Yes, I agree with all of your points — my arguments are full of contradictions. There was even a niggling of awareness that I was refuting my own arguments while rage-writing, which is why they all sound half-baked.

Of course, women are not thinking of taking one for the team on the way to the abortion clinic. Women don’t have ideologically-driven abortions. China’s One Child policy led to horrific consequences, which the same reason that denying women access to abortion has and will lead to horrific consequences: neither patriarchal, ideologically-driven policy takes human behavior into account. China’s policy resulted in an unsustainable ratio of males to females and the discovery of dead infant girls after the snows melted. The Texas restrictions ensure that many women, girls, and children will be destined to live miserable lives. Different sides, same coin.

Will teens with raging hormones suddenly stop having sex? In the heat of the moment, will they now be more likely to use contraception? Will Texas make contraceptives readily available, cheap, or free? Will there be an emphasis on sex ed and safe sex starting in middle school? Who will properly care for the children these women/girls will be forced to have? What about addiction — babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome or addicted to opioids? Who will adopt these babies? We already have a shortage of foster care, so what’s the plan? More warehouse facilities run by for-profit companies?

I brought up Maoist China only as an example of the authoritarian practice of turning citizens into informers, not as a comparison of our culture’s emphasis on individuality vs. China’s emphasis on the hive. But I do see how I proceeded to blow up my own argument by conflating my fury against restricting abortion with my rage about climate change deniers. The same ideologues who craft these restrictive abortion laws are the same ideologues who seem to think that our species of Great Ape exists outside of nature, that resources are infinite and are there to be exploited, and if people lived their lives according to a strict doctrine, they will be rewarded in an afterlife.

I’d like to think that Texas legislation isn’t yet another goose-step towards Christian fascism. It’s not a question of atheism vs. faith. I have nothing against faith. Here, Christian fundamentalism is a manifestation of authoritarianism — ideology masquerading as religion. Belarus’ Alexander Lukashenko is an avowed atheist. I don’t see a difference between religious fundamentalism and atheistic autocracy. Both are equally antithetical to democracy.

We are not mice or vermin. On the contrary, there is so much about humanity and individual humans that is beautiful: artists and poets and curious scientists, funny people, and dreamers and people who dedicate their lives to fighting for justice, or rehabing wildlife, or taking care of animals who have been neglected and abused. Or just plain regular, ordinary people who work hard and wouldn’t hesitate to jump into a river to save a drowning person or dog. But overall, as a species, we’re not doing so great. Or maybe it’s not the entirety of our species in general, but European colonialism in particular, with its culture of expansion and exploitation that has irreparably broken the world. Somewhere I heard that in Korean, there is a word — Ha, that means both rage and despair and I toggle between that and existential dread.

The ad hominem comment was uncalled for. I would delete my response entirely, because I do sound like I’m contradicting myself and being intellectually inconsistent, but I believe in owning my words when I’ve been schooled and called to account.

Please accept my apologies.