Excaljnur
Green String
DISCAIMER: The opinions and claims that I choose to put under the label Conservative ideology and values may not be accurate or representative to some people, but I needed an umbrella term to connect each of the issues to show why they are inconsistent and resemble dogmatic beliefs.
What really concerns me about pro-life advocates is their inconsistency in believing that they have the right to -- and are willing to give the government the right to -- tell other people what to do with their own bodies.
Yet, the same people don't want the government to tell them what to do with their firearms. Given that this is one occasion in which many people are willing to give the government jurisdiction over their lives, I can't help but notice that it burdens women significantly more than men (particularly the man who did the impregnating), and that this reflects a patriarchal (or male-as-norm) worldview that women's duties and purpose in life are prescribed by their biological gender. Thus, the "natural order" and responsibility to the unborn child arguments are flawed in the sense that the patriarchal bias (explained above), places the biological responsibility to carry children above the perceived as less relevant (but actually immensely more relevant) responsibilities that the woman has to not only herself, but perhaps her spouse, other children, other family, the community and other social and financial responsibilities.
This leads me to the conclusion that the Pro-life anti-abortion movement's core is essentially "putting women in their place". The notion that women should not be allowed the fundamental (fundamental to the issue of abortion and to gender equality) choice completely encapsulates the prevalence of patriarchal influence and its insidious implications upon the American consciousness.
To deny the connections I made and to remain true to the claims and argument that; given that (1) having an abortion is analogous to killing a fully developed human being, and (2) killing a human being is morally wrong, therefore, (3) abortions are always wrong (except in cases of rape, incest, and life endangering circumstances), is to not understand the scope of abortions or to not acknowledge the implications of limiting (e.g., access to, banning, etc) abortions on the social and political equality of women. To except this Pro-life argument willingly and informatively seems to indicate a dogmatic belief that the patriarchal worldview is morally salient and that women’s politically equal opportunity (as men) to achieve success in life or pursue happiness is of less importance and should be compromised for completing their biological purpose.
It is abundantly clear that the pro-life movement stands upon two pillars: its emphasis in its morally objective authority (which it wants the nation to adopt as law), but also to downplay the significance of a woman’s other responsibilities. The methods to downplay a woman’s other responsibilities include: labeling them as “inconveniences”, excessively personifying a fetus, often by calling it a child and not a fetus, describing the abortive process as torturing a child (again with excessive personification), by emphasizing the technical language when describing explaining when life begins, but neglecting to describe the abortive process with technical language or to refer to the unborn child as a fetus, as opposed to a “living human child”, in some cases which connotes not only having already been born, but also a development past that of a newborn baby at the least. If you are not careful you may buy into the over embellished rhetoric which serves to draw your greater sympathies to the fetus and to minimize your concern for the well-being or unwanted physical, psychological and emotional burden of the mother or any other people who will be significantly affected by the birth of an unwanted child, by referring to these collective undesirable and potentially obstructive affects as “inconveniences”.
If the acknowledgment of the various prevalent forms of rhetoric are enough to manifest a difficulty in denying the effect of Pro-life’s arguments and recognize them as dangerously persuasive because of the appeal to emotion, but flawed nonetheless in it downplaying a woman’s significantly greater responsibilities, then consider how it is connected to pushing an objective morality into law. Having an abortion is never a simple decision, nor is it ever planned as a contraceptive method. It involves the consideration of many factors that together make it a life-altering decision. And as with all decision that affect oneself (and others), it is a moral decision. It is important to understand that an objective answer to whether or not having an abortion is right or wrong is very rare, if not impossible, to come to, unless the reasoning is based in religious (or dogmatic) belief.
Conservative values and an exorbitant use of rhetoric has led to a difficulty in understanding how significant Pro-lifer’s portrayal of a fetus’ sensations, and even their desires, their motivations, their decisions and their beliefs are. Considering the mental capacity of a fetus is similar to that of any mammal in the womb, it is obvious how easily Pro-life advocates conflate the issue of abortion. It is also a shame that they make it more of a negative and traumatic experience that it already is.
Following from the effect that Pro-life advocates have on the aftermath of having an unwanted child is to shame the mother into thinking that they should have known better and practiced better sexual responsibility. This advice flies in the face of the evidence that more and more schools are selecting to teach abstinence-only education. Also, the schools that do teach sexual education elect to emphasize abstinence and do not update their sex-ED information. This leads many young teens to into early adulthood without a sufficient understanding of the use of protection, contraception or a basic knowledge of safe sexual practices. The inconsistency should become obvious that we do not teach our youth proper sexual education, but hold them responsible for their “irresponsible” sexual activity, and consequently punish a future child with a substandard upbringing. The unsound justification that many Pro-life advocates use is that they are responsible for their “mistakes” but this conclusion rests upon the false premise that they knew better or were taught better.
Although improving teaching and correcting sexual education is intended to decrease the amount of unplanned children and abortions, it does not follow that abortions should eventually be illegalized completely or limited even more on moral grounds. Both issues are related, but they are both based on different problems. Abortion prevalence is significantly correlated to the increase in abstinence-only education and a simultaneous decrease in proper sexual education; while the anti-abortion (Pro-life) position rests on the dogma that if a woman has an abortion, then their moral sense is either misguided, corrupt or immoral. This dogma is situating the Pro-life choice as the unconditional morally right choice, which in this case, is to say, that the pro-choice alternative is morally wrong.
This moral position in favor of “life” is ironically held by some of the congressmen who believe capital punishment must be extended to drug offenders and that collateral damage inflicted by drone strikes in the Middle East are “negligible losses”. Although these two observations are very general, extreme and oversimplified, I’m not only addressing the extreme anti-abortion position, but also the abortion only before the end of the first trimester position.
I believe:
1) Sexual education should be improved and have a greater scope as well as more accurate information regarding protection against STD/I’s and contraception methods.
2) Having an abortion may be the right thing to do given certain circumstances (e.g., not just in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger).
3) Aborting the fetus is not the same as killing an [EDIT: developed] human being.
4) The abortive process should be discouraged after mid-way through the second trimester because it becomes more dangerous to the mothers health and may be personally unethical for many doctors.
The moral framework of conservative ideology and values is inevitably tied to the Pro-life arguments, which are most apparent in the abstinence-only education and restricting contraception, as well as, limiting women’s equality to choose a pursuit of happiness as opposed to constricting her choice.
Thoughts? Serious responses are appreciated.
Thank You
What really concerns me about pro-life advocates is their inconsistency in believing that they have the right to -- and are willing to give the government the right to -- tell other people what to do with their own bodies.
Yet, the same people don't want the government to tell them what to do with their firearms. Given that this is one occasion in which many people are willing to give the government jurisdiction over their lives, I can't help but notice that it burdens women significantly more than men (particularly the man who did the impregnating), and that this reflects a patriarchal (or male-as-norm) worldview that women's duties and purpose in life are prescribed by their biological gender. Thus, the "natural order" and responsibility to the unborn child arguments are flawed in the sense that the patriarchal bias (explained above), places the biological responsibility to carry children above the perceived as less relevant (but actually immensely more relevant) responsibilities that the woman has to not only herself, but perhaps her spouse, other children, other family, the community and other social and financial responsibilities.
This leads me to the conclusion that the Pro-life anti-abortion movement's core is essentially "putting women in their place". The notion that women should not be allowed the fundamental (fundamental to the issue of abortion and to gender equality) choice completely encapsulates the prevalence of patriarchal influence and its insidious implications upon the American consciousness.
To deny the connections I made and to remain true to the claims and argument that; given that (1) having an abortion is analogous to killing a fully developed human being, and (2) killing a human being is morally wrong, therefore, (3) abortions are always wrong (except in cases of rape, incest, and life endangering circumstances), is to not understand the scope of abortions or to not acknowledge the implications of limiting (e.g., access to, banning, etc) abortions on the social and political equality of women. To except this Pro-life argument willingly and informatively seems to indicate a dogmatic belief that the patriarchal worldview is morally salient and that women’s politically equal opportunity (as men) to achieve success in life or pursue happiness is of less importance and should be compromised for completing their biological purpose.
It is abundantly clear that the pro-life movement stands upon two pillars: its emphasis in its morally objective authority (which it wants the nation to adopt as law), but also to downplay the significance of a woman’s other responsibilities. The methods to downplay a woman’s other responsibilities include: labeling them as “inconveniences”, excessively personifying a fetus, often by calling it a child and not a fetus, describing the abortive process as torturing a child (again with excessive personification), by emphasizing the technical language when describing explaining when life begins, but neglecting to describe the abortive process with technical language or to refer to the unborn child as a fetus, as opposed to a “living human child”, in some cases which connotes not only having already been born, but also a development past that of a newborn baby at the least. If you are not careful you may buy into the over embellished rhetoric which serves to draw your greater sympathies to the fetus and to minimize your concern for the well-being or unwanted physical, psychological and emotional burden of the mother or any other people who will be significantly affected by the birth of an unwanted child, by referring to these collective undesirable and potentially obstructive affects as “inconveniences”.
If the acknowledgment of the various prevalent forms of rhetoric are enough to manifest a difficulty in denying the effect of Pro-life’s arguments and recognize them as dangerously persuasive because of the appeal to emotion, but flawed nonetheless in it downplaying a woman’s significantly greater responsibilities, then consider how it is connected to pushing an objective morality into law. Having an abortion is never a simple decision, nor is it ever planned as a contraceptive method. It involves the consideration of many factors that together make it a life-altering decision. And as with all decision that affect oneself (and others), it is a moral decision. It is important to understand that an objective answer to whether or not having an abortion is right or wrong is very rare, if not impossible, to come to, unless the reasoning is based in religious (or dogmatic) belief.
Conservative values and an exorbitant use of rhetoric has led to a difficulty in understanding how significant Pro-lifer’s portrayal of a fetus’ sensations, and even their desires, their motivations, their decisions and their beliefs are. Considering the mental capacity of a fetus is similar to that of any mammal in the womb, it is obvious how easily Pro-life advocates conflate the issue of abortion. It is also a shame that they make it more of a negative and traumatic experience that it already is.
Following from the effect that Pro-life advocates have on the aftermath of having an unwanted child is to shame the mother into thinking that they should have known better and practiced better sexual responsibility. This advice flies in the face of the evidence that more and more schools are selecting to teach abstinence-only education. Also, the schools that do teach sexual education elect to emphasize abstinence and do not update their sex-ED information. This leads many young teens to into early adulthood without a sufficient understanding of the use of protection, contraception or a basic knowledge of safe sexual practices. The inconsistency should become obvious that we do not teach our youth proper sexual education, but hold them responsible for their “irresponsible” sexual activity, and consequently punish a future child with a substandard upbringing. The unsound justification that many Pro-life advocates use is that they are responsible for their “mistakes” but this conclusion rests upon the false premise that they knew better or were taught better.
Although improving teaching and correcting sexual education is intended to decrease the amount of unplanned children and abortions, it does not follow that abortions should eventually be illegalized completely or limited even more on moral grounds. Both issues are related, but they are both based on different problems. Abortion prevalence is significantly correlated to the increase in abstinence-only education and a simultaneous decrease in proper sexual education; while the anti-abortion (Pro-life) position rests on the dogma that if a woman has an abortion, then their moral sense is either misguided, corrupt or immoral. This dogma is situating the Pro-life choice as the unconditional morally right choice, which in this case, is to say, that the pro-choice alternative is morally wrong.
This moral position in favor of “life” is ironically held by some of the congressmen who believe capital punishment must be extended to drug offenders and that collateral damage inflicted by drone strikes in the Middle East are “negligible losses”. Although these two observations are very general, extreme and oversimplified, I’m not only addressing the extreme anti-abortion position, but also the abortion only before the end of the first trimester position.
I believe:
1) Sexual education should be improved and have a greater scope as well as more accurate information regarding protection against STD/I’s and contraception methods.
2) Having an abortion may be the right thing to do given certain circumstances (e.g., not just in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger).
3) Aborting the fetus is not the same as killing an [EDIT: developed] human being.
4) The abortive process should be discouraged after mid-way through the second trimester because it becomes more dangerous to the mothers health and may be personally unethical for many doctors.
The moral framework of conservative ideology and values is inevitably tied to the Pro-life arguments, which are most apparent in the abstinence-only education and restricting contraception, as well as, limiting women’s equality to choose a pursuit of happiness as opposed to constricting her choice.
Thoughts? Serious responses are appreciated.
Thank You
Last edited:
