It matters nothing that some people object.  People object to lots of things... this is just one more.  People will resort to abortion to protect whatever it is they personally value. 

In antiquity reproduction was unpredictable... so much so that it was a social event when anyone in your community became pregnant.  Most commonly, it was a celebration.  Today, it is often more like a funeral... is it no wonder it is feared?

There are many for whom childbirth is celebrated... it was looked for, desired.  But the entirely overwhelming majority in modern times are NOT inclined that way... it ranges from it being an utter catastrophe, to a frightful prospect... and in most of these cases the feeling is justifiable.

Of course they want a choice.  And now they even 'demand' a choice.  Being such a personal thing, the reasons "why" are not scrutinized, nor considered anyone's place to question. But the moralists of the world want to interject their judgements into it.

But truthfully, the choice is not going away. 

I mean it most 'clinically' when I say: For millennia humans did not need "doctors" or "guarantees" to abort pregnancies... what then, is the issue now? 

Is it that people demand a "medically sanctioned expert" as a right?  Who is it that demands that? 

I'm not hearing the cases made for abortion freedom in the sense that "a doctor MUST do it." 

That whole 'safe and medically sound' angle only comes up in reference to the emotional ploy of invoking horrors of abortions gone wrong in the past. 

But if abortion had routinely killed the patient, no one would have ever done it willfully. Thus, I think the idea of "not having a choice" is a boogey man argument. A misdirection.

The argument, as it should properly be framed, is that of all medical procedures, abortion should not be excluded. 
Even the medical community traditionally recognized that it can be a necessary means to protect the life of a patient.

As a 'procedure' of medical skill, it should be properly between the physician and the patient - NOT the 'community' at large.  

Now I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't affirm, once and for all, that as "it is a choice," or that the choice "needs" to be controlled.

This discussion of "law" should be resolved only after the community agrees ... not to have politicians "make" the agreement "for us."  Down that path leads madness.  Many of us can see how it has.... but then there's so much money in activism, fame... glory.... - it's almost as if they were politicians themselves... ahem.

---

This whole debate over abortions is a fabrication by the media. The sad fact is that if the public funding was removed and the people wanting an abortion just talked to their primary care provider to receive one, then most people wouldn't give two cents about it. What gets most people up in arms about it is the tax-payer funding of this when it should be a healthcare/insurance issue and not a tax-payer issue. 

As to the point of it being right or not, well that's an issue with the patient and their doctor.

Ah the media.  Perennially abused by thespians of the order of Narcissus.  And also, their recently favored stepchildren, activists.

They keep this "debate" alive by obscuring the realities with theater.  Using emotional barbs, ugly characterizations, and twisted narratives, they engender a never-ending babbling noise.  They even "manufacture" evidence... theatrically.

Government is only involved because politicians use this discussion as a means to signal virtue. 
(Ever notice most all politicians seem to signal virtue all the time?  It's theater.)

If abortion is a medical service, it must be subject to the same "oversight" (hmph!) as all the others.  In a way, this still seems to come back to doctors.  There has to be a reason to single out a medical service for special regulation ... If it exists, the reason must be explicitly justified before becoming a "law."  How would we do that, I wonder?