Interview: Abortion and Roe

The following is a transcript from an interview with Lisa McWhorter, a mom and fellow thinker, about the leaked Roe v Wade SCOTUS decision, abortion, choice, and all that rot.

Thought Butter: Lisa, thanks so much for taking the time to allow me to pick your brain about this whole abortion deal that suddenly…uh, got a whole lot hotter. And by way of establishing your ethos, you have four children, correct?

Lisa McWhorter: Thanks, yes, I do have four kids, all still at home and yes, the abortion debate has heated up. I have been writing and thinking about this topic for, gosh, I dunno, years now. There have always been those rumblings underfoot of the social unrest that an issue like abortion causes, but it was kept at bay by the perceived dominance of pro-choice victories, Roe being the chief of them. But now that that golden calf of abortion rights appears to be challenged, we really need to brace ourselves for some serious tectonic shifts. The fault lines are showing on the surface.

TB: So, there is obviously a ton we could talk about, many different paths to explore, and we can kinda see where the conversation leads, but first can you tell me some of the ways you see the fault lines showing up on the surface, as you put it? How do you see this and what do you mean by it?

LM: Well, for starters the masks are coming off. By that I mean for decades the conversation has mainly been eddying around the idea of ‘is a fetus a human life’, or at what point in the pregnancy does life begin. I’m sure you have heard these arguments before, you know, one side will say it is the quickening which is around six to eight weeks, others will say not til the baby starts breathing is it a life, others divvy it up in some form of the trimesters – which is total bunk, by the way.

TB: What do you mean it is bunk, which part?

LM: The trimester framework we all use nowadays to date pregnancies, it’s bunk, it’s not a medical fact. It was fabricated by Justice Harry Blackmun, the supreme court justice who wrote the majority opinion for Roe. He made it up. 

TB: He made it up, like, it’s not some GYN measuring tool?

LM: Well, it has certainly become so, but exactly, he made it up to justify abortion in earlier terms of the pregnancy. There needed to be some sort of line in the sand drawn beyond which abortion would be not allowed and so he came up with the trimester framework so that the first trimester would be that line. I’m not saying he was being malicious or anything, but it’s just a fact that the trimester framework we all use in dating pregnancy was the mind child of Blackmun in the majority opinion he wrote for Roe. It was not based on any medically established understanding of fetal development.

TB: Huh… I did not know that. 

LM: Well, now you do. (Laughs). And, and, the cutoff for abortion cited in Roe, the first trimester, was totally arbitrary. Um… there were memos Blackmun wrote to the other justices during the whole deliberation which stated very clearly that the cutoff of the first trimester was arbitrary, those were his words, it was arbitrary. But then, he said, the idea of the quickening or fetal viability was also equally arbitrary.

TB: Geez. That is so crazy. Makes me not want to ever use those terms again. Even people who are staunchly pro-life use this idea of trimesters to date their pregnancies, I can’t believe it is not based on any actual scientific reasoning. 

LM: Oh, there is a whole lot about Roe that is not common knowledge, there was falsification of data, manipulation of storylines, fabricating history and stuff like that.

TB: Really! Sounds like that could be a whole other interview, but maybe, just real quick maybe you could list off a few things that were sketch about Roe.

LM: Sure, well, so for example Jane Roe the defendant, Roe was not her real name, it was actually Norma McCorvey, who was instructed by her legal team to lie and say her pregnancy was from being raped to make the judges more sympathetic to her case. McCorvey, by the way has since given her life to pro-life causes, which is interesting. Um, there was an abortionist by the name of Nathanson who falsified the stats of illegal abortions and maternal deaths from those “back alley abortions” that were happening pre-Roe. He actually fessed up later and publicly told how he and others used the falsified info to manipulate the decision. Um, lets see…is that enough for now?

TB: That’s plenty thank you. I’m still reeling from this idea that many people have, basically have conferred personhood on a fetus, considering it “human” or “a person” based on this totally fabricated trimester framework that some guy invented. Um…while we are at it, maybe we can just do a bit of housekeeping about Roe. Jen Psaki has been parroting a stat by Fox News which says nearly two-thirds of Americans support Roe. But if you look more closely, most Americans do not know what Roe is. In fact, at work the other day I did an informal poll and asked my coworkers if they know what Roe v Wade is, and what its undoing would do. Granted my sample population was like ten, but I found only about thirty percent of people actually knew what it was. So I do think that stat needs to be taken with a grain of salt. So can you just real quick can you give the rundown on Roe?

LM: Sure. Roe was the SCOTUS decision that said the constitution protects a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, essentially. They said it is a right as essential to a person as the freedom of speech, press, etc. Judges are not meant to read their own moral beliefs into the constitution, they have one job and that is to say whether a law is constitutional or not. They do not make laws. So what is happening now is the SCOTUS is looking at Roe and saying, not that it is immoral, because that is not their job, they are saying that Roe was poorly decided in that the constitution has nothing to say about it. It is not overturning abortion or banning it, as we are hearing everywhere. I mean, I wish it was, but it is merely kicking the decision to make abortion laws back down to the states. States like California will obviously still have extremely loose abortion laws, which is to say no laws at all restricting it, and places like Arkansas will most likely have total bans. The constitution has a clause called enumeration, which means the federal government only has the powers explicitly stated in the constitution and if it is not clearly stated, then those decisions are given to the states or the people to decide. When you hear people say it is banning abortion, that is not true, it just goes back to the state level.

TB: Great, thanks. I think most Americans skipped civics class and have very little understanding of how our government works. So you said something in a previous conversation I thought was fantastic, about the cultural conversation we have about life and when a fetus is considered a human life, can you talk about that a bit?

LM: Yeah, actually you saw a version of it recently with the most recent SCOTUS nominee..Ketanji Jackson-Brown, or Brown Jackson, I forget which order her name is. When she was asked what a woman is and she had this look like she had just woken up from a catnap and found herself to be on Final Jeopardy (laughs). And she says the now famous, or infamous, reply “I am not a biologist.” It’s the idea that gender is consigned merely to biology. You know, whatever a woman is, whatever that strange creature is, it is to be found somewhere in this bag of flesh in front of you, and that is all there is to it. But woman is more than biological, obviously, she is the repository of the image of God, the feminine. 

TB: Yeah, I think we talked about this before, and I remarked how a majority of the responses to Jackson’s remark has been a response in kind, namely that a woman is a human with a vagina and a uterus, which is obviously a response which is completely biological.

LM: Exactly, the conservative responses have been lame. But the point is that just as the definition of woman has been answered biologically, we are also trying to have this discussion of “life in the womb” as solely biological as well. You know, when does life start? Is it the quickening, is it conception, is it when they are breathing or can sustain bodily functions on their own? All of these are attempts to define life in biological terms. And I am saying we need to think of life as the unity of the spiritual and biological, just as the correct understanding of gender is unity of the spiritual and biological.

TB: So what would you say life is, then, what..how would you respond to when life starts?

LM: Well, I think we need to back up the bus a bit more, even before conception and think about the means by which God made for humans to make more humans. It is the physical union of a man and a woman, at least ideally, in a loving commitment, sealed with a promise, which we call marriage, and as this love is shared, as the love overflows, if you will, the result of this overflowing joy and love is another human made as a result of this love. You know, God doesn’t need us, but he created us as the overflowing of his joy, he wanted to share his goodness with us. And I think if we start pre-conception, even with this idea of what sex is for, it is a celebration of joy – and I know that can sound corny – but it is, that is what, at a fundamental level, that is what sex is, and the natural product of this sharing is a child. And that is a beautiful and good thing. So I’m not saying life begins before conception but it is important to recognize the environment into which life is begotten. 

TB: Yeah, I see what you are saying. It kind of makes me think of two birds working together to make a nest in preparation for the eggs. I mean, I suppose that’s why we call them “love birds” and not, like “sex birds.”

LM: (Laughs) Yes, that certainly doesn’t have the same romantic connotation. And so, briefly, I know you wanted to move onto other things, but essentially life begins at conception and not just because that is when the obvious biological processes begin, but that is also when the physical products of the union come together themselves. Not to get too graphic, but just as a man penetrates a woman, the sperm also penetrates the ovum and the comingling of the DNA begins, this is also the inception of the framework which this young life will carry with it for the rest of its life. So when does a blastocyst or a zygote become the image of God? Well, just as the Bible says, we are made in the image of God. Therefore, the union of the spiritual and physical happens when a baby is made, so conception.

TB: So since we are “made” in God’s image, life begins when we are made, which is conception. Interesting, that is very simple and straightforward. So you are saying that we need to talk about “life” as more than biological and that other aspect is the spiritual, which is the image of God, and that we can see in the Bible that since we are made in the image of God, and since conceptions is how and when a baby is made, then Life, I suppose in the capital “L” sense, starts at conception.

LM: Yes, exactly. Not groundbreaking stuff. I’m not saying anything new, just reminding people that, as we are talking about when life starts or whatever, we need to not be so obtuse as to only think about life biologically.

TB: One of the arguments I kind of get sick of hearing about is the whole “My body, my choice” thing. I feel like well, which choice are you talking about, the choice to have sex? One thing I have written about in the past is the idea that what is means to be human, at least in part, is that we make choices, but more specifically, we encounter our choices in the form of consequences. And so, technically, it would be the consequences of choice is what makes us human.

LM: Yes, I get frustrated with that too. I heard a woman on Youtube a few days back calling all women collectively to refuse to have sex with any man, I guess in retaliation. And I was like, so you can practice abstinence as revenge, but you can’t practice abstinence to avoid unwanted pregnancy? So, I like to think about it like this, and this is actually one of the more solid pro-choice arguments I have heard. It goes like this: Your kid has kidney failure and you are the only one in the world who has the right genetic makeup to donate a kidney. Now you very may well donate one to him because you have two, so you won’t die, and it will definitely save his life. But should you be legally obligated to donate a kidney? Should the government make you cough up one of your kidneys? Obviously that is meant to target the idea of making abortion illegal.

TB: The first thought that comes into my head is, what kind of mom wouldn’t donate a kidney to her child?

LM: Yes, of course, and I think all people may say they absolutely would donate one, but the point of the argument is should you be legally mandated to do so.

TB: Ok, so what is the response?

LM: The response is, and this gets to the “my body, my choice” thing, what is a kidney for? What is the purpose and function of a kidney? Well obviously kidneys filter the blood to keep you alive. That is their purpose, to keep the body alive. What is the purpose of a uterus? It isn’t to keep the woman alive, is it? It is to keep a baby alive. Many women live without a uterus, it is called a hysterectomy. So when we talk about “your body”, well, you have a guest room in your body that you were made with and it has no other purpose than to host a child. Your kidneys are meant for you; your uterus is meant for the baby. So briefly, that is how I would respond.

TB: Oh that is fantastic! I really like that, the idea of the guest room. It makes me think of the schizophrenic, I guess, attitude, like having sex is inviting a guest to stay with you and an abortion is busting down the door to the room suddenly, and executing the guest, saying it is your house. Well, maybe consider not inviting a guest in the first place, since it is your house and all.

LM: Yes, we are, women are meant to give life, grow it, foster it, and have been given a body to make that happen. The female form very obviously bestows an identity, which is, I see as a huge gift, you know? It is tough to know your purpose, who you are, what you are supposed to be in their world, and the enormous hint God gave to women in their physical makeup is a blessing. Women give life, and childbirth and rearing is a huge part, but not the whole part, obviously.

TB: Okay, well thanks for that. Um, I was hoping we could get into that more contentious idea you were talking about the other day, about what is at the core of this whole abortion deal and why people are getting wicked pissed.

LM: Sure.

TB: It seems to me that the conversation has reached a different level now that Roe is being challenged. And people are, some people, are no longer trying to take a stand that abortion is not taking a human life, because of whatever arbitrary measurement they use to determine life, but are openly acknowledging that, yes, this is a human life, but the right of a woman to choose trumps that right of that human to live. And, honestly, I was surprised the conversation took this turn, almost as though the immense effort it takes to continue to justify this pretense that a pregnancy, at any point, is not a life just got too burdensome, or stopped working or whatever, and so it was, well, aborted, not to put too fine a point on it.

LM: I totally agree, and I think it has parted the mists so to speak to be able to get a glimpse at the hideous monster behind this, behind abortion, and the abject failure of men and women but in totally different ways.

TB: Okay, so what is that monster, as you put it, that has been revealed.

LM: Well, reproductive rights, to use the common misnomer, is the pinnacle of feminism. Feminism has itself undergone several overhauls, or waves, but it seems to have reached its ragged peak in this issue of abortion. So what is at the root of this mountain? What motivation is strong and angry enough to terminate in murder? It is envy. Envy is the root, way deep down, of abortion. 

TB: Yes, I thought that was so profound when I heard you say that the other day. Because as I was racking my brain for an explanatory cause for such a bloody scourge, I was thinking of this god-like desire for self-definition, or the pride of autonomy, or, I don’t know, the anaphylactic response to women being subjugated by men or whatever, but when you said envy it just seemed like so many things clicked into place. It was simple, it explained things, and envy is so caustic it could actually fertilize bitterness to grow into this weed of abortion. Can you explain more about this idea of envy?

LM: It is interesting to ask “What is a thing in itself?” Wave away pretense and opinion and just look very simply at the phenomenon or object before you; what does it do? How is it acting? In the book of James, he asks his readers What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. If we ask ourselves what is abortion in itself, well, it is obviously murder. If we replace “abortion” for “murder” in this context we can see that it is caused by covetousness, by envy. The greek word here is zeloo and is actually an onomatopoeia, a word based on a sound, and zeloo is meant to imitate the sound of boiling water. So it is that hissing, boiling, roiling sound, which is so brilliant because isn’t that what envy or jealousy feels like? So where is the envy? It is the woman’s envy of the sinful licentiousness of men. For hundreds, thousands of years, as men have misused, abused, mistreated, misvalued women, women have largely been left holding the bill. Men can come and go, take what they want, impregnate a woman and ride off into the sunset leaving the woman to deal with the pregnancy and raising the child. This kind of careless freedom to have all the benefits of sensual pleasure without any of the responsibility is a source of envy. And as James, says, you covet and do not have so you kill. 

TB: So you are saying that as an example of how envy kills, the envy that this spirit of feminism has of men, manifests as literally killing?

LM: Yes, this is en envy that wants so badly to have what it perceives to be desirable it is willing to kill to get it. But, I hasten to add, this is sin begetting sin. Largely, how women have been treated by men is sinful, wrong, and heinous, and this response is also sinful, obviously. A person can be envious of a good thing or envious of a bad thing. It doesn’t care, it just lusts.

TB: After I initially heard you present this idea I tried it out on a few people at work, women mostly, and let’s just say it was met with less than enthusiastic acceptance. Some said it was dismissive, others that it was playing all the onus on women. What would you say to those who say you are just blaming women or assigning negative motivations to what is commonly understood to be a fight for equality?

LM: Well, first of all it is not placing the onus on the women, but actually on the men. Feminism – and I know that term is loaded with different definitions – but it is responsive. It is a response to male treatment, it is not inventive, it is not creative or entrepreneurial. God made women to respond and this is yet another way they are responding to the negative treatment from men. 

TB: Okay, so talk a bit more about this idea of how men have treated women, how are they… in what way do they hold the onus for abortion?

LM: To be clear, both men and women, in general, and it is important to emphasis the generality of terms we are speaking in, are guilty in abortion but each in a peculiar way. Women in their envy and abandonment of purpose, and men also in their abandonment of their purpose and duties. Since men are meant to lead and exercise sacrificial responsibility, they are primarily responsible for all this stuff. By and large, feminism springs from the failure of men, just like weeds grow in a lawn that is poorly fertilized or watered, so feminism grew from femininity poorly praised, valued and honored. And when that was not done, when men did not live out godly masculinity, the response to that was the weeds of feminism, not least of which that has sprouted all over the evangelical church. You know, all of this stuff is so deep, it all harkens down to the roots and gender, masculinity and femininity, and what happens when they are abandoned. It is not coincidence the rise in toxic feminism and abortion has parallelled homosexual and now LGTBQ etc ideologies. 

To briefly open up the hood of how this interaction has occurred, essentially women build civilization. The woman is the heart of a home, brings beauty, goodness, wholesomeness, life to the family. And the family is the brick that builds the structure of society. I mean, women literally carry the future inside of them. This is godly femininity, this is feminine essentialism and when men recognize and understand the goodness of this expression of the image of God, they want to spend their lives protecting it, providing for it so that it may continue to bless them and the world. At risk of overstating things, nearly all the things we love about being alive are the result of women expressing godly femininity. Masculinity recognizes this and values it by dying for it. This protecting and providing is what we call marriage. Marriage, from the man’s side of things is he valuing so much the life giving abilities – and I don’t just mean babies, but in the sense of all of life – the life giving abilities of women and him saying I will lay down my life so that this may flourish. It is literally laying down their lives for beauty, life and goodness. But instead of this being valued, men have milked the women for selfish gain and the result is a sinful, but very understandable, scornful envy.

TB: And as the Bard said, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” 

LM: Exactly, and this idea of scorn is also at the root of it. This envy is a scornful envy. It is through women that men are tied to their future through their children. Apart from this men are a flash in a pan, like so many fruit flies with sexual energies they are looking to spend. It is through marriage that men are tied to their future, become immortal, in a way, in the sense that their memory will live on. So what is abortion if not women lighting a match on the future of men because of being scorned? They have the power to end civilization in a way that is not the mass destruction of a nuclear weapon or biological warfare, but it is a tantalizing, retributive justice, in a way. It is like saying “You don’t want me? Fine, I am leaving and taking civilization with me.”

TB: It all sounds very, I don’t know, soap opera-ish. 

LM: Well, it is. We like to think of ourselves as an enlightened society, living by science and all of that, but the reality is that we are most of us are driven by passion, and godless passions at that. Any intellectual point can be cherry picked and positioned to bend around the emotions. They are very good at disguising themselves as intellectual positions when in reality they are just carnal passions dressed up with highly curated evidence. Abortion is the result of both sexes sacrificing abandoning their genders. Unfortunately, we not only need to correct men and women living in accordance with their gender but now we need to re couple gender and sex in our culture.

TB: So to sum up, abortion is bad.

LM: Yes, it is bad. The legal reasoning behind Roe is bad, abortion at any phase in pregnancy is killing the image of God, and abortion itself is the scornful envy of women responding to the failures of men to be men. 

TB: Ok, last question, some would say what is the point of calling this envy, I mean, why do we even need to go there? Isn’t it enough to have the conversations a level up, about when life begins and make laws based on this? 

LM: No it is not. Because you can’t get your way out of a problem you don’t understand. You must stare the ugly root right in the face. That is the first reason we must understand abortion as envy. Secondly, abortion is the fruit of the root. What is that root? The abandonment of gender. Both men and women are responsible for this, and men more so for the reasons I mentioned. And so we must see this clearly for what it is so we can call to repentance not just for snuffing out life, but for the slow suffocation of the image of God in men and women.

TB: Thanks so much for taking the time to hash out some of these ideas. At its heart, I really think you nailed it.

LM: Well, Praise God, and you are welcome. It has been a pleasure.