Naturally, Blurring The Issue To Confuse The Public…

The Sunday Times features this piece: “The Voices of Men Affected by Abortion.”

The feature is presented as if it does and should provide further illumination on whether abortion is a “right” or not. It doesn’t, and shouldn’t. “Men really need to consider what losing access to safe and legal abortion means for them,” the Times quotes Joe Colon-Uvalles, an organizer at the abortion rights group Planned Parenthood, by way of an introduction. That’s your smoking gun: the Times wants to increase male outrage over Dobbs.

Yet how men “feel” about losing the option of abortion for women they impregnate (in the states that ban abortion) is ethically and legally irrelevant. So, in fact, is how women “feel” about it. The news media and the abortion-happy Left want to frame the controversy as being about what women want, their “choices.” What matters, however, and where any productive, ethical and honest discussion must settle, is whether the Constitution guarantees a right to snuff out an unborn human life—it doesn’t—and whether what a woman or a man wants can ever justify choosing to end the life of a human individual that would otherwise become a living, breathing citizen.

The hysterics, the propagandists, the fearmongerers and the liars depend on keeping the public’s attention away from the fact, and it is a fact, that there is a human life path ended in every abortion. For decades, the convenient myth has been that the only life involved in an abortion is the potential mother’s. Now the Times is saying, “Hey, wait a minute. There’s a second life involved! The father’s!”

Clever. Deceptive, cynical, despicable, and designed to distract from the real issues…but clever.

24 thoughts on “Naturally, Blurring The Issue To Confuse The Public…

  1. The times is playing the game of misdirection. It’s doing that because it is trying to gin up support and outrage from the very same man the abortion-happy left wanted to shut out of the discussion until now. You can’t say “no uterus, no right to talk about it,” tonight and then ask whoever you say it to to speak up on your behalf tomorrow. It’s very disrespectful to the male population and maybe even insulting. That’s the problem with American women, they think all that matters is their presence and their hopes, dreams, and desires. The men in their lives exist only to support and finance those hopes, dreams, and desires, hopefully while remaining as silent as possible. Don’t mansplain, don’t cross your woman’s will, don’t do anything except what she tells you to do, including being fully supportive of her decision to kill your unborn child, maybe even without telling you first.

    • Yup! Typical of what I’m finding.

      You have use when we say you do. Otherwise, STFU.

      I’m finding now why Jack has said to be on the left is to be… I forget now the exact words, but, it’s not clear thinking, consistent or ethical. (not that the right is either) But I do notice my left friends will have NO part of a discussion that veers away from their position.

      My friends on the right, will. (unless they are super duper right, which is just like the super duper left)

      What we have now actually is the equivalent of the moral majority running the show! hahaha. oh boy!

  2. Amusing, because I’ve certainly heard that if I don’t have a womb, I don’t get to have an opinion. Now they want men to pipe up?

    It’s also been made rather clear that what the father wants is irrelevant. If he wanted her to get one, if he didnt… the only vote that mattered was hers. So, it was a “right”that only women enjoyed. Still another reason for men to shurg and go on about their lives instead of being outraged. Of course, some of us are just rejoicing, but we don’t count , either.

    • I’ve enjoyed the snarky, yet painfully fair, rejoinder – if mothers should be praised for getting an abortion to pursue their interests, fathers should be praised for abandoning families to pursue their interests.

  3. The pro-choice crowd has never addressed the problem of a double standard between men and women.
    To be pro-choice means that you support consequence free sex for women. The say abortion should be a right so women are not forced to raise a child they never wanted.
    Yet men are not allowed that choice. If they father a child they do not want, they still are forced to support the child or live in a cage, and the government will enforce that decision at the point of a gun.
    Many pro choice people will even be stupid enough to state “if they don’t want to be a father, don’t have sex or get a vasectomy.” Yet they are left dumbfounded when you ask why the choice of abstinence or a tubal ligation shouldn’t eliminate the need for elective abortion.

    • Because now it’s the opposite of what it used to be – men are supposed to keep their mouths and pants zipped, but it’s perfectly all right for women to talk like the Micro Machine Man and carry on like the Fokken twins on a busy weekend.

  4. There once was a time when men could be required to take paternity tests, in order to determine whether a baby was indeed the result of their own (ahem) eagerness. Those found responsible were tagged with a reasonable proportion of the costs of raisin’. This happened to a friend of mine, who actually doesn’t remember the encounter but admits that it probably occurred. In that said paternity test happened when his previously-unknown kid was seventeen, this represented quite a check. Almost wiped him out.

    Jack, you and I have debated this before: as a small-L libertarian, I believe that the fundamental question involved in this debate boils down to when sentient life actually begins. To me, that’s a metaphysical question to which none of us – at least on this level of existence – will ever know the answer, and that means that as far as I’m concerned, government has no business – at any level – weighing in on it. And I know that you strenuously disagree. I can respect that.

    I can also respect SCOTUS returning this decision to the States. To me, the issue does not come down to a given decision, right or wrong: to me, it also matters HOW YOU GOT THERE. Much as I may think government has no place dipping its toe in these waters, I also respect the wisdom of the Framers and the rule of law. The tactics of the left when the draft was leaked, and subsequent to the actual decision, are exactly what I expected, but still reprehensible. These knuckleheads still don’t get, and probably never will get, the idea that the Supreme Court is not a tiny politically-appointed super-legislature. Its job is to determine whether laws are valid – no more, no less. We turned the Senate into a smaller, more exclusive, and slightly-better paid House with the passage of the 17th Amendment. The left now wants to turn SCOTUS into an even more exclusive legislative body.

    Yes, it has effectively functioned that way at times in the past, and Roe and Casey are among the most notorious examples. But to this layman, who actually knows a bit more about law than most laymen do, they were bad examples of what SCOTUS was intended to do. In other words, although I don’t necessarily agree with government setting the rules on metaphysical questions, I fully recognize – and embrace – the idea that government CAN do that, as laws are currently established. SCOTUS has no obligation beyond determining whether those laws pass muster.

    I’ve been biting my tongue for the last few days, keeping myself from posting some or all of the above in response to my leftie friends on Facebook. And I do have personal skin in this game; there were three women in my life, who I cared about very much, who had abortions (the reasons for none of which were by my… hand). They are/were all good people in a tough situation.

    Despite this, I value the rule of law. Alito’s decision does, too – and I’ve seen no end of phenomenally ignorant commentary that shows that an awful lot of the left – including some true friends – simply doesn’t get that.

    • Terrific comment, AIM.
      But note: Stacy Abrams, NYC Adams and several state officials are pushing for abortion right up to the moment of birth. That’s where the sentience approach ultimately leads.

      • I would only suggest that that’s where it CAN lead. I’d go so far as to say that the viability argument (abortion is okay prior to viability) probably sets the bar too low, in that what’s potentially viable today would have been decidedly non-viable when Roe and Casey were decided.

        I find the idea of abortion up to the moment of birth abhorrent. Given that babies as much as three months – sometimes even longer – premature can sometimes survive these days, the second trimester is highly suspect. The real question, and the difficulty, really boils down to at what point any measurable form of sentience emerges. To the best of my knowledge, we currently have no way to determine that. And as you probably know, most European nations put something of a hard stop in place after 15 weeks (barring medical emergencies).

        “Safe, legal and rare” still strikes me as a reasonable baseline standard if we’re building laws around this – with the addition of sentience, if we can figure out ways to determine that. But again, this all still (at least currently) boils down to that nasty metaphysical question. I say this knowing full well that you and many in the EA Commentariat likely disagree with this view.

        • “Safe, legal and rare” is a very reasonable compromise on a tough ethical dilemma. That was Clinton’s line, and the question always has been “if abortion is the unquestioned boon that activists claim, why rare?” Even Clinton didn’t answer, because it required acknowledging that more than “choice” was involved in the equation.

          “What is life?” is a metaphysical question, perhaps, but what ends a life is not. Sentient or otherwise, the unique set of cells and genetic material that is sacrifices in an abortion will, absent interference, mature daily into a functioning human being. I don’t see that fact even acknowledged by abortion fans, much less justified.

        • Sentience? No.

          The problem with arguing about sentience is that it hand-waves a basic truth: The fetus which–let’s stipulate–is not yet “sentient” most definitely will become sentient through normal development and in a matter of time.

          Arguing about sentience is basically saying “QUICK! Kill it NOW before it becomes sentient! That makes it OKAY!” I mean, sure, if you’re going to do it, do it in a way that causes the least pain. But don’t for a moment think that you’re doing something morally or ethically correct just because the fetus hasn’t developed enough yet.


  5. The logic of a woman should be able to choose not to be pregnant is sexist. Here’s why.

    The pro-choice side is arguing that a woman has the ultimate choice about whether to be pregnant. It doesn’t matter if the man wants the child and would literally take the child and not ask the woman for anything. It doesn’t matter if the man doesn’t want it and would pay for a woman to have an abortion. The entire argument is all about the woman has all the power because she is the one who is pregnant.

    Why do we allow one sex to get off so easily? If we are going to say that a woman has the right to choose whether to have a child or not, why can’t a man make the same choice? Why does a man have to be bound the decision of the woman if he doesn’t want the child and would get an abortion if the roles were reversed and he was a woman? By pro–choice logic, that is blatant sex discrimination.

    By the same logic, it’s sexist to force any man to pay child support if he doesn’t want to be a dad and would have paid for the abortion himself. If a woman decides she wants to be a parent and a man decides he doesn’t, the pro choice side HAS to agree that he should be able to make that choice because of how much choice they want to give the woman.

    If the logic of a position leads to absurd results, then that position is wrong. The logic of the “pro choice pregnant only when I want to be” position would allow men to almost never pay child support. We are in bizzaro land right now.

    • As I woman I will say it again, we DO have the power to choose whether to be pregnant or not.

      and that POWER is a never failing one if we exercise it at the right time.aBEFORE WE HAVE SEX.

      I mean how hard is it to understand. Don’t want to get pregnant? Don’t have sex unless you are on birth control, or don’t have it. Pretty easy.

      What most my friends and women want it (like most humans) the right and approval to do what they want when they want and have someone else pay for it.

      And for abortions, they’ve had a pretty long run.

      When ever this is discussed, I get bashed by my feminist friends and told I want women to be owned, etc.

      Problem is, it doesn’t work. I am a pretty darn independent woman who’s owned her own businesses for decades and been very successful and don’t let anyone push me around. Let alone a man.

      And, I tell them, they are embarrassing for the cause of promoting equal rights. We can’t even keep from getting pregnant! and when we do and don’t want it, we think the answer is killing our own child.

      Yeah, really advanced.

      • I agree with you! I was just attacking the logic that the left uses on this topic.

        To me, I think the left wants consequence free sex. They think sex is a right (look at how much they obsess about it, and how during COVID-19, as Dr, Fauci was telling everyone to dig a hole and stay in it forever, he never told people to stop having sex and even gave directions about having sex with a mask on).

        I had this realization a couple of months ago, that one of the defining themes of the current left (not the old left) is that they want to free people from the consequences of everything they do…unless you are white, then you deserve consequences for things you didn’t do.

  6. It’s a weird argument.

    I’m at a loss as to what the target demographic for the article is, because I have a really hard time trying to reconcile the idea that there’s a man out there that 1) reads this, 2) digests the argument, and 3) hasn’t already grappled with the Roe from a male experience: That men have to be careful because if she ends up pregnant, you’ve already made your choice, as has been the talking point for decades, and it’s her turn now. This article makes the argument that your proverbial roulette of outcomes changes. That you go from a spectrum between the co-consult abortion to becoming a no-contact wallet, to the exact same spectrum with one less wedge on the wheel. Again… I can’t imagine anyone who has really considered this would find the argument persuasive. Particularly if they were pro-life before reading it.

    So what is this? A talking points memo for women looking to recruit men to their cause? A fundamental misunderstanding of the audience? A primal scream into the ether?

    “Why don’t you care about this, even from a self-interested perspective?”

    “Because the original state wasn’t in my best interest either.”

    • I’ve seen two summary observations coalescing in the twitterverse as the Left hit the virtual streets with *ALL* the arguments ever pushed forward to support abortion ‘rigths’; and especially apt when the real straw-grasping claims are made like the on in this post such as “hey guys, you might have to think about the future!”-

      1) “No wonder Roe got overturned, its proponents cannot muster any reasonable justifiable reason for it”

      2) “No wonder progressives never wanted abortion to be discussed in state legislatures – no reasonable adult could ever hope these arguments would stand in debate.”

  7. The ultimate difficulty in approaching the damage wrought by several generations of awful approaches to sexual and reproductive ethics is that the hurt and fallout is *so deeply* spread throughout society that all roads out of the quagmire will be hard for at least the same number of generations.

    Will men and women have to start thinking more long term in states that expect them to follow through like adults on the decisions they make? Yes. Will that mean that many men and women will still behave in destructive manners until society generally gets itself together? Yes. Does that mean they’re lives will be more difficult than they hoped they would be? Yes.


  8. Shame on you all arguing the rational point of the male perspective. Need I remind you that critical thinking isn’t a skill that the female sex possesses–at least not when it comes to accepting responsibility for all of her actions. The truth that none of the leftist ideologues want to face is that being a victim is a choice. History is filled with individuals that were victimized but they didn’t choose to define themselves as victims and went on to live happy, fulfilled lives. What a pity that there exist human beings that actually enjoy that kind of existence.

    • huh?

      I am a female with excellent critical thinking skills!! Except for ya know… that time of the month 🙂 haha.

      I tell my female friends all the time that we can do much better than blaming men for our issues.

      Especially this one.


      Our culture disregards life on so many levels to put it all on one group (women) to carry the weight of that is not right.

      Imagine what we could do together if we all stopped playing the victim? There’s so much possibility but Truthfully? Most of us cant be bothered.

      The left constantly says that pro choice only care about life BEFORE it’s born. In some ways, that’s true, and they are also guilty of the same.

      What if, we found a way TOGETHER, to set up some groups to adopt all of the 400k foster kids in the system? What if after that we moved on to the new babies that are born?


      We want that to be on someone else. Yeah, it’s a great idea, someone should do it! But, not me! I’m have a career! I have school! etc.

      So, we all truly have dropped the ball that our culture has created this problem.

      Wonder how we solve it?

  9. Excellent twitter thread regarding the terrifyingly dangerous place the Left has put our nation in:

    “1988 was 34 years ago. This is not my usual both 2000 and 1980 where 20 years ago whittering (though I am correct about that), this is a discussion about age and the Eternal Now and how the simple passage of time affects political analysis.

    I am going to use 18 as a baseline age here because that is US voting age. For anyone 52 years and younger, 1988 was the first Presidential election in which they could vote. That was when GHWB was elected President. You have to be 60 now to have voted for Reagan in 1980

    GHWB is the last Republican President to be elected without Democrats claiming his election was illegitimate. 2000 was 22 years ago. For anyone 40 and younger, every Republican President since they were eligible to vote has been considered illegitimate by both Dems and the press.

    For those of us upper end Gen X and older, it is difficult to internalize that Bill Clinton being President is as remote to Millennials and younger as, say, Nixon being President is to upper end Gen X. Sure, it happened but that’s history. Ancient history.

    2008 is 14 years ago. You would have to be at least 32 and then 28 to have voted for Obama. For younger Millennials and upper end Gen Z, that’s the President when they were kids and they maybe sorta remember that being a big thing.

    2016 is six years ago. You have to be at least 24 to have voted for Trump. The point of going through this chronology is to stress, as many others, that for the last 22 years, every Republican President has been considered illegitimate by large swathes of the press and public.

    If you are under 40, you grew up in a world in which a Republican being President was deemed per se illegitimate. You grew up in a world where what those illegitimate Presidents did was per se illegitimate. It is the air you breathed and the water you drank. This is what you know

    This is simply the truth. Bush was installed by the Supreme Court and then did *handwave* something wrong to be re-elected, after all, he shouldn’t have been President in the first place. Republicans play a game with the Electoral College, which is anti-democratic, to win.

    Every Republican President is wrong and everything they do is wrong, and Trump let Russians change votes to make him President so what he did was extra super wrong. Since everything they did is wrong, then every action they took is wrong and SCOTUS is illegitimate. It’s logic.

    It is irrelevant whether this is true. It is what two generations of people have been told. People believe this because why would those people who are the experts in politics say this if it wasn’t true? That’s what they are paid to do, that’s what they know, they wouldn’t lie.

    I comprehend the urge to eyeroll when the wailing starts about how SCOTUS is illegitimate because the justices were appointed by Presidents who did not win the popular vote and thus are illegitimate. It is eyeroll worthy. However. Enormous numbers of people who vote believe this.

    Many a pixel has been slain, and that’s just by me, decrying the total lack of knowledge of how the American electoral system works. Many more have been slain noting how destructive this is to public discourse. I am here to tell you that it will only get worse.

    Another part of my internet life is very Left indeed. I keep my mouth shut over there because that’s where I go to try to escape politics. I am here to tell you that the Kids These Days do not understand what Dobbs did. They believe, utterly, that abortion was just banned.

    They believe that Republicans are an existential threat to democracy and that Republicans should be banned from all manner of things, practicing medicine, practicing law, going to college at all, holding jobs, partaking in society at large. Because Republicans are evil and cheat.

    A very few people there know that I have a JD and I was asked privately to explain what Dobbs meant. When I told those people that Dobbs meant states decided abortion laws and that CA and NY now have some of the most permissive laws in the world, I was met with shock.

    Why? Because all the news sources they consume told them otherwise. I was accused of lying. I was accused of making it up. And when they went and checked and found out I was correct, the utter cognitive dissonance was painful to behold. Because these sources they trust lied.

    The response was not to question worldview and whether those sources were lying to them about other matters. The response was ego defense. Okay well this is wrong but TX banned and that’s what the rest of the country will do and they weren’t lying, they were just upset!

    That is the mental barrier with which messaging that’s not fully of the Left, let alone being of the Right, is up against. Two generations of being told that Republicans are evil cheaters who aren’t a legitimate political party. Two generations of no civics education, not really.

    People don’t like to question priors because doing so means admitting you did not interpret the world correctly and the ego will defend against that. It’s been +/- 18 years since I’ve had to admit my view of Middle Eastern geopolitics was absolutely wrong. I’m still bitter.

    We discuss Othering and that is also a problem. But there are two generations of Americans for whom a baseline worldview is that if the Republicans win, that can be ignored because it’s not legitimate. And that I don’t see changing. It’s only going to get uglier from here. /fin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.