No True Abortion

 

The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is a device that can be used to pretend one's own side is pure as the driven snow: Was this particular Christian found out to be, for example, a terrible bigot? Why, land of Goshen! That person was clearly no real Christian! Christians love their fellow man! Thus, the rest of the group can stay happy that the menace was that not-Christian over there and he's not in the club, and the rest of them will just not act like him. In public anyway. It can also be used to deny the flaws in your absolutist argument. 

If all abortions are bad, but some abortions actually would be not-bad, then those abortions are no true abortions. We've seen this a couple times just now. The not-at-all connected to anyone you would have heard of counsel for the Alliance for Defending Freedom (an Orwellian-ass name for a group trying to take folks' rights away) just yesterday wanted to pretend that maybe there was a thing that terminated a pregnancy that wasn't an abortion. And also, an anti-abortion activist claimed that if a ten-year old got an abortion that saved her life, well, that wasn't an abortion at all, was it?

Well, yes it was. It was a medical procedure or medicinal application that terminated a pregnancy--that's an abortion. If you need to end a pregnancy to save a person's life, just say so! Why the backflips? Just admit some abortions are not whatever you think the "bad" ones are!

But it's about not being wrong. Anti-choicers are mad the 10-year-old who needed an abortion exists because it makes them out to be monsters--I mean, except for Jim Bopp, who definitely thinks that a ten-year-old has a pelvis big enough for a whole baby's head and would definitely understand and come to love the whole thing where her fertility might be wrecked but she has the baby of her rapist.  Jim Bopp is a lunatic, and his organization is extremely influential with Republicans, so you tell me who is wrong, here? Because in reality, the Ohio law made no exception for this child. The Ohio law was monstrous, and the anti-choice people just loved on it. It did what they wanted it to do. No abortions at all--good times to be a baby!

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The thing when being born is victory enough in a kid's life is for so many just the start of tragedy. We have to understand things aren't always going to go well. And that these instances can be medically foreseen. We can understand many factors that intersect a developing human life--and understand the world in which a parent might not choose for their future child to exist. 

So, let's talk about Sen. Jim Lankford--because he had some wrong stuff to say about no true denial of rights to pregnant people. See, he just blocked a bill seeking to prevent bans on women travelling from their home states that might ban abortion to get an abortion in another state. Lankford wants to pretend that because such bans on travel haven't been passed yet, they aren't in the works, but they certainly are. Remember when Clarence Thomas cited Plessy vs. Fergusen not so long ago? Well, the current reversal of Roe is giving Dred Scott. A pregnant person has no rights the state needs to respect. Not to travel to save their life. Not even to be free to bodily autonomy in a state that acknowledged such. A ten-year-old knocked up by a rapist. A chemo patient denied their treatments because they are also enceinte.

What do the antis call this kind of travel? Abortion tourism. Like it was a vacation to somewhere exotic and luxurious. Let's try: "reproductive refugee." Leaving a state that criminalizes a human being for trying to live their life if they happen to be pregnant. What does Lankford have to say about travel: what about the fetus wants to do? He wonders whether the fetus has a right to travel in their future? 

It really puts me in mind of a sick joke--what would fit in a shot-glass and ain't going to Disneyworld? A first trimester abortion. Does his dumb ass think a blastocyst gives a shit about meeting Mickey and going on rides? The fuck it does. But pregnant people absolutely have the ability to want things from their lives. They are alive and bloody well know it. 

This is one reason I like the construct "pregnant person". It is inclusive of trans and NB people as well as children, making it more inclusive than "women", but also acknowledges that the pregnant person is first and foremost a person, which anti-choicers are happy to ignore. 

Give Republicans a majority in Congress, and they will make no place safe for pregnant people. There will be no place to get care. They will even outlaw abortions for medical reasons--look at Ken Paxton, TX AG. The Biden Administration directed that life-saving abortions should still be made when needed, and Paxton cries "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!" Because I guess he sees a world where, um. fuck pregnant people, I guess. That dude is a whole fucking monster. Fucking Christ Texas, why is he even a thing? You could do something about him you know. Do that, and also vote for Beto. Your leaders are whack. 

Anyway, the people who would tell you they are suuuuuper prolife are twisted little shits who want to see women and children die and will think of reasons why they deserved it because they can't be told they suck even though they seriously suck. And yes, abortions can be great and actually, not all that many people even regret them, and people who get them have better economic lives and everything else. The so-called pro-life people are liars. That's all. They just lie. And don't care one shit about outcomes. \