Crackdowns on abortion are part of a larger strategy by the wealthy few to continue exploiting working people of all genders for ever-increasing profit.
Have you read Jenny Brown’s work on abortion rights and the history of abortion? We interviewed her (ironically, on Mother’s Day) before Roe v Wade was overturned. (It’s our second episode in our little podcast library-she’s brilliant and you’re clearly like-minded.)
Thanks, Stephanie! I have read her work and have gotten so much out of it. I hadn't heard of your podcast or that episode. Just downloaded to listen today at the gym!
This was a really great read, Jeremy! Thank you for writing it and saying the damn thing. It's so important to call out what is driving this, and it sure isn't a moral crusade. Appreciate you and your work!
Two points, Jeremy. I fully agree with what you say about the political dimensions of the issue (OK, maybe not your reduction of motives of the the players to avatars of their income and social classes), but I think framing the issue as a choice between reproductive freedom and and economic interests misses the point. IVF is about freedom, but the real issue is not freedom vs slavery but what happens to the discarded embryos. Life or death - in other words, when does life begin? I prefer to leave that up to the individual, but we have to admit and fight the issue on that basis: do we know, can we know, and who's to decide? The same thing on climate change. We are not fighting over whether the climate is changing. That makes it too easy to characterize one side or the other as blind to reality or politically captured. The question is: why? If it is changing due to human action we can argue about how to correct for the effect. If not (or to no appreciable extent) then individuals are not responsible for the fate of the climate. What does the science say? It's complicated. I tend to believe e should make the changes even if the science is ambiguous, with compensation for losses to legacy interests (somehow). Climate action will not bring us back to the stone age. The economics are pretty neutral on that. It will change incentives of economic players no less than any other break, say the industrial revolution, information revolution, etc. It will cause social disruption. But climate action will certainly not reduce the world to poverty. On the contrary. Sorry. Don't usually do these comment things, but I've been thinking a lot lately about how the framing of issues locks us into self destructive behaviors. I'm Dennis.
I’ve been studying the life works of several mathematical biologists and physicists to understand the nature of life for over a decade. What’s certain is that there is no formal or empirical understanding of what “life” is because there is nothing fundamentally distinct between what is conventionally considered living and whats conventionally considered inanimate. Instead a relational approach is needed based on the purpose of inquiry, usually involving categories to orient the reader in a specific direction. In my opinion, the most logical and coherent view is that a human life begins at conception. But, this should in no way whatsoever matter to the discussion of abortion. Even if medicine gets to the point of insanely early viability for the fetus… the choice is that of the person carrying the fetus. Full stop. Forcing someone to be a parent is an extreme violation of their human rights. Abortion should be safe and legal of anyone who chooses it. At the same time, pregnancy should be prevented whenever possible. Birth control should be free and accessible. The goal should be to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancy and providing safe abortions when needed
Truth! Thank you for this!
Have you read Jenny Brown’s work on abortion rights and the history of abortion? We interviewed her (ironically, on Mother’s Day) before Roe v Wade was overturned. (It’s our second episode in our little podcast library-she’s brilliant and you’re clearly like-minded.)
Thanks, Stephanie! I have read her work and have gotten so much out of it. I hadn't heard of your podcast or that episode. Just downloaded to listen today at the gym!
Great essay! I so appreciate learning from you
This was a really great read, Jeremy! Thank you for writing it and saying the damn thing. It's so important to call out what is driving this, and it sure isn't a moral crusade. Appreciate you and your work!
Thank you! I’m learning a ton from your writing and plan to dig in even deeper soon ☺️
Two points, Jeremy. I fully agree with what you say about the political dimensions of the issue (OK, maybe not your reduction of motives of the the players to avatars of their income and social classes), but I think framing the issue as a choice between reproductive freedom and and economic interests misses the point. IVF is about freedom, but the real issue is not freedom vs slavery but what happens to the discarded embryos. Life or death - in other words, when does life begin? I prefer to leave that up to the individual, but we have to admit and fight the issue on that basis: do we know, can we know, and who's to decide? The same thing on climate change. We are not fighting over whether the climate is changing. That makes it too easy to characterize one side or the other as blind to reality or politically captured. The question is: why? If it is changing due to human action we can argue about how to correct for the effect. If not (or to no appreciable extent) then individuals are not responsible for the fate of the climate. What does the science say? It's complicated. I tend to believe e should make the changes even if the science is ambiguous, with compensation for losses to legacy interests (somehow). Climate action will not bring us back to the stone age. The economics are pretty neutral on that. It will change incentives of economic players no less than any other break, say the industrial revolution, information revolution, etc. It will cause social disruption. But climate action will certainly not reduce the world to poverty. On the contrary. Sorry. Don't usually do these comment things, but I've been thinking a lot lately about how the framing of issues locks us into self destructive behaviors. I'm Dennis.
I’ve been studying the life works of several mathematical biologists and physicists to understand the nature of life for over a decade. What’s certain is that there is no formal or empirical understanding of what “life” is because there is nothing fundamentally distinct between what is conventionally considered living and whats conventionally considered inanimate. Instead a relational approach is needed based on the purpose of inquiry, usually involving categories to orient the reader in a specific direction. In my opinion, the most logical and coherent view is that a human life begins at conception. But, this should in no way whatsoever matter to the discussion of abortion. Even if medicine gets to the point of insanely early viability for the fetus… the choice is that of the person carrying the fetus. Full stop. Forcing someone to be a parent is an extreme violation of their human rights. Abortion should be safe and legal of anyone who chooses it. At the same time, pregnancy should be prevented whenever possible. Birth control should be free and accessible. The goal should be to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancy and providing safe abortions when needed
Great piece!
Thank you, Robin!