Image generated by OpenAI ChatGPT via Christy Thomas
The following are quotes from a book titled Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Human Evolution by Cat Bohannon, a researcher and author with a Ph.D. in the evolution of narrative and cognition from Columbia University.
The uterus and its temporary passenger are, in fact, in conflict: the uterus evolving to protect the mother’s body from its semi-native invader, and the fetus and placenta evolving to try to work around the uterine safety measures.
If it sounds as though I’m describing human motherhood as a kind of horror movie, you’re not entirely wrong. I love my children and wouldn’t trade them for the world. But I did risk my life to have them, as do all women who have children, some more obviously than others.
Pregnancy is inherently dangerous and can have crippling long-term side effects on women. The safest thing for a woman’s body is to never be pregnant at all. But when we do choose to have children, at the very least, evolution has managed to provide us with a suite of tools to be able to endure it. And most of us will. Most women do have at least one child, and that pregnancy is usually straightforward. Nearly all women suffer from muscular tears and immunological snafus and a host of other problems during and after their pregnancies, many of which can and do lead to disability and death.
Now, here is the text of GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2025 H 1 HOUSE BILL 1232
It is a matter of indisputable scientific fact that a distinct and separate human life begins at the moment of fertilization. As such, that new human life is recognized by the State as an individual person, entitled to the protection of the laws of this State from the moment of fertilization until the moment of natural death. Any person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person, by any means, at any stage of life, or succeeds in doing so, shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder, respectively. Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. The State has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death.”
So, let’s talk about this a bit. Just exactly how is a few hours or days old embryo a separate human life when the collection of cells is 100% dependent upon the placental connection in the womb of a woman? That is what is defined as a “separate human life?” Seriously?
More, can this collection of cells breathe? Because the Scriptures make it clear that it is the ability to breathe on one’s own that defines life.
Should this bill become law, the chances are high that any woman experiencing a spontaneous abortion, i.e., miscarriage, would be subject to murder charges. And how many pregnancies have that result? According to the Mayo Clinic, “The risk is about 10% to 15% for those in their 20s, rises to roughly 20% for women at age 35, and increases to over 33% by age 40. [1, 2].
Since there would be no way to prove they did not abort deliberately, that’s going to be a lot of innocent, already grieving women subject to the death penalty.
The language of this bill, i.e., the use of “deadly force,” also suggests that someone who murders a woman who is considering an abortion, even to preserve her own life, would not face any penalty if the defense states that the murderer was trying to protect the “distinct separate human life” inside the now-dead woman.
As one friend of mine noted, “This is the stupidest thing I have seen the Republicans do. So you get your girlfriend pregnant, she mentions an abortion, and you plug her, ridding yourself of both your responsibilities and girlfriend at the same time.”
Now, one of the sponsors of this bill has removed his name from it, probably to save his sorry legislative life. The other has already lost his primary election, so he’s out anyway—I guess he wants to see how much damage he can do on his way to political ignomy.
But I want to know this: why is it even OK to introduce the kind of legislation that threatens the life of every pregnant woman under its jurisdiction?
Wouldn’t it be better if we introduced a bill that demands every single male undergo a simple vasectomy upon entering puberty, to be reversed only when, and if, such a male proves himself responsible enough to father and support a child from conception to young adulthood or longer if necessary? Any male entering the US for any reason would also be subject to a forced vasectomy.
And if we really, really want to stop abortions, here’s an even better solution: castrate eight out of ten men worldwide, shepherd those 20% chosen for breeding purposes into isolated cells from which they cannot escape, and periodically harvest an adequate amount of high-quality and diverse sperm.
This will 100% ensure all pregnancies are wanted and so will also stop all abortions except for the ones that threaten the life of the mother.
The remaining 80% castrata can then take up their places as the world’s servants and singers, cheerfully change diapers and mop floors, meekly care for the incontinent elderly, and submissively handle all distasteful tasks, while the now free women actually run things.
And along with very, very few abortions, I bet it would be a more peaceful place.
How about it, guys? You want to outlaw abortions? Go after yourselves, not after women. Face it: without women and our willingness to sacrifice our long-term health and life to bear children, there is no human future.
Maybe it is time to treasure us, honor us, respect us, and recognize our ability to make our own health decisions, rather than authorizing our murder at your whims and utter lack of scientific knowledge or understanding of the pregnancy process.