Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Against Abortion

Published by

Clarissa

on

The widespread, massive, and global support for Lindsay Clancy is the most effective argument for a total ban on abortion. After observing it, for the first time in my life, I am less supportive of abortion rights.

Like gay marriage, trans rights, and every other progressive cause, it’s become clear that abortion has no off-ramp. The only reason for abortion is because pregnancy and childbirth would inconvenience the mother. One would think that the first 3 months of pregnancy would be enough to figure out if a woman is too beaten down by this inconvenience. But we are now seeing that large groups of women don’t believe that 6 years is enough.

25 responses to “Against Abortion”

  1. Demotrash Avatar
    Demotrash

    Many of the most prominent pro-abortion philosophers also think infanticide is ok. And it’s hard to argue that it’s not if you think late term abortion should be legal (not saying you do.) What’s the difference between 9 month old fetus and a newborn?

    Even the bodily autonomy argument has become weak to me. Pregnancy is a natural bodily process, not an imposition from without. It’s not like arguing against vaccine mandates or rape. It’s like arguing that you have a right to puberty blockers.

    To be honest, your continued support of abortion choice, as reasonable and measured as it’s been, has felt like a stubborn holdover from your liberal days that doesn’t make any sense in the context of your broader ideology. In every other way you are more conservative than me.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      It’s fascinating that liberals are utterly incapable of taking a clear win and being content with it. Every win is only a step in the direction of increasingly more outrageous demands.

      Somebody should study this phenomenon. I would have never believed that if somebody had told me, say, ten years ago that there would be a mass movement of women aggressively defending the right of mothers to murder their children as well. I made fun of everybody who said there was a slippery slope, but I was completely wrong. The slippery slope has grown to the size of Mount Everest.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. methylethyl Avatar
        methylethyl

        “Gay marriage will never affect you in any way!”

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          Exactly. “We just want to live normal lives, like everybody else.” I’m such a fool. I believed it. Then somehow “love is love” turned into a requirement to undergo an “allyship training” and get a rainbow sticker to put on your door. And now you can’t conduct hiring without having a person with this training on your search committee.

          We were told this was all about people wanting to be left in peace. We left them in peace, but now they are refusing to reciprocate.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous

            I think that there’s an important disctinction to be made here, before this line of argument goes further: gays are not queer. And, politically, gays and queers want alomost diametrically opposite things now.

            A little bit of looking will show that there is a growing cohort (e.g. Andrew Sullivan’s writings, Ben Appel’s book “Cis White Gay”) that thinks it is past time for “LGB” to get a divorce from “TQ+”. Why? Because gays’ entire contention was and is that except for who they love, they are normal. And even who and how they love is also normal when examined a bit. They really do want to live normal lives, just like everybody else. And in 2014, they succeeded.

            And then watched as their movement and the structures that it built get succeeded (some might say “co-opted”) by TQ+, who switched the argument to “we’re not normal or mainstream, and we never want to be, but you MUST accept us anyways!”. (When I was a teenager, I had a sheet of stickers that said “Why Be Normal?”. It’s great and silly then, but I can’t help but think of a 36 year old who still uses those stickers whenever I read TQ+ things online.)

            2025 was the first year in a long while that support for same-sex marriage ticked down by a percentage point or two. There are older gays and lesbians living in fear right now that the rights they fought very hard to win are going to be taken away again because of the actions of a group of people that don’t even want the same things they do.

            Like

            Reply
            1. Clarissa Avatar
              Clarissa

              Our Dean told us we have to accept his idea for severe budget cuts because he learned it at a Stanford seminar for gay men in leadership. And if we objected, it meant we were hateful and psychologically unstable.

              Until I hear of an administrator who tells us the same stories about seminars for straight men, I will not believe that gayness stopped being a cudgel to beat people into submission.

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply
            2. Col. Potter Avatar
              Col. Potter

              The divide has been around a good while. Larry Kramer dramatizes this in his play “The Normal Heart,” in a scene set in the early 1980s when ACT UP is beginning to organize:

              Mickey: Ned, Gregory says hello and he can’t believe you’ve turned into an activist. He says where were you fifteen years ago when we needed you.

              Ned: You tell Gregory fifteen years ago no self-respecting faggot would have anything to do with you guys.

              They’re referring to events leading up to the Stonewall riots, of course.

              Like

              Reply
      2. cliff arroyo Avatar
        cliff arroyo

        ” liberals are utterly incapable of taking a clear win and being content with it”

        I think many are, and are happy to let the movement go and just get on with their lives but some find an empty spot inside after the struggle and can’t let it go and and that’s where you get mission creep as they go kind of crazy.

        And then there are the revolutionaries for which every social movement is about brining the revolution closer (the same way that that guy is trying to breed red cows to hasten the second coming or whatever it is he’s trying to accomplish).

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Abortion is a Pandoras box except that not even hope remains. Once you except abortion euthanasia is a cake walk, sexual degeneracy a shrug.

    Walnut

    Like

    Reply
  3. Occasional Reader Avatar
    Occasional Reader

    To me, this proves that some people are absolutely unsuited and undeserving to be parents. Can you imagine a situation in which either of these people would somehow become fit and loving parents? Better those poor children were aborted than this horror. In general, unwanted children become trapped in often inescapable tragic cycles. For many people, abortion prevents pain and abuse to helpless children.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Random reader Avatar
      Random reader

      You mean it’s better to kill a person sooner rather than later?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. Occasional Reader Avatar
        Occasional Reader

        I don’t consider abortion murder. I consider what happened to those children murder.

        Like

        Reply
    2. methylethyl Avatar
      methylethyl

      Do you realize that all 50 states now have safe haven laws, where a parent can simply relenquish custody of an unwanted infant, without facing charges for abandonment, as long as they do so in a safe, legally prescribed way?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. methylethyl Avatar
        methylethyl

        https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/safe-haven-laws-by-state

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
      2. Occasional Reader Avatar
        Occasional Reader

        Yes. I am well aware of such laws. And I know that a) that they still fail to protect children from the worst types of abuse and b) children who are abandoned in these ways will likely have untreated trauma and are likely to repeat these cycles of abuse. Better to never have been born.

        Like

        Reply
        1. methylethyl Avatar
          methylethyl

          I think there are several readers on this blog who grew up in less than ideal circumstances who’d vigorously disagree.

          Yes, a certain percentage of abused children grow up to then perpetrate abuse. An even larger percentage do not. Some overlapping portion end the cycle by not having kids. If abuse, as in the popular imagination, self-perpetuated in all or even most of its victims, every family would be abusive by now. But that’s not what actually happens.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
          1. Occasional Reader Avatar
            Occasional Reader

            Do you think Clancy should have had children?

            Like

            Reply
            1. Occasional Reader Avatar
              Occasional Reader

              And on a different note, if you are never born, you don’t know that. If you are murdered, neglected, or abused, you *definitely* know that.

              Like

              Reply
              1. Random reader Avatar
                Random reader

                How do you know that? Abortion is not the same as not existing at all. A person you are aborting already exists.

                If you murder one day old child, does that child know about it? Or is that only acceptable one day earlier, when they are still in their mother’s womb?

                Like

            2. methylethyl Avatar
              methylethyl

              Do you think she had the children because she didn’t have sufficient access to abortion?

              Cluster Bs get off on attention, and nothing gets attention like having babies. It doesn’t last, of course. But for a while…

              I don’t understand, at all, why you look at this case and see “this could’ve been prevented by abortion”. Abortion is legal. This mom could’ve done it. She didn’t. By choice. Are you suggesting she should’ve been forced to abort?

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply
    3. Avi Avatar
      Avi

      @Occasional Reader

      You may be right, who knows, and who am I to challenge your line of thought, which I am trying to consider in as rational and objective a way as possible. Better not to have lived at all than to face a life of horrors.

      It seems to me, however, that in human experience, even those who had the most terrible lives hardly ever wish they had never been born. There are of course moments when even the most hardened among us say this kind of things, because we are human and are not made for suffering and pain but for joy and enjoyment, but under normal circumstances we do not really mean it. Everybody wants to live. Better to have lived and lost than not to have lived at all, right?

      On the other hand, I think about those women supporting abortion rights, and in this particular case justifying Lindsay Clancy’s actions on the basis of all sorts of physiological and mental reasons. I wonder if they have children and if their children know that their mothers hold these positions.

      I don’t know about you, but if I knew that my mother felt she had a right to terminate me at any stage of my development, I wouldn’t feel safe in her presence, especially if I were young. For a mother to feel that she doesn’t want her child(ren), that she resents their existence to the point of wanting them dead, may indeed be natural, but it is still irrational, psychologically speaking.

      Finally, I see a very dangerous development: what happens if rapists start to rely on the same defence, that in the moment while they were attacking and savagely beating and penetrating the woman, they had lost all rational faculties, something had come over their mental ability and they acted without will, urged by an irrational force that they could not control? This could then become a standard defence of diminished capacity by reason of temporary insanity. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Occasional Reader Avatar
        Occasional Reader

        I am not defending Clancy at all. Even if we accept her story at her word, she should be a broken person begging for punishment given the enormity of the tragedy. Even if somebody else did it, it is odd that she is fighting to resume civilian life. She was and is a terrible mother and only capable of caring about herself. She should have never had children to begin with. I think that all children should be welcomed into this world with joy and love. And that sort of welcome can only come when the decision to have a child is like something akin to marriage…..a choice made with forethought, love, joy, and wisdom.

        So yes…..better never to have been born at all than to live such a sad and terrible life.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Avi Avatar
          Avi

          I wouldn’t for the life me dream of accusing you of defending Clancy.

          I also tried to consider your position objectively and I cannot say that it is wrong, per se, even though I disagree with it. My experience of life makes me think differently, but I may be wrong.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
          1. Clarissa Avatar
            Clarissa

            I’ve now seen at least a couple dozen videos of mothers behaving like absolute pests because their small children dared to inconvenience them for a bit. Something must have created this situation. Something must have led them to believe that they’re entitled to this behavior. They are all clearly extremely unhappy.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply
            1. Avi Avatar
              Avi

              Someone – typically parents, but lots of other people, too – has been drilling into their little heads that they are precious, beautiful and unique, and that they have an absolute right to happiness and success, and nobody, nobody has the right to interfere with that right.

              They’ve been set up for failure, basically.

              Like

              Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts