From the perspective of a woman who had an out of wedlock pregnancy and faced an almost overwhelming assumption from my friends and social circle that I would abort (not, thankfully, from my now-husband, my family, or my closest friends), I don’t know what it will take to turn the cultural tide on abortion. I was not your “typical” unwed mother - I was older, very professionally established, and in a great financial position. From my perspective (raised in the “safe, legal, and rare” era by parents who considered abortion acceptable only in dire circumstances), it was never on the table - indeed, I quickly realized that having my son was a God-given opportunity to reorder my life around something other than myself and my selfish desires. But it became apparent almost immediately, once I was in that position, that essentially the entire edifice of female professional-managerial class life was built on abortion. At least for women of my social class, the post-sexual revolution world is one in which success is possible only if you make yourself a worker first - a creature that can be dedicated, above all else, to first the pursuit of educational achievement and then the pursuit of career achievement, with all other demands (children, husband, family, friends, community) deprioritized.
Louise Perry has noted that this world makes many (if not most) women unhappy, and I do think that’s true - virtually every mother I know that works full-time wishes that she didn’t, because she wants to prioritize caretaking (of her children, aging parents, and the family as a whole). There are broad social classes where unwed mothers typically do not choose abortion, but so long as the class that sits at the top of the economic hierarchy, that controls policy and sets the terms of employment for most of the country, and that exerts overwhelming cultural power is built upon abortion, I do not think we will see a broader shift toward a culture of life. It angers me, honestly, that we act as if my ability to be a fully realized human being requires legalized killing, but that is the approach we’ve taken rather than remaking our professional-class world to reflect inherent difference between men and women.
As a pro-life woman, I don’t want to go *back* to a pre-Roe, pre-sexual revolution world. I want to go forward to a different world that accommodates a broader vision of success, fulfillment, and happiness - one that reflects what most women want, rather than trying to force women to want, and strive for, lives that look just like men’s.
I don't really much the difference between our culture and the Romans other than the fact that we pretend to care about the weak. We valorize the strong and the wealthy, and we marginalize the weak. The heresy that God rewards the virtuous with material blessings is pernicious in our culture---and let's all be honest--the idea that people who have cancer or heart disease or other chronic diseases somehow made lifestyle choices that "caused" the disease is common too.
Unless we change our ways and put some real financial and logistical support behind family formation, I would expect that it's going to be really tough to convince women to have babies. I look at what my kids are going through--do you know how much it costs just for deductibles and out of pocket co pays for prenatal care and for a hospital delivery? No young family should start out thousands of dollars in the hole just to PAY for childbirth! That is barbaric!
I don't think anybody "wants" an abortion or views it as a good thing. Women just can't see how they can raise a child. There are animals that kill their young if they feel under threat--rabbits are the best known example, but I've seen birds do it too. If you want to prevent abortions then make prenatal and maternity care free. Mandate paid parental leave for at least 6 months. Provide a cash stipend for each child under 12 or so--the age at which kids are old enough to spend an afternoon without adult supervision. Create economic conditions that will allow one full time wage earner to support a family.
If the government won't do those things, the government has no business forcing women to bear children.
I beg to differ that all women don't "want" abortions or view them as a bad thing. There are plenty of women who "shout" their abortions who say otherwise. (Ashley Judd, Martha Plimpton, Gloria Steinem... Heck, Lena Dunham *wishes* she had one.) There are definitely more reasons than simply "lack of financial support" that women choose to abort. I live in a pretty Red state, and pretty much every pregnancy is covered, if not directly, then supplementally, if you apply for it.
The irony here is that there used to be economic conditions that allowed one full time wage earner to support a family, (Still possible in places if you are willing to make sacrifices), but a mass entrance into the workforce by women diluted those conditions. Now we might all benefit from cash stipends for kids under 12...I wouldn't complain...that would be a great part time job wage for my household and definitely add a buffer to our currently squeezed finances. (What I wouldn't give for gas under $2 again, but I digress...)
It's unfortunate we seem to have spent most of the second half of the 20th century breaking down family formation structures and breaking up already formed families, mostly for selfish reasons. Families are the first line of defense social safety nets. Government intervention always inflates expenses and creates more need for government intervention, which inevitably turns into a "bottom line" problem, because governments cannot love persons, just allocate funds.
Those are celebrities with political issues to support. The whole "shout your abortion" thing is just as dumb and edge as "defund the police." Somehow these idiots think that adopting a transgressive message is something something social justice. It's the left's version of right wing edgelord fads.
I am old enough to have grown up in the one income world you describe. It was a historical anomaly made possible by the fact that Europe and Asia had been flattened by WWII, and immigration had been negligible since 1925 or so. There were no immigrants to "do the jobs Americans didn't want," and there was no competition from Asia or Europe. There was almost no technology so office and factory processes were manual. Add to that the baby bust of the Great Depression so there were not enough workers---a 16 year old could get a family wage job because there were just so few people joining the workforce each year and the economy was going crazy after 15 years of depression and war where people could not consume.
It was a nice little idyll, but it wasn't sustainable. Even when women did not work outside the home, before WWII when the population was more rural they were essentially microfarmers, taking care of large vegetable gardens, cows, chickens, pigs, etc.
I was trying to use public examples people might recognize, but having a political agenda aside, these women were more than happy to end their pregnancies for reasons other than lack of financial support. I know several examples personally where this was also the case, including my childhood friend who went to Catholic grade school with me and became promiscuous at an early age. Her explicit position on abortion was that if she got pregnant, she would "just get rid of it." Which she did, twice, sadly. She has never expressed any regret over those abortions, but is a miserable and angry person, and very, very vocally pro-abortion, so I know her conscience must bother her at some level. My point is, the "abortion as birth control" mentality also exists.
That might be true, but it's also true that flooding the job market in the late 60s and 70s with working women, who were often paid less and second household incomes, definitely threw a monkey wrench in the ability of being able to support a family on one income, particularly for men. It went from women demanding to work, to having to work, and then limiting family size accordingly in order to prioritize the work. I come from a long line of women who have worked outside the home at various times to help support the family. I'm aware that has always been a "thing." But the "career orientedness" is a newer phenomenon. And we might celebrate that, but we should also be honest about unintended consequences and fall out from that as well.
I do reiterate though, that government interventions always lead to more government interventions, and the perceived necessity of them. Government intervention is the reason student loans are ridiculous. It's the reason insurance is so crappy now. Having a baby was much better covered by insurance before Obamacare meddled with the whole system.
But really, abortion is symptom of something else. And that's pretty much unfettered sexual behavior. And unless we are willing, culturally, to raise and honor some fences about that act, the desire for abortion as birth control is going to be a thing.
I suspect that many women have conflicted feelings about abortion but are not willing to admit it due to having to join one side or the other. I know that in my social circle it is taboo to admit to any reservations about "choice". Personally I have more sympathy for late term abortions which are about severe fetal anomalies or risk to the mother than for elective abortions which are all about social reasons having to do with lack of options for a supported pregnancy. As for the idea that the decision is between a woman and her doctor I think that is largely untrue. Women seeking elective abortions do not consult their doctor as it is not a matter of health but a social/economic decision and I dare say a moral decision. When we say as a society that elective abortions are okay we are also saying that we would rather do that than do the hard task of supporting pregnant women and their children both short term and long term. Like it or not, that is a moral choice.
I say extremism because, as a pro-choice democrat (and mom of 2), albeit raised by very pro-life family, with friends who identify as both -I can say I have yet to meet a Democrat woman who supports abortion without any limits. Most progressives I know endorse a European-type model (1st trimester, after that for medical indications; plus a strong social welfare state that reduces the demand for abortion in the first place). Compromise is possible when you actually speak with human beings - politicians are another story.
Yes, came here to say much the same - the compromise is relatively straightforward, widely popular, and adopted in a range of peer countries (e.g. Denmark). One can debate the exact lines here, but 1st trimester + medical exemptions after + low need for abortion is a pretty good situation.
Canada has much less abortion than the USA, despite much wider social acceptance of it (and sort-of-accidentally pretty much the least restrictive abortion regulation in the world).
I think it's probably impossible to be pluralistic about who is and isn't a person, except perhaps in the very most extreme, marginal situations. I think there are two directions in which the USA could cease to be divided: the first would be a continuing dwindling of religion until those in the pro-life camp are simply so small a minority that they cannot influence law or culture. The second, one that I'm much less sure of the real path towards, would be prefaced by a collective re-orientation of our attitudes towards sex, and particularly casual sex. This could happen on a religious basis, or potentially even on a non-religious one a la Louise Perry, who argues that even secular women should not have sex with men who they don't think would be good fathers to their children.
What do you anticipate the abortion landscape will look like in ten years, twenty years in America?What would it take for it to “cease to be divided”? (in either direction)
I think the path forward will be informed by how people perceive our present.
Wearing my leftist goggles, I see a world where greed for money and an obsession with power has distorted our country and our politics. People fall prey to consumerism, are worked literally to death by mega corporations and lack even basic healthcare for themselves and their children. A single trip to the hospital can lead to bankruptcy and we reward our elderly with a choice of dying before their time (usually, these days, through alcohol or drug dependency) and maybe leaving their children a little financial cushion or spending their golden years in noxious facilities where care borders on (or is) abuse and which deplete their and their family's resources.
Wearing these goggles, I see a path forward where incredible grassroots organizations informed by Audre Lorde and bell hooks achieve political victories (like those won here in Minnesota in the past legislative session). We enact real safety nets and ensure that no one feels economically or socially coerced into having an abortion because families (of all sorts!) are fully embraced by our government and our society. We enact these policies federally and ensure that support goes directly to families, not to parasitic church/nonprofit organizations. And we also enact federal laws to keep the government out of women's wombs, and keep discussions of what happens in women's bodies between them and their doctors.
Wearing the googles of the FOX news right, I see a world where doctors murder babies and rampant 'immorality' like drag shows and friendly neighborhood lesbians present a direct threat to me and my children's well being. I don't trust the government, I don't trust doctors, I don't trust public schools, and I don't trust 'liberal' news sources. I actively fear my neighbor unless they hold my same beliefs.
When people wear those goggles, they dream of eliminating the threats and living in an idyllic and homogenous world. They might stockpile weapons, join militias and plot to overturn elections to make that world a reality. By many counts roughy 30-35% of Republicans live with this worldview. That's more than enough people, with some organization and key people in the judiciary and pentagon, to stage a coup. It's also potentially enough people, with some organization and a strong campaign infrastructure, to openly win the 2024 election and impose an autocratic state.
Most people aren't leftists and most people don't support a Christian autocratic surveillance state. But what the next 10-20 years hold won't be decided by a majority. You're right that the center won't hold with a nation so divided. And that very polarization has been artfully manufactured.
I have definitely encountered the same fear, distrust, and demonization of the neighbor that you attribute to the right on the left, and it turns up in statistics as well - on both sides of the aisle, people increasingly view those with different perspectives as inherently bad rather than allowing for the idea that good people can come to different conclusions. I’m a moderate conservative in an extremely liberal company, and the casual dismissal of anyone pro-life as “hating women” or anyone who wants to restrict immigration as a paranoid racist is jarring and absolutely shuts down conversation.
For sure! To be clear, I think there's a greater than 40% chance that we descend into a fascist authoritarian state in the next 10 years, where women of childbearing age are significantly surveilled, openly trans and openly gay people are put in private prisons and where ghettoes have checkpoints. The lack of questioning from folks who are moderate conservatives of what the end goal is of laws passed and policies espoused by mainstream Republicans haunts me, and reminds me deeply of the pervasive blindness of Weimar Germany.
I'd love you to tell me I'm wrong! That you abhor the direction of the Republican party and the invasive legislation passed in Idaho, Texas, etc. That you don't see a path for the blatantly racist element of the party to sustain its power. That you believe the Vermeule's of our world are but a brief and passing fad.
I think that all I can say here is that if that’s your starting position, there’s unlikely to be anything that I can do to persuade you that this country’s conservative voting base are not incipient Nazis.
"Just as state Republicans have become more ruthlessly autocratic in their methods, a new Trump presidency would be much more efficiently goal-oriented at the federal level. A huge transformation of the administrative state is being deliberately planned. The government agencies and civil service he has decried as the “deep state” would be purged or politicized, and the “retribution” he has promised against his enemies would also be carried out. The “unitary executive” theory long promoted by some Republicans would become the reality of an unabashed authoritarianism." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/trump-second-term-isolationist-fascism/674791/
There's also, "an illuminating new anthology, Fascism in America: Past and Present, edited by Gavriel D Rosenfeld and Janet Ward. In 12 chapters plus an introduction and epilogue, the co-editors and their contributors make the case that fascism has existed on US soil for well past a century and remains disturbingly present today." https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/30/fascism-in-america-book-trump
I'm looking mostly at the first point... the article was not the clearest, but I wonder to what extent the attacks are actually coming from the conservative end... if the motives are anti-zionist (as a portion of them were), then it's likelier to come from extreme leftist or extreme Islamic groups than extreme rightwing groups. I'd wager the incidents in college campuses, for example, aren't coming as much from the conservatives. While the white-supremacists groups might still make up most of the cases, I'm not sure if they are as responsible for the sharp *increase* in cases, especially in light of, say, the recent flair-ups in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts in the last few years.
“Significant surges in incidents include high volume increases in organized white supremacist propaganda activity (102% increase to 852 incidents), K-12 schools (49% increase to 494 incidents) and college campuses (41% increase to 219 incidents)… In 2022, 241 incidents involved references to Israel or Zionism. This is a decline from 345 such incidents in 2021”
I love Texas and Idaho is beautiful! I also think the majority of people in both states either believe the invasive legislation being passed there is wrong or are too busy with their lives to pay it much attention.
I'm curious what you mean by "if some rising fascist can speak to these people better than any of us, perhaps we will have to recognize that, whatever our virtues may be, we just might deserve the leadership we get" and "...I think I am drifting more in to whatever camp believes that is right."
I don't think Germany deserved what it got and many many Germans are still, generations later, reckoning with the fact that their ancestors were just fine through that horrible time, that their ancestors didn't step up to do anything to stop the atrocities committed in their name.
Maybe it depends where you live. Most east-cost moderate conservatives I know (including my husband and family - whereas I am a "moderate" democrat) have no patience with the Southern arm of the Republicans and can't handle the fake sanctimony of the Mike Pences of the world. I know an awful lot of Rockefeller republicans, maybe that's a regional thing.
So- I don't necessarily see what you are describing as a *national* trend. I also think demographics are against it. The US is growing less religious each year. Younger cohorts are FAR less religious than older generations. Immigrants, even conservative ones, end up assimilating in a few generations to more liberal US norms. I do think neoliberal atheists can do quite a bit of harm - I just don't think it will look the way you describe.
"What do you anticipate the abortion landscape will look like in ten years, twenty years in America?"
Not much different, I think. The pendulum does swing in these things, and the current leftward swing may have reached its apogee with gender theory, but there is a lot of mass to reverse there and I doubt it will swing back sufficiently to substantially change things in the next ten or twenty years. Not that such swings are really predictable.
"What would it take for it to “cease to be divided”? (in either direction)"
A massive Christian revival or utter collapse. Our morals are either sentimental, tribal, or principled. Most people are sentimentally pro life but tribally pro abortion. Sentimental morality cannot stand against tribal morality. Only principled morality can stand against tribal or sentimental morality and only religion provides sufficient ground to build a principle upon. And Christianity seems the only religion with even a theoretical chance of a revival on the required scale. On the other hand, unless religion is utterly obliterated, and it usually grows stronger under active persecution, then the divide will remain.
"Do the suffering have a claim on the strong because their suffering is ennobling, or for some other reason?"
The suffering have a claim on the strong because they are equally beloved of God. And Dives and Lazarus tells us what God thinks of the strong who take no pity on the weak. I wish I thought there was an adequate pagan answer to this question as well, but I don't think there is. Paganism tends all in the opposite direction.
"Can the vulnerable survive a merely egalitarian world, or do they require equity?"
They require charity, and charity in the full sense of the word.
I read Louise Perry's piece in First Things when it arrived, and my initial thought was that if original paganism was male driven then this "repaganizing" is female driven. It is now women who refuse to give up their sexual licentiousness and, because babies are a result of the sexual act, they want legally recognized options of not being "burdened" with them. At least by those on the top who set the drive for policy. Perry herself says she is hesitant to fully restrict abortion as she would like the option in certain circumstances.
I agreed with her assessment that feminism is the descendant of Christianity, but I've always thought it's specifically a descendant of Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity is so prone to weird interpretations of the human person because it's almost entirely subjective. And the things often given weight as "objective" in various sects, especially for women, were also subjective, i.e.: hair length, wearing skirts, behaviors, etc... no wonder there was a backlash in addition to a gradual abandoning of actual faith at large. Again, Perry herself confesses she is influenced by a general Christian worldview but does not truly believe.
I don't know how we can "cease to be divided" without some agreement on proper regulation of the behavior that leads to the begetting of children. And that's a cultural thing. Either we live what we believe, or we believe what we live. And if much of the culture believes sexual licentiousness is a good, then it follows that abortion is a necessary component, even if it makes us "uneasy."
I think both sides can start with a respect for the rule of law. Otherwise, why bother to make a political argument and even win the day if the other side will ignore the law.
That said, we should not ignore that we have substantial common ground. Let's work to support women who are otherwise coerced to abort so that they have the resources necessary to make choosing life seem like a reasonable and even attractive choice. This is something we have in common with the vast majority of pro abortion rights people. Generally speaking, they want to be sure women have a genuine choice, including the choice not to have an abortion. If we are truly interested in saving babies’ lives, then we can collaborate with pro abortion rights people to make sure women have the best chance possible to choose life.
We should be happy to engage our pro abortion rights interlocutors with a Consistent Life Ethic and work with them to shine light on pro life voices who are indiffernt to life beyond the womb while also drawing their attention to pro abortion rights voices who are indifferent to protecting the voiceless and vulnerable in the name of women's rights.
I'm genuinely curious what you think the role of the state should be in defending an embryo as a person from the moment of conception.
> should the state ban women of child bearing age from ingesting / being treated with substances that could harm a nascent embryo, give the chance that she could be pregnant?
> given the ability of abortifacients to be grown or covertly smuggled, what degree of monitoring do you think it is permissible for the state to engage in?
And given that technology is always improving to improve a fetus' chance of survival, it's only barely science fiction to imagine a future where embryos can be implanted in an artificial womb and gestated from conception. Do you think it should be a state mandate to remove newly fertilized embryos from women's wombs to ensure they make it to term, given the high rate of early miscarriage? Why or why not?
If you think there's no chance that any of this could become law, I urge you to look at proposals that have actively been made in state legislatures in the past two years, or the way private messages and browser histories are currently informing active civil & criminal litigation against women who had or are suspected of having had abortions.
I think this one "should the state ban women of child bearing age from ingesting / being treated with substances that could harm a nascent embryo, give the chance that she could be pregnant?" is one we have a good balance for already.
There are some drugs or treatments where doctors need you to take a pregnancy test before they write a prescription and discuss birth control/pregnancy avoidance options as part of informed consent. The existing protocol works pretty well, I think.
I do *not* think we're going to be able to transfer embryos during the first trimester (though I think it's possible biobags will push the peri-viability line back to ~18 weeks and improve 20 week viability. I think the leading edge of viability will always have a non-zero but v low survival rate, such that it's clear it's better for baby to stay in place unless that's not possible for mother and child. Twenty-two weeks is peri-viable, but no one would remove a child then if they didn't have to. 32 weeks is _way_ more survivable, but no one would do an elective delivery then.
I would be flabbergasted if a first trimester baby were ever safer outside the womb than in it, even given the risk of miscarriage.
One of the things I think is interesting about the embyro-removal hypothetical is that it is an *invasive* hypothetical that mirrors the invasiveness of the state forcing women to remain pregnant against their will (as mothers handcuffed to hospital beds can attest).
I think it's very plausible (>30%) that we will have the ability to safely gestate an embryo from conception in an artificial womb in the next 25 years. While I doubt it will be worth the risk to transfer most embryos, I could imagine a fetal-personhood state deciding that it was mandatory for individuals with a history of miscarriage or a certain genetic marker that indicates higher likelihood for miscarriage on the basis of the sanctity of life.
Can you flesh out why you see it as that plausible (30%) that we'd have an artificial womb with a *lower* loss risk than miscarriage prone women (esp. considering that many miscarriages are driven by problems intrinsic to the baby, and the ones that are intrinsic to the woman e.g. a clotting disorder, seem simpler to treat than to replace the woman wholesale).
What biological breakthroughs do you think are needed/plausible to make an artificial womb that outperforms women in the first trimester plausible? I assign this a less than 1% chance, so we diverge strongly on biology/expectations for science here, not just ethics.
I'd actually up my plausibility after perusing more research, to >60% that we will be *legally* able to safely gestate embryos from conception in an artificial womb in the next 20 years.
Yup, short version: I think we are (generally) drastically underestimating the impact of AI on the biological sciences. The ability to read, analyze and address the conditions of an artificial womb is, to me, extremely plausible given advances we are currently making.
Where I live, there is a basic assumption of abortion on demand and I don’t see that changing. I think this will remain an area of tension. Living out fully supporting women, babies and families seems like the best most positive way to search for common ground. This can include cash allowances, health care and emotional support - solidarity and caring. This already happens in many places - on both sides - and prioritizing the vulnerable seems like a way forward. A way to live out Christs call and build a movement. Alternatives to abortion are a part of this as well. Sharing stories, honoring infant death and miscarriage … walking alongside people in tough circumstances humbly.
Also, on your second-to-last questions, I don’t think suffering is ennobling. Suffering is a human constant (as that great sage The Dread Pirate Roberts said, “Life is pain, Highness”) and plenty of people suffer horribly and gain nothing positive by it. To me, interdependence is inherent in my Christian faith, and it’s an obligation that doesn’t depend on the qualities of the person in need.
While I have no hope that our culture will survive, and it is certainly the case the euthanasia has turned into a grey cloud over us all, yes, there is a compromise on abortion, which most still accept.
Abortion can only be contemplated in the cases of:
--rape and incest
--the life of the mother is at sure risk
--the child has already died in utero or will die going through birth
And even in those cases, the mother has the absolute right to continue the pregnancy if that is her desire.
I don't see how you can reconcile the rape and incest exception if you believe that an embryo or a fetus is fully human and deserves the same protection and care that a born human enjoys. It's either a baby or it's not. If it's not, then allowing the termination of a 10 week pregnancy that is a result of incest or rape but not of consensual sex violates the idea of equal protection under the law. Why is rape baby not protected when drunken one night stand baby IS protected?
Fair enough, but we're arguing from two different places. I'm making a secular, legal argument based on the idea that each person is equal under the law and is entitled to the same legal protections. If fetal life deserves equal protection to humans, then legally the rape/incest exceptions fall apart. I'd even go so far as to argue that the "conditions incompatible with life" exception is iffy since you are in effect euthanizing the baby since in our human judgement the baby would not survive after birth.
Your argument is based on religious doctrine and as such is useful for guiding women toward ethical decisions concerning the termination of a pregnancy, but you can't make laws in the US (at least not yet) because of the religious teachings of any particular faith.
All laws in the United States derive from the power invested in our representatives that we the people elect. And thus all laws are the extensions of belief systems, no matter secular or spiritual. That is what the public square of ideas is for. Let the best ideas persuade the most people, no matter their source.
You can't make a law, for example, that adulterers must be stoned to death. Even if the law is wildly popular and passes by an overwhelming majority. You'd run into 1st and 8th Amendment limits. Punishment for adultery is common to many world religions, but it's not against the law.
8th Amendment depends on what is considered to be "cruel and unusual" and it has shifted over time. I'm not in favor of stoning (nor of our present protocol of lethal injection) but I think neither is at all times and forever ruled out by the 8th Amendment.
And adultery *has* been a crime at various periods in the common law. It's still in essence proscribed by the contract of marriage.
If the state administers marriage, it specifies some behavior marriage proscribes/permits, and can address adultery without a 1st amendment issue. If it's a 1st amendment problem for the state to give a normative description of marriage, the 1st amendment would rule out civil marriage licenses.
Of course. But the point stands--every belief system will have its day in the legislature and in the courts. The abortion law of the state of Utah looks exactly like what the Church of Jesus Christ holds as its standard for permissible abortion, for example. And there is no meaningful court challenge against it.
From the perspective of a woman who had an out of wedlock pregnancy and faced an almost overwhelming assumption from my friends and social circle that I would abort (not, thankfully, from my now-husband, my family, or my closest friends), I don’t know what it will take to turn the cultural tide on abortion. I was not your “typical” unwed mother - I was older, very professionally established, and in a great financial position. From my perspective (raised in the “safe, legal, and rare” era by parents who considered abortion acceptable only in dire circumstances), it was never on the table - indeed, I quickly realized that having my son was a God-given opportunity to reorder my life around something other than myself and my selfish desires. But it became apparent almost immediately, once I was in that position, that essentially the entire edifice of female professional-managerial class life was built on abortion. At least for women of my social class, the post-sexual revolution world is one in which success is possible only if you make yourself a worker first - a creature that can be dedicated, above all else, to first the pursuit of educational achievement and then the pursuit of career achievement, with all other demands (children, husband, family, friends, community) deprioritized.
Louise Perry has noted that this world makes many (if not most) women unhappy, and I do think that’s true - virtually every mother I know that works full-time wishes that she didn’t, because she wants to prioritize caretaking (of her children, aging parents, and the family as a whole). There are broad social classes where unwed mothers typically do not choose abortion, but so long as the class that sits at the top of the economic hierarchy, that controls policy and sets the terms of employment for most of the country, and that exerts overwhelming cultural power is built upon abortion, I do not think we will see a broader shift toward a culture of life. It angers me, honestly, that we act as if my ability to be a fully realized human being requires legalized killing, but that is the approach we’ve taken rather than remaking our professional-class world to reflect inherent difference between men and women.
As a pro-life woman, I don’t want to go *back* to a pre-Roe, pre-sexual revolution world. I want to go forward to a different world that accommodates a broader vision of success, fulfillment, and happiness - one that reflects what most women want, rather than trying to force women to want, and strive for, lives that look just like men’s.
I don't really much the difference between our culture and the Romans other than the fact that we pretend to care about the weak. We valorize the strong and the wealthy, and we marginalize the weak. The heresy that God rewards the virtuous with material blessings is pernicious in our culture---and let's all be honest--the idea that people who have cancer or heart disease or other chronic diseases somehow made lifestyle choices that "caused" the disease is common too.
Unless we change our ways and put some real financial and logistical support behind family formation, I would expect that it's going to be really tough to convince women to have babies. I look at what my kids are going through--do you know how much it costs just for deductibles and out of pocket co pays for prenatal care and for a hospital delivery? No young family should start out thousands of dollars in the hole just to PAY for childbirth! That is barbaric!
I don't think anybody "wants" an abortion or views it as a good thing. Women just can't see how they can raise a child. There are animals that kill their young if they feel under threat--rabbits are the best known example, but I've seen birds do it too. If you want to prevent abortions then make prenatal and maternity care free. Mandate paid parental leave for at least 6 months. Provide a cash stipend for each child under 12 or so--the age at which kids are old enough to spend an afternoon without adult supervision. Create economic conditions that will allow one full time wage earner to support a family.
If the government won't do those things, the government has no business forcing women to bear children.
I beg to differ that all women don't "want" abortions or view them as a bad thing. There are plenty of women who "shout" their abortions who say otherwise. (Ashley Judd, Martha Plimpton, Gloria Steinem... Heck, Lena Dunham *wishes* she had one.) There are definitely more reasons than simply "lack of financial support" that women choose to abort. I live in a pretty Red state, and pretty much every pregnancy is covered, if not directly, then supplementally, if you apply for it.
The irony here is that there used to be economic conditions that allowed one full time wage earner to support a family, (Still possible in places if you are willing to make sacrifices), but a mass entrance into the workforce by women diluted those conditions. Now we might all benefit from cash stipends for kids under 12...I wouldn't complain...that would be a great part time job wage for my household and definitely add a buffer to our currently squeezed finances. (What I wouldn't give for gas under $2 again, but I digress...)
It's unfortunate we seem to have spent most of the second half of the 20th century breaking down family formation structures and breaking up already formed families, mostly for selfish reasons. Families are the first line of defense social safety nets. Government intervention always inflates expenses and creates more need for government intervention, which inevitably turns into a "bottom line" problem, because governments cannot love persons, just allocate funds.
Those are celebrities with political issues to support. The whole "shout your abortion" thing is just as dumb and edge as "defund the police." Somehow these idiots think that adopting a transgressive message is something something social justice. It's the left's version of right wing edgelord fads.
I am old enough to have grown up in the one income world you describe. It was a historical anomaly made possible by the fact that Europe and Asia had been flattened by WWII, and immigration had been negligible since 1925 or so. There were no immigrants to "do the jobs Americans didn't want," and there was no competition from Asia or Europe. There was almost no technology so office and factory processes were manual. Add to that the baby bust of the Great Depression so there were not enough workers---a 16 year old could get a family wage job because there were just so few people joining the workforce each year and the economy was going crazy after 15 years of depression and war where people could not consume.
It was a nice little idyll, but it wasn't sustainable. Even when women did not work outside the home, before WWII when the population was more rural they were essentially microfarmers, taking care of large vegetable gardens, cows, chickens, pigs, etc.
I was trying to use public examples people might recognize, but having a political agenda aside, these women were more than happy to end their pregnancies for reasons other than lack of financial support. I know several examples personally where this was also the case, including my childhood friend who went to Catholic grade school with me and became promiscuous at an early age. Her explicit position on abortion was that if she got pregnant, she would "just get rid of it." Which she did, twice, sadly. She has never expressed any regret over those abortions, but is a miserable and angry person, and very, very vocally pro-abortion, so I know her conscience must bother her at some level. My point is, the "abortion as birth control" mentality also exists.
That might be true, but it's also true that flooding the job market in the late 60s and 70s with working women, who were often paid less and second household incomes, definitely threw a monkey wrench in the ability of being able to support a family on one income, particularly for men. It went from women demanding to work, to having to work, and then limiting family size accordingly in order to prioritize the work. I come from a long line of women who have worked outside the home at various times to help support the family. I'm aware that has always been a "thing." But the "career orientedness" is a newer phenomenon. And we might celebrate that, but we should also be honest about unintended consequences and fall out from that as well.
I do reiterate though, that government interventions always lead to more government interventions, and the perceived necessity of them. Government intervention is the reason student loans are ridiculous. It's the reason insurance is so crappy now. Having a baby was much better covered by insurance before Obamacare meddled with the whole system.
But really, abortion is symptom of something else. And that's pretty much unfettered sexual behavior. And unless we are willing, culturally, to raise and honor some fences about that act, the desire for abortion as birth control is going to be a thing.
I suspect that many women have conflicted feelings about abortion but are not willing to admit it due to having to join one side or the other. I know that in my social circle it is taboo to admit to any reservations about "choice". Personally I have more sympathy for late term abortions which are about severe fetal anomalies or risk to the mother than for elective abortions which are all about social reasons having to do with lack of options for a supported pregnancy. As for the idea that the decision is between a woman and her doctor I think that is largely untrue. Women seeking elective abortions do not consult their doctor as it is not a matter of health but a social/economic decision and I dare say a moral decision. When we say as a society that elective abortions are okay we are also saying that we would rather do that than do the hard task of supporting pregnant women and their children both short term and long term. Like it or not, that is a moral choice.
I think you are conflating political extremism with the will, desire, and sentiment of the American people. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
I say extremism because, as a pro-choice democrat (and mom of 2), albeit raised by very pro-life family, with friends who identify as both -I can say I have yet to meet a Democrat woman who supports abortion without any limits. Most progressives I know endorse a European-type model (1st trimester, after that for medical indications; plus a strong social welfare state that reduces the demand for abortion in the first place). Compromise is possible when you actually speak with human beings - politicians are another story.
Yes, came here to say much the same - the compromise is relatively straightforward, widely popular, and adopted in a range of peer countries (e.g. Denmark). One can debate the exact lines here, but 1st trimester + medical exemptions after + low need for abortion is a pretty good situation.
You can compare abortion rates here: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country
Canada has much less abortion than the USA, despite much wider social acceptance of it (and sort-of-accidentally pretty much the least restrictive abortion regulation in the world).
I think it's probably impossible to be pluralistic about who is and isn't a person, except perhaps in the very most extreme, marginal situations. I think there are two directions in which the USA could cease to be divided: the first would be a continuing dwindling of religion until those in the pro-life camp are simply so small a minority that they cannot influence law or culture. The second, one that I'm much less sure of the real path towards, would be prefaced by a collective re-orientation of our attitudes towards sex, and particularly casual sex. This could happen on a religious basis, or potentially even on a non-religious one a la Louise Perry, who argues that even secular women should not have sex with men who they don't think would be good fathers to their children.
What do you anticipate the abortion landscape will look like in ten years, twenty years in America?What would it take for it to “cease to be divided”? (in either direction)
I think the path forward will be informed by how people perceive our present.
Wearing my leftist goggles, I see a world where greed for money and an obsession with power has distorted our country and our politics. People fall prey to consumerism, are worked literally to death by mega corporations and lack even basic healthcare for themselves and their children. A single trip to the hospital can lead to bankruptcy and we reward our elderly with a choice of dying before their time (usually, these days, through alcohol or drug dependency) and maybe leaving their children a little financial cushion or spending their golden years in noxious facilities where care borders on (or is) abuse and which deplete their and their family's resources.
Wearing these goggles, I see a path forward where incredible grassroots organizations informed by Audre Lorde and bell hooks achieve political victories (like those won here in Minnesota in the past legislative session). We enact real safety nets and ensure that no one feels economically or socially coerced into having an abortion because families (of all sorts!) are fully embraced by our government and our society. We enact these policies federally and ensure that support goes directly to families, not to parasitic church/nonprofit organizations. And we also enact federal laws to keep the government out of women's wombs, and keep discussions of what happens in women's bodies between them and their doctors.
Wearing the googles of the FOX news right, I see a world where doctors murder babies and rampant 'immorality' like drag shows and friendly neighborhood lesbians present a direct threat to me and my children's well being. I don't trust the government, I don't trust doctors, I don't trust public schools, and I don't trust 'liberal' news sources. I actively fear my neighbor unless they hold my same beliefs.
When people wear those goggles, they dream of eliminating the threats and living in an idyllic and homogenous world. They might stockpile weapons, join militias and plot to overturn elections to make that world a reality. By many counts roughy 30-35% of Republicans live with this worldview. That's more than enough people, with some organization and key people in the judiciary and pentagon, to stage a coup. It's also potentially enough people, with some organization and a strong campaign infrastructure, to openly win the 2024 election and impose an autocratic state.
Most people aren't leftists and most people don't support a Christian autocratic surveillance state. But what the next 10-20 years hold won't be decided by a majority. You're right that the center won't hold with a nation so divided. And that very polarization has been artfully manufactured.
I have definitely encountered the same fear, distrust, and demonization of the neighbor that you attribute to the right on the left, and it turns up in statistics as well - on both sides of the aisle, people increasingly view those with different perspectives as inherently bad rather than allowing for the idea that good people can come to different conclusions. I’m a moderate conservative in an extremely liberal company, and the casual dismissal of anyone pro-life as “hating women” or anyone who wants to restrict immigration as a paranoid racist is jarring and absolutely shuts down conversation.
For sure! To be clear, I think there's a greater than 40% chance that we descend into a fascist authoritarian state in the next 10 years, where women of childbearing age are significantly surveilled, openly trans and openly gay people are put in private prisons and where ghettoes have checkpoints. The lack of questioning from folks who are moderate conservatives of what the end goal is of laws passed and policies espoused by mainstream Republicans haunts me, and reminds me deeply of the pervasive blindness of Weimar Germany.
I'd love you to tell me I'm wrong! That you abhor the direction of the Republican party and the invasive legislation passed in Idaho, Texas, etc. That you don't see a path for the blatantly racist element of the party to sustain its power. That you believe the Vermeule's of our world are but a brief and passing fad.
I would take the opposite side of the bet at those odds, in case you want to make it a formal wager.
Details & terms & I'm in :) Shoot me an email!
I think that all I can say here is that if that’s your starting position, there’s unlikely to be anything that I can do to persuade you that this country’s conservative voting base are not incipient Nazis.
Also, proving out Godwin’s Law in under 20 comments is quite something.
I'd love you to take a crack at convincing me otherwise!
Some sources for you to peruse if you'd like:
"March 23, 2023 … Antisemitic incidents surged to historic levels in 2022, with a total of 3,697 incidents reported across the United States, an increase of 36 percent compared to 2021 – also a record-setting year – according to new data released today by ADL (the Anti-Defamation League)." https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/us-antisemitic-incidents-hit-highest-level-ever-recorded-adl-audit-finds
"Just as state Republicans have become more ruthlessly autocratic in their methods, a new Trump presidency would be much more efficiently goal-oriented at the federal level. A huge transformation of the administrative state is being deliberately planned. The government agencies and civil service he has decried as the “deep state” would be purged or politicized, and the “retribution” he has promised against his enemies would also be carried out. The “unitary executive” theory long promoted by some Republicans would become the reality of an unabashed authoritarianism." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/trump-second-term-isolationist-fascism/674791/
There's also, "an illuminating new anthology, Fascism in America: Past and Present, edited by Gavriel D Rosenfeld and Janet Ward. In 12 chapters plus an introduction and epilogue, the co-editors and their contributors make the case that fascism has existed on US soil for well past a century and remains disturbingly present today." https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/30/fascism-in-america-book-trump
I'm looking mostly at the first point... the article was not the clearest, but I wonder to what extent the attacks are actually coming from the conservative end... if the motives are anti-zionist (as a portion of them were), then it's likelier to come from extreme leftist or extreme Islamic groups than extreme rightwing groups. I'd wager the incidents in college campuses, for example, aren't coming as much from the conservatives. While the white-supremacists groups might still make up most of the cases, I'm not sure if they are as responsible for the sharp *increase* in cases, especially in light of, say, the recent flair-ups in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts in the last few years.
Thanks for engaging! From the report itself:
“Significant surges in incidents include high volume increases in organized white supremacist propaganda activity (102% increase to 852 incidents), K-12 schools (49% increase to 494 incidents) and college campuses (41% increase to 219 incidents)… In 2022, 241 incidents involved references to Israel or Zionism. This is a decline from 345 such incidents in 2021”
I love Texas and Idaho is beautiful! I also think the majority of people in both states either believe the invasive legislation being passed there is wrong or are too busy with their lives to pay it much attention.
I'm curious what you mean by "if some rising fascist can speak to these people better than any of us, perhaps we will have to recognize that, whatever our virtues may be, we just might deserve the leadership we get" and "...I think I am drifting more in to whatever camp believes that is right."
I don't think Germany deserved what it got and many many Germans are still, generations later, reckoning with the fact that their ancestors were just fine through that horrible time, that their ancestors didn't step up to do anything to stop the atrocities committed in their name.
Maybe it depends where you live. Most east-cost moderate conservatives I know (including my husband and family - whereas I am a "moderate" democrat) have no patience with the Southern arm of the Republicans and can't handle the fake sanctimony of the Mike Pences of the world. I know an awful lot of Rockefeller republicans, maybe that's a regional thing.
So- I don't necessarily see what you are describing as a *national* trend. I also think demographics are against it. The US is growing less religious each year. Younger cohorts are FAR less religious than older generations. Immigrants, even conservative ones, end up assimilating in a few generations to more liberal US norms. I do think neoliberal atheists can do quite a bit of harm - I just don't think it will look the way you describe.
I’d love to hear what you think it will look like!
"What do you anticipate the abortion landscape will look like in ten years, twenty years in America?"
Not much different, I think. The pendulum does swing in these things, and the current leftward swing may have reached its apogee with gender theory, but there is a lot of mass to reverse there and I doubt it will swing back sufficiently to substantially change things in the next ten or twenty years. Not that such swings are really predictable.
"What would it take for it to “cease to be divided”? (in either direction)"
A massive Christian revival or utter collapse. Our morals are either sentimental, tribal, or principled. Most people are sentimentally pro life but tribally pro abortion. Sentimental morality cannot stand against tribal morality. Only principled morality can stand against tribal or sentimental morality and only religion provides sufficient ground to build a principle upon. And Christianity seems the only religion with even a theoretical chance of a revival on the required scale. On the other hand, unless religion is utterly obliterated, and it usually grows stronger under active persecution, then the divide will remain.
"Do the suffering have a claim on the strong because their suffering is ennobling, or for some other reason?"
The suffering have a claim on the strong because they are equally beloved of God. And Dives and Lazarus tells us what God thinks of the strong who take no pity on the weak. I wish I thought there was an adequate pagan answer to this question as well, but I don't think there is. Paganism tends all in the opposite direction.
"Can the vulnerable survive a merely egalitarian world, or do they require equity?"
They require charity, and charity in the full sense of the word.
I read Louise Perry's piece in First Things when it arrived, and my initial thought was that if original paganism was male driven then this "repaganizing" is female driven. It is now women who refuse to give up their sexual licentiousness and, because babies are a result of the sexual act, they want legally recognized options of not being "burdened" with them. At least by those on the top who set the drive for policy. Perry herself says she is hesitant to fully restrict abortion as she would like the option in certain circumstances.
I agreed with her assessment that feminism is the descendant of Christianity, but I've always thought it's specifically a descendant of Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity is so prone to weird interpretations of the human person because it's almost entirely subjective. And the things often given weight as "objective" in various sects, especially for women, were also subjective, i.e.: hair length, wearing skirts, behaviors, etc... no wonder there was a backlash in addition to a gradual abandoning of actual faith at large. Again, Perry herself confesses she is influenced by a general Christian worldview but does not truly believe.
I don't know how we can "cease to be divided" without some agreement on proper regulation of the behavior that leads to the begetting of children. And that's a cultural thing. Either we live what we believe, or we believe what we live. And if much of the culture believes sexual licentiousness is a good, then it follows that abortion is a necessary component, even if it makes us "uneasy."
I think both sides can start with a respect for the rule of law. Otherwise, why bother to make a political argument and even win the day if the other side will ignore the law.
That said, we should not ignore that we have substantial common ground. Let's work to support women who are otherwise coerced to abort so that they have the resources necessary to make choosing life seem like a reasonable and even attractive choice. This is something we have in common with the vast majority of pro abortion rights people. Generally speaking, they want to be sure women have a genuine choice, including the choice not to have an abortion. If we are truly interested in saving babies’ lives, then we can collaborate with pro abortion rights people to make sure women have the best chance possible to choose life.
We should be happy to engage our pro abortion rights interlocutors with a Consistent Life Ethic and work with them to shine light on pro life voices who are indiffernt to life beyond the womb while also drawing their attention to pro abortion rights voices who are indifferent to protecting the voiceless and vulnerable in the name of women's rights.
I'm genuinely curious what you think the role of the state should be in defending an embryo as a person from the moment of conception.
> should the state ban women of child bearing age from ingesting / being treated with substances that could harm a nascent embryo, give the chance that she could be pregnant?
> given the ability of abortifacients to be grown or covertly smuggled, what degree of monitoring do you think it is permissible for the state to engage in?
And given that technology is always improving to improve a fetus' chance of survival, it's only barely science fiction to imagine a future where embryos can be implanted in an artificial womb and gestated from conception. Do you think it should be a state mandate to remove newly fertilized embryos from women's wombs to ensure they make it to term, given the high rate of early miscarriage? Why or why not?
If you think there's no chance that any of this could become law, I urge you to look at proposals that have actively been made in state legislatures in the past two years, or the way private messages and browser histories are currently informing active civil & criminal litigation against women who had or are suspected of having had abortions.
I think this one "should the state ban women of child bearing age from ingesting / being treated with substances that could harm a nascent embryo, give the chance that she could be pregnant?" is one we have a good balance for already.
There are some drugs or treatments where doctors need you to take a pregnancy test before they write a prescription and discuss birth control/pregnancy avoidance options as part of informed consent. The existing protocol works pretty well, I think.
I do *not* think we're going to be able to transfer embryos during the first trimester (though I think it's possible biobags will push the peri-viability line back to ~18 weeks and improve 20 week viability. I think the leading edge of viability will always have a non-zero but v low survival rate, such that it's clear it's better for baby to stay in place unless that's not possible for mother and child. Twenty-two weeks is peri-viable, but no one would remove a child then if they didn't have to. 32 weeks is _way_ more survivable, but no one would do an elective delivery then.
I would be flabbergasted if a first trimester baby were ever safer outside the womb than in it, even given the risk of miscarriage.
One of the things I think is interesting about the embyro-removal hypothetical is that it is an *invasive* hypothetical that mirrors the invasiveness of the state forcing women to remain pregnant against their will (as mothers handcuffed to hospital beds can attest).
I think it's very plausible (>30%) that we will have the ability to safely gestate an embryo from conception in an artificial womb in the next 25 years. While I doubt it will be worth the risk to transfer most embryos, I could imagine a fetal-personhood state deciding that it was mandatory for individuals with a history of miscarriage or a certain genetic marker that indicates higher likelihood for miscarriage on the basis of the sanctity of life.
Can you flesh out why you see it as that plausible (30%) that we'd have an artificial womb with a *lower* loss risk than miscarriage prone women (esp. considering that many miscarriages are driven by problems intrinsic to the baby, and the ones that are intrinsic to the woman e.g. a clotting disorder, seem simpler to treat than to replace the woman wholesale).
What biological breakthroughs do you think are needed/plausible to make an artificial womb that outperforms women in the first trimester plausible? I assign this a less than 1% chance, so we diverge strongly on biology/expectations for science here, not just ethics.
Here's a relevant bet in Manifold: https://manifold.markets/BoltonBailey/mammal-born-from-artificial-womb-by
I'd actually up my plausibility after perusing more research, to >60% that we will be *legally* able to safely gestate embryos from conception in an artificial womb in the next 20 years.
I've put my (fake) money where my mouth is.
Yup, short version: I think we are (generally) drastically underestimating the impact of AI on the biological sciences. The ability to read, analyze and address the conditions of an artificial womb is, to me, extremely plausible given advances we are currently making.
Where I live, there is a basic assumption of abortion on demand and I don’t see that changing. I think this will remain an area of tension. Living out fully supporting women, babies and families seems like the best most positive way to search for common ground. This can include cash allowances, health care and emotional support - solidarity and caring. This already happens in many places - on both sides - and prioritizing the vulnerable seems like a way forward. A way to live out Christs call and build a movement. Alternatives to abortion are a part of this as well. Sharing stories, honoring infant death and miscarriage … walking alongside people in tough circumstances humbly.
Also, on your second-to-last questions, I don’t think suffering is ennobling. Suffering is a human constant (as that great sage The Dread Pirate Roberts said, “Life is pain, Highness”) and plenty of people suffer horribly and gain nothing positive by it. To me, interdependence is inherent in my Christian faith, and it’s an obligation that doesn’t depend on the qualities of the person in need.
While I have no hope that our culture will survive, and it is certainly the case the euthanasia has turned into a grey cloud over us all, yes, there is a compromise on abortion, which most still accept.
Abortion can only be contemplated in the cases of:
--rape and incest
--the life of the mother is at sure risk
--the child has already died in utero or will die going through birth
And even in those cases, the mother has the absolute right to continue the pregnancy if that is her desire.
I don't see how you can reconcile the rape and incest exception if you believe that an embryo or a fetus is fully human and deserves the same protection and care that a born human enjoys. It's either a baby or it's not. If it's not, then allowing the termination of a 10 week pregnancy that is a result of incest or rape but not of consensual sex violates the idea of equal protection under the law. Why is rape baby not protected when drunken one night stand baby IS protected?
I think this excellent essay explains far better than I could myself:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/01/weightier-matters?lang=eng
Fair enough, but we're arguing from two different places. I'm making a secular, legal argument based on the idea that each person is equal under the law and is entitled to the same legal protections. If fetal life deserves equal protection to humans, then legally the rape/incest exceptions fall apart. I'd even go so far as to argue that the "conditions incompatible with life" exception is iffy since you are in effect euthanizing the baby since in our human judgement the baby would not survive after birth.
Your argument is based on religious doctrine and as such is useful for guiding women toward ethical decisions concerning the termination of a pregnancy, but you can't make laws in the US (at least not yet) because of the religious teachings of any particular faith.
All laws in the United States derive from the power invested in our representatives that we the people elect. And thus all laws are the extensions of belief systems, no matter secular or spiritual. That is what the public square of ideas is for. Let the best ideas persuade the most people, no matter their source.
You can't make a law, for example, that adulterers must be stoned to death. Even if the law is wildly popular and passes by an overwhelming majority. You'd run into 1st and 8th Amendment limits. Punishment for adultery is common to many world religions, but it's not against the law.
8th Amendment depends on what is considered to be "cruel and unusual" and it has shifted over time. I'm not in favor of stoning (nor of our present protocol of lethal injection) but I think neither is at all times and forever ruled out by the 8th Amendment.
And adultery *has* been a crime at various periods in the common law. It's still in essence proscribed by the contract of marriage.
If the state administers marriage, it specifies some behavior marriage proscribes/permits, and can address adultery without a 1st amendment issue. If it's a 1st amendment problem for the state to give a normative description of marriage, the 1st amendment would rule out civil marriage licenses.
Of course. But the point stands--every belief system will have its day in the legislature and in the courts. The abortion law of the state of Utah looks exactly like what the Church of Jesus Christ holds as its standard for permissible abortion, for example. And there is no meaningful court challenge against it.