Being a parent is expensive. Being a criminal is also expensive, whether you lose economic opportunities to avoid apprehension or spend money on your defense if apprehended or go to prison and lose everything and, marked as a felon, emerge unemployable. Abortion is an economic issue, because when it’s not legal, those are the two remaining options, leaving out being dead, which you could argue is either very expensive or absolutely beyond the realms of money and price.
Well, there’re also contraception, chastity, other options. But those wouldn’t allow the rhetorical trope being employed, would they?
’The last days before the midterm elections should include robust Democratic conversations about defending rights and pursuing economic justice, with access to abortion central to both.’
Yeah, sure. That’s absolutely the most overwhelmingly important question facing voters in the IS, love…
Hmm, seems he missed the possibility of putting the child up for adoption. Some time back in a discussion about this I brought that up & was told that “a woman couldn’t just give her own child away”. No, of course not, she’ll just snuff it out to avoid having to give it away?
I wonder why Ms. Solnit might hold those positions?
https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf
“Abortion is an economic issue, because when it’s not legal, those are the two remaining options”
And is abortion illegal in the United States?
That’s the other rhetorical chicanery (not to say bare-faced lying) going on here. Sure, there are a few states which, having had the power returned to them, might end up banning it outright, so I won’t say it isn’t a live argument there. But in the vast majority of them, it simply isn’t.
Abortion is ‘illegal’ almost everywhere, in so far as it’s subject to legal constraints. Very few places allow abortion at will up to the fourth trimester.
And that’s the rhetorical chicanery, Chris. Pro-abortion activists have no interest in making the distinction between constrained-by-law and outright illegal; on the contrary, they use the confusion (which isn’t actually all that confusing; is driving “illegal” because you need a licence and insurance?) to foment outrage.