Charlie, I surely hope that you do not believe that a woman impregnated by incest or rape be forced to carry that pregnancy to term? Please say you don't believe that. And also that you understand that a child cannot develop in a Fallopian tube and thus this is a medical emergency.
I subscribed in part because I was curious what you'd say about this topic. I'm solidly pro-choice, and disagree with lots of your politics, but appreciated one of your books and figured this might make interesting reading. It does.
I'm going to echo one of the statements others made -- the key issue is that you had a good outcome because you choose to bring your child into this world and to raise them. The state can't force this, and shouldn't, and that's part of why removing choice is a bad idea.
Until recently I've always felt the obvious position was that we should aim to make abortions legal but rare. But if this cedes moral ground in a way that's brought us to the current point, maybe that was an error.
The Anti-Choice movement is fundamentally based on where Christian ideology sees life beginning. I am not Christian. Why does that view of the world have to be forced on those of us who do not believe it? Is my view any less valid? This is where yours and Mona's arguments break down for me. Yours are Christian arguments and forcing them on me not your right.
Oh Charlie. I know three women who thought they were making the right choice in not getting an abortion, but giving birth destroyed their life and the life of their child. One of them was motivated primarily from being raised LDS. This particular woman, who was a devout Mormon for thirty years, because of her experience, has expunged everything LDS in her life and is now a radical feminist.
Then there's also the great aunt of mine who walked with her two, small children into San Francisco Bay, drowning all of them. So how did those "worlds" turn out?
I'm so glad that your unplanned pregnancy worked out for you. I've heard many of those tales as well. However, I'm guessing you had a considerable amount of family support available.
Also, all those pro-life conservatives who want to ban abortion? You should hear them talk about all of "those" people who have so many children and then just collect welfare! They don't want to ban abortion, they want to ban sex.
“Objectively invalid” because YOU think so. Hilarious. “You made it up” because HOU think you’re always right. Serious problem with being disputed. Sad. Ego much?
Is it possible to face it? There are situations in which human reason and prudence utterly fail to provide any plausible universal rule.
On one hand, I think of my "baby sister", 14 years younger than me, born 1958. She once said to me, "John, I don't know what to say when my girl friends talk about abortion. Let's face it, 20 years later, I would have been an abortion." No doubt about it, she could not have arrived at a more inconvenient time for our mother, who had just completed her education and training for a new career as a teacher.
On the other hand, I know of a case that occurred at a fertility clinic where I worked briefly some years ago. One patient had failed in ten cycles of IVF, then finally succeeded on the 11th attempt. When she came in for her first sonogram, her doctor reported, "You're right where you should be. The babies are doing fine." She replied, "Babies? Plural?" "Yes, you have twins." "I don't think I'm ready for a relationship with twins. I want an abortion." (Note: she was herself a doctor and fully aware of the possibilities for a plural pregnancy resulting from the standard IVF procedure of transferring multiple embryos.) I later heard the staff found a doctor in New York who was willing to perform a "selective reduction", an expression that sounds like something Dr Mengele would come up with. It's indicated only for quads or more because of the risk of miscarriage of all the embryos. As it was explained to me, you go poking around a newly implanted uterus with needles and such, and Mother Nature may conclude something is very wrong here and terminate the whole thing.
All I can say Charlie is, despite what you and your GF were facing as teenagers, and situation you found yourselves, you did RISE to the occasion and did the RIGHT thing. And you were only 19! Sadly, we find ourselves in a culture, faster and faster racing to the bottom. It's all about me, immediacy, so much selfishness, and most of all, the want for unchecked power. The means justifies the end. I know you know this, but just look at the number of Republican house members that have stood up for democracy instead of their own self-interest and preservation. Two. Sure, there were a few more, but only became somewhat vocal in their waning days to retirement. While better late than never, it's still a sad commentary of personal character among our elected leaders.
While I've been remiss over the past several months in reading and listening to podcast and zoom meetings, I do appreciate all that the Bulwark is doing. Since I can't call myself a Republican(Centrist Dem), and haven't always followed politics until the last few years, I was unaware of the personal sacrifice you made as a conservative, and broke from many/most of your peers and colleagues. Evidently, you're still doing the right thing. And that says a lot. It really isn't a sacrifice, unless you're giving something up in defense of your morals, and personal character.
Thanks for sharing your story with us. It touched a nerve with me.
I cheer you for the choice you made and for the fortunate results of your choice. Somehow, you and your partner had what it took: good physical health, good mental health, the beginnings of an education you could build on, a committed relationship capable of growing into a marriage, perhaps even supportive family members. Not every young or older woman (or girl) has all or even one of those resources, and for some of these individuals, the correct (not easy, but ethical) choice might be to terminate the pregnancy. Once again, I appreciate your story. It might be inspirational for a young couple of similar means, but your circumstances were far removed from those of many seeking to end a pregnancy. I am deeply offended that powerful men on the Supreme Court have chosen to misuse the sanctity of that power. I read every word of Alito's ruling. I'm not a lawyer so some aspects were beyond me, but I am an intelligent, educated, ethical person, and I recognize high-sounding rubbish when I read it. He inserted far too much of that in his opinion.
Thank you for the role you're playing in our democracy.
Completely off-topic, but I want to share that I just got Timmy's book and it is not only a page-turner, but he is quite the wordsmith. Can't recommend it enough!
Appreciate your honesty but imagine yourself a young black man, who did not grow up in a nuclear family with a supportive father, like I assume you did. Did your parents help you pay to continue college, or did the mother of your child have to drop out, did she have child care? Help with housing? Food? Medical care? Emotional support of people who helped you through. Sadly the majority of the young people having abortions do not have the same privileges. I am a white female senior citizen who has been a life long moderate Republican and now Democrat. We should all consider the “least among us” before ever judging anyone for the choices they make. My Christianity, is more inline with Judaism regarding abortion.
Charlie, I always like your work, but today's newsletter is brilliant. You tell a poignant story and, contrary to what some of the other commenters are saying, I don't think you're preaching or proselytizing. You're just giving one family's perspective and giving us all some things to think about.
To be honest, I would almost certainly not have made the same decision you did if I had been in your shoes as an equally immature and irresponsible 19-year-old, and I don't think I'd advise either of my kids to make the same decision you did. But that most definitely does NOT mean that your story and perspective haven't moved me and -- dare I say -- perhaps made me a smidgen wiser for having read it. This is precisely the sort of thoughtful and balance work I so appreciate in the Bulwark. Thank you, Charlie.
Thanks, Charlie, for your heartfelt piece on private moral dilemmas and how complicated the subject at hand can be for people living life as it is not lived by people on the Supreme Court, and by others of limited empathy.
In response to his remarks following the return to 2nd class personhood to women, I might summarize my feelings toward Mr. Justice Thomas as follows: Clarence Thomas means to make a soup of the citizenry, putting them into the cold punitive reasoning of an unelected magistrate, and then turning up the heat very slowly, until it boils over with theocratic rage at our civil impieties and cooks all of us.
I'm late to the game in writing my thoughts. Kudos to Charlie for sharing his personal account. It would behoove people to understand that both sides harbor sincere views on this issue and that there are real human beings involved in this matter. I think sometimes that gets lost in the mix.
I have pointed out though the inconsistency of people who decry those who are actively trying to undermine our democracy who in the next breath think unelected federal judges, and not our democratic institutions, should decide the most consequential policy decision of our lifetime. To say Roe was poorly reasoned is an understatement. It was a train wreck of a legal opinion. Those who defend it are almost exclusively those who liked the result.
I have no doubt that the crazies will dominate the discussion at the state level for the immediate future. Red state Republicans will push for total bans with no exceptions. Blue state Democrats, make no mistake about it, will push for abortion for 9 months of pregnancy. And you know what? These extreme positions won't win out long-term. Example: In Indiana two anti-abortion Republican legislators who held the most extreme position on abortion lost primary battles to more moderate (at least on abortion) candidates.
Liberals like to talk about how a strong majority of people supported Roe v. Wade and didn't want it overturned. And what percent of those people have actually read Roe v. Wade and know its holding? 1%. No, that's too high. The fact is when you asked people if they support abortion on demand through six months of pregnancy (which was the holding of Roe), the answer is no they don't.
Americans have held the same position on abortion for a long time. They support abortion IF the abortion is performed early. Strong majorities oppose abortion in the second trimester, which Roe specifically mandated states allow. And strong majorities support exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother.
That is in the fact the position of nearly every industrialized country. And most have done it via legislation, not judicial fiat. The United States was an outlier with the Roe decision mandating abortion until the end of the second trimester, which was then about the point of viability.
I have no doubt that majority opinion is what most state laws will eventually reflect. There will be outliers. A few states will ban abortion, except maybe with some exceptions. Other states will take New York's current approach and allow abortion unfettered for 9 months. But most states will be in the middle, adopting something like Mississippi did with a 15 week ban, a cut off that only affects about 7% of the abortions in that state.
The hyperventilating needs to cease and the democratic process needs to get to work. It will be ugly no doubt, but cathartic. Democracy is how we reach reasonable compromises in this country on issues such as abortion. It's the worst system out there, with the exception of all other forms of govefnrment.
Charlie, I surely hope that you do not believe that a woman impregnated by incest or rape be forced to carry that pregnancy to term? Please say you don't believe that. And also that you understand that a child cannot develop in a Fallopian tube and thus this is a medical emergency.
I subscribed in part because I was curious what you'd say about this topic. I'm solidly pro-choice, and disagree with lots of your politics, but appreciated one of your books and figured this might make interesting reading. It does.
I'm going to echo one of the statements others made -- the key issue is that you had a good outcome because you choose to bring your child into this world and to raise them. The state can't force this, and shouldn't, and that's part of why removing choice is a bad idea.
Until recently I've always felt the obvious position was that we should aim to make abortions legal but rare. But if this cedes moral ground in a way that's brought us to the current point, maybe that was an error.
Interestingly, Thomas doesn't list Loving (v. VA). Wonder why, since it is based on the same privacy. Hmmm...
Your assertion, your responsibility to back it up.
The Anti-Choice movement is fundamentally based on where Christian ideology sees life beginning. I am not Christian. Why does that view of the world have to be forced on those of us who do not believe it? Is my view any less valid? This is where yours and Mona's arguments break down for me. Yours are Christian arguments and forcing them on me not your right.
Can someone explain to me why it is better for a child to be born into an unloving, perhaps even abusive home than to not be born at all?
Oh Charlie. I know three women who thought they were making the right choice in not getting an abortion, but giving birth destroyed their life and the life of their child. One of them was motivated primarily from being raised LDS. This particular woman, who was a devout Mormon for thirty years, because of her experience, has expunged everything LDS in her life and is now a radical feminist.
Then there's also the great aunt of mine who walked with her two, small children into San Francisco Bay, drowning all of them. So how did those "worlds" turn out?
I'm so glad that your unplanned pregnancy worked out for you. I've heard many of those tales as well. However, I'm guessing you had a considerable amount of family support available.
Also, all those pro-life conservatives who want to ban abortion? You should hear them talk about all of "those" people who have so many children and then just collect welfare! They don't want to ban abortion, they want to ban sex.
“Objectively invalid” because YOU think so. Hilarious. “You made it up” because HOU think you’re always right. Serious problem with being disputed. Sad. Ego much?
Is it possible to face it? There are situations in which human reason and prudence utterly fail to provide any plausible universal rule.
On one hand, I think of my "baby sister", 14 years younger than me, born 1958. She once said to me, "John, I don't know what to say when my girl friends talk about abortion. Let's face it, 20 years later, I would have been an abortion." No doubt about it, she could not have arrived at a more inconvenient time for our mother, who had just completed her education and training for a new career as a teacher.
On the other hand, I know of a case that occurred at a fertility clinic where I worked briefly some years ago. One patient had failed in ten cycles of IVF, then finally succeeded on the 11th attempt. When she came in for her first sonogram, her doctor reported, "You're right where you should be. The babies are doing fine." She replied, "Babies? Plural?" "Yes, you have twins." "I don't think I'm ready for a relationship with twins. I want an abortion." (Note: she was herself a doctor and fully aware of the possibilities for a plural pregnancy resulting from the standard IVF procedure of transferring multiple embryos.) I later heard the staff found a doctor in New York who was willing to perform a "selective reduction", an expression that sounds like something Dr Mengele would come up with. It's indicated only for quads or more because of the risk of miscarriage of all the embryos. As it was explained to me, you go poking around a newly implanted uterus with needles and such, and Mother Nature may conclude something is very wrong here and terminate the whole thing.
All I can say Charlie is, despite what you and your GF were facing as teenagers, and situation you found yourselves, you did RISE to the occasion and did the RIGHT thing. And you were only 19! Sadly, we find ourselves in a culture, faster and faster racing to the bottom. It's all about me, immediacy, so much selfishness, and most of all, the want for unchecked power. The means justifies the end. I know you know this, but just look at the number of Republican house members that have stood up for democracy instead of their own self-interest and preservation. Two. Sure, there were a few more, but only became somewhat vocal in their waning days to retirement. While better late than never, it's still a sad commentary of personal character among our elected leaders.
While I've been remiss over the past several months in reading and listening to podcast and zoom meetings, I do appreciate all that the Bulwark is doing. Since I can't call myself a Republican(Centrist Dem), and haven't always followed politics until the last few years, I was unaware of the personal sacrifice you made as a conservative, and broke from many/most of your peers and colleagues. Evidently, you're still doing the right thing. And that says a lot. It really isn't a sacrifice, unless you're giving something up in defense of your morals, and personal character.
Thanks for sharing your story with us. It touched a nerve with me.
I cheer you for the choice you made and for the fortunate results of your choice. Somehow, you and your partner had what it took: good physical health, good mental health, the beginnings of an education you could build on, a committed relationship capable of growing into a marriage, perhaps even supportive family members. Not every young or older woman (or girl) has all or even one of those resources, and for some of these individuals, the correct (not easy, but ethical) choice might be to terminate the pregnancy. Once again, I appreciate your story. It might be inspirational for a young couple of similar means, but your circumstances were far removed from those of many seeking to end a pregnancy. I am deeply offended that powerful men on the Supreme Court have chosen to misuse the sanctity of that power. I read every word of Alito's ruling. I'm not a lawyer so some aspects were beyond me, but I am an intelligent, educated, ethical person, and I recognize high-sounding rubbish when I read it. He inserted far too much of that in his opinion.
Thank you for the role you're playing in our democracy.
Completely off-topic, but I want to share that I just got Timmy's book and it is not only a page-turner, but he is quite the wordsmith. Can't recommend it enough!
Appreciate your honesty but imagine yourself a young black man, who did not grow up in a nuclear family with a supportive father, like I assume you did. Did your parents help you pay to continue college, or did the mother of your child have to drop out, did she have child care? Help with housing? Food? Medical care? Emotional support of people who helped you through. Sadly the majority of the young people having abortions do not have the same privileges. I am a white female senior citizen who has been a life long moderate Republican and now Democrat. We should all consider the “least among us” before ever judging anyone for the choices they make. My Christianity, is more inline with Judaism regarding abortion.
Charlie, I always like your work, but today's newsletter is brilliant. You tell a poignant story and, contrary to what some of the other commenters are saying, I don't think you're preaching or proselytizing. You're just giving one family's perspective and giving us all some things to think about.
To be honest, I would almost certainly not have made the same decision you did if I had been in your shoes as an equally immature and irresponsible 19-year-old, and I don't think I'd advise either of my kids to make the same decision you did. But that most definitely does NOT mean that your story and perspective haven't moved me and -- dare I say -- perhaps made me a smidgen wiser for having read it. This is precisely the sort of thoughtful and balance work I so appreciate in the Bulwark. Thank you, Charlie.
Thanks, Charlie, for your heartfelt piece on private moral dilemmas and how complicated the subject at hand can be for people living life as it is not lived by people on the Supreme Court, and by others of limited empathy.
In response to his remarks following the return to 2nd class personhood to women, I might summarize my feelings toward Mr. Justice Thomas as follows: Clarence Thomas means to make a soup of the citizenry, putting them into the cold punitive reasoning of an unelected magistrate, and then turning up the heat very slowly, until it boils over with theocratic rage at our civil impieties and cooks all of us.
I'm late to the game in writing my thoughts. Kudos to Charlie for sharing his personal account. It would behoove people to understand that both sides harbor sincere views on this issue and that there are real human beings involved in this matter. I think sometimes that gets lost in the mix.
I have pointed out though the inconsistency of people who decry those who are actively trying to undermine our democracy who in the next breath think unelected federal judges, and not our democratic institutions, should decide the most consequential policy decision of our lifetime. To say Roe was poorly reasoned is an understatement. It was a train wreck of a legal opinion. Those who defend it are almost exclusively those who liked the result.
I have no doubt that the crazies will dominate the discussion at the state level for the immediate future. Red state Republicans will push for total bans with no exceptions. Blue state Democrats, make no mistake about it, will push for abortion for 9 months of pregnancy. And you know what? These extreme positions won't win out long-term. Example: In Indiana two anti-abortion Republican legislators who held the most extreme position on abortion lost primary battles to more moderate (at least on abortion) candidates.
Liberals like to talk about how a strong majority of people supported Roe v. Wade and didn't want it overturned. And what percent of those people have actually read Roe v. Wade and know its holding? 1%. No, that's too high. The fact is when you asked people if they support abortion on demand through six months of pregnancy (which was the holding of Roe), the answer is no they don't.
Americans have held the same position on abortion for a long time. They support abortion IF the abortion is performed early. Strong majorities oppose abortion in the second trimester, which Roe specifically mandated states allow. And strong majorities support exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother.
That is in the fact the position of nearly every industrialized country. And most have done it via legislation, not judicial fiat. The United States was an outlier with the Roe decision mandating abortion until the end of the second trimester, which was then about the point of viability.
I have no doubt that majority opinion is what most state laws will eventually reflect. There will be outliers. A few states will ban abortion, except maybe with some exceptions. Other states will take New York's current approach and allow abortion unfettered for 9 months. But most states will be in the middle, adopting something like Mississippi did with a 15 week ban, a cut off that only affects about 7% of the abortions in that state.
The hyperventilating needs to cease and the democratic process needs to get to work. It will be ugly no doubt, but cathartic. Democracy is how we reach reasonable compromises in this country on issues such as abortion. It's the worst system out there, with the exception of all other forms of govefnrment.