Public Morality, State Interest and Women’s Right to Abortion

Raising children is expensive, so it's up
to whoever needs them to keep them.

Image was combined by author from works of succo and waldryano

Women in the US have lost their constitutional right to abortion because the Supreme Court overturned its 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision on June 24, 2022. States will now determine their abortion laws, and it looks like abortion will be mostly banned.

This question has always caused great excitement among Americans because it contrasts the fundamental right of each individual to control his/her own life (and his/her own body) on the one hand with the norms of existing morality and the interest of the state to increase the number of taxpayers on the other hand. A U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alito gave a very good summary of the abortion situation in the US:

Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

Everyone has the theoretical right to control his/her own life, it is clear and understandable.
Furthermore, the US Declaration of Independence calls “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” the unalienable rights which have been given to all humans by their Creator, and which governments have to protect. Some (and maybe many) women see their happiness in particular in the freedom to legally have abortions in their home country whenever they want, and do not want the issue to be dependent on decisions of any court.

On the other hand, any state is an instrument of suppressing the independence of individuals and forcing them to live according to certain rules in order to preserve peace in a country, so that people could calmly work, and elite could quietly distribute the results of this work.

Those two approaches have always existed together, have been in conflict, and should be balanced in an ideal state, i.e. citizens should understand why in a particular case their personal interests might be infringed (like it recently happened with wearing masks during a coronavirus pandemic) in the name of the public good.

In addition, every society has its own morality and it is usually related to religion. Morality is a set of moral rules that are not to be violated in a given place at a given time. A nation's mentality is formed under the influence of those morals. For example, Christian morality is “thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife”, etc.

Any morality is transformable because it is tied to a certain place in time and the mentality of inhabitants. A change of place or time makes it possible to do things for which one might have been punished in the past. Once upon a time, humans ate or sacrificed humans, and it was not considered something bad or even special. As a result, for the same action (for example, for having sex with the wife of the host who took you into his house for a night) you can get your head cut off (Caucasus), beaten badly (Ukraine), sued (Europe, USA), or given food for the road (Khanty-Mansi national autonomous region, Russia). In the latter case, this is because of Khanty and Mansi people are dying out and need an influx of fresh blood to survive.

Moral principles regarding abortion in the United States seem to be based on Christian morality, i.e., "thou shalt not kill”. There are many talks about the unacceptability of taking off the life of an unborn yet creature. However, the morality of any society is always under great pressure from the authorities. They have always tried to adjust this morality to serve their own desires.

And what is the main desire of any authority in any country, the US including? Of course, more power and money, as a necessary attribute of power.
And where do the authorities of any country get their money? From the people, of course, because the authorities themselves do not produce anything, they only distribute the material goods created by the people.

Therefore, the direct interest of any authority in any country is material in nature and aimed at increasing the number of potential taxpayers (by capturing other state's territories including). That is why the authorities in any country start military actions in their foreign policy. That is why they are very much worried about emigration from their country, the growing number of abortions, the "aging" of the population, etc in their domestic policy. This is correct from the point of view of elites, otherwise who will work for them? The elite itself is not going to work in any country.

In the United States, both Republican and Democratic parties are generally against abortion. Now President Biden is actively advocating for a review of the June 24 Supreme Court decision, but I think he's just gaining votes for the Democratic Party before the US midterm elections 2022.
The phrase “Abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE” was used by Democrat Bill Clinton back in 1992, and then it was repeated by Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2008, and Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard agreed with it at the Democratic presidential debate in 2019.

The state doesn't care whether a mother can feed her unwanted child if she decides to give birth to him or her. The important thing for the elite is that a mother will raise a child and he/she will work and pay taxes.

So, the main point of the state's fight against abortion is clear. Now about the personal aspect.

If a potential mother does not want to procreate a child for some reason, then this right cannot be taken away from her, otherwise she simply will stop getting pregnant. There are various methods for that and they are being improved all the time. Fighting those methods will be the next step of the state (the elites) in the fight against abortion under the pretext of ensuring the "right to life" of future taxpayers.

Also a woman's reluctance to have a child is not "moral" or "immoral". After all, she is the one, who has to support this child - to feed, clothe, treat it... Having a child is quite a big expense now, and if the mother-to-be does not want to spend her money and time on this, it is impossible to force her. Actually, the state was created by citizens and exists for their convenience (including the convenience of women who do not want to have children), not the other way around.
By the way, many couples now just live together and are in no hurry to have children just because of simple reluctance, their fears about medicine or lack of money to support them. “Pro-life” position (for example, Liz Cheney’s one) sounds very well, but what if a child's life is in filth, hunger, poverty, and diseases? Is that “pro-life”, too? Is that what you want for your child? If you are not sure, why to give birth and condemn your child to a torment?

What is really interesting about all those abortion laws, it is just when a fetus can be considered "alive" (which means that life is taken from it during abortion)? I want to remind you that modern advanced science has still not articulated what Life is, so people have no way of agreeing, particularly in which trimester of pregnancy a fetus is "alive" and which is not yet.

In addition, humans very easily take the lives of millions of other inhabitants of this planet, eating them for a lunch and not even noticing that. And no one considers this as a mortal sin because of this is one of the main laws of living in the physical body. It must be fed, and in order to do so we must kill plants and other animals. This law is above any of our moralities. It is the law of survival of any species.

In my opinion, a fair solution to the abortion issue now would be the following.

If a woman wants an abortion to be made, obviously she doesn't need a child. Then let her have an abortion legally. However, if the state does not want a woman to get rid of a child for any reason - it should conclude a surrogacy contract with this woman, assume all the costs of carrying the child, giving birth and keeping it for, for example, 1 year and then raise its future taxpayer in a special school along with others alike.

That's fair and capitalistic way of solving the problem. It's up to whoever needs a child to keep that child.

Therefore, dear women of the United States of America!

You have been told that you are free citizens of a free country. If the country starts restricting your freedom (and therefore it stops being free itself) - move to other countries or just have the abortion there and come back to vote against those who are restricting your freedom.

Like it happens with any law, there will also be attempts of abuse. I think many minors will want to take advantage of the opportunity to make some money off the birth of a US taxpayer and the country may get a baby boom. I don't know whether the US needs it or not, but that should be taken into consideration. However, there are ways to correct the issue beforehand. For example, I once read that one country (unfortunately, I don't remember which one) introduced a similar law, but stating that only women with college degree can take advantage of the material benefits of surrogacy. Thus, unwanted childbirths by too young mothers were prevented.

I would like to mention also that the US Supreme Court's decision to turn over the abortion issue to the states fits perfectly with my vision of the future of the US. It works for ongoing dividing of the country into parts by adding one more significant internal conflict to the already existing ones and giving more autonomy to the states. The US, in my opinion, is heading toward the collapse (financial default) of the federal government (see “4. Debt ceiling crisis” here) and separate states (and later – unions of states) will remain after that. Those unions will be formed by geographic proximity and similarity of various moral principles (attitude to abortion, weapons, LGBT, immigration policy, etc).

P.S. The question of whether abortion should be allowed or prohibited will soon become irrelevant.
Nature (or God, if you prefer) is no longer helping humanity. The time of Homo Sapiens is coming to an end and fewer and fewer children will be born in the future.

There are two reasons for this. The apparent reason is the reluctance of people to spend money and their time on a child, and the hidden one is the limitation of human's fertility. 6th mass extinction is applied to human beings as well.

Because of that the question of legality or illegality of abortion will become pointless within 20-30 years. When mankind realizes that it is being decreased in quantity, each human child will be worth its weight in gold and a new morality will emerge (for example, Christian countries will allow polygamy) and the laws will be adopted aimed at preserving each pregnancy. This is when the US (or rather, the former US states that unite in groups) will enact a total ban on abortion.

P.P.S. Dear Reader! I am very much interested in your opinion on the subject of this article. Please, write a comment or ask a question if you want to clarify something.
Igor Chykalov
✚ Add comment
Add comment: