When observing a discussion about abortion, or taking part in one, rarely does one see a nuanced opinion; it’s usually the “no restrictions” side versus the “no abortion” side, regardless of the complexity and sensitivity of this issue.
The pro-life side tends to be conservative and sometimes ignores the causes, namely the impossible situation some women find themselves in. Some pro-life advocates also support punitive laws (putting women in prison for having abortions), which makes no sense and is reminiscent of the religiously-inspired drive to “punish the moral offender”. Many, however, start from a point of sheer compassion and do admirable work, helping women access other options.
The pro-choice side seems blind to nearly every practical issue around abortion – the gruesome procedure itself, when not at an extremely early stage (death by dismemberment or prolonged torture), the physical consequences and emotional trauma many women suffer, the common sense rights of fathers and last but not least, the fact that many women are pressured into it, therefore making it anything but their choice.
As detailed in a previous post, conservatives are known for taking a moral stance on religiously-inspired interests, such as ending a human life through abortion. On the other hand, they are known for opposing social programs aimed at assisting those in a difficult situation, which can (and do) save lives, by removing hopelessness when an unplanned pregnancy is involved.
Some typical positions they take are not compatible with advocating the sacredness of life, or this nebulous concept of family values. They include:
Accusing economically disadvantaged women of having children for benefits and wanting to eliminate financial support for single mothers;
Opposing universal healthcare, which would allow disadvantaged women prenatal care, safe births in a hospital, postnatal care and ongoing healthcare for their children – and protect human life in general;
Opposing state-funded childcare options which allow women to raise children at the same time as working;
Supporting military interventions which take civilian lives in droves;
Opposing granting asylum to people fleeing imminent, life-threatening dangers in their countries of origin;
Supporting the deportation of people who pose no threat to the safety of others, which breaks up families, sometimes irreversibly.
Another major issue to be taken is with pro-life advocates who oppose contraception – as efficient contraception, logically, decreases the number of abortions. Abstinence has been proven not to work (ever).
Advocating for punitive laws also shows an extreme lack of compassion for the situations women often find themselves in – and instead of seeking to address these situations, the proposed solution would be to put them in prison. Not only is that a terrible idea; it has been shown to not work and result in back-alley abortions, which in turns result in many of these women dying as well (not to say that women don’t die in abortion facilities nowadays).
Pro-choice sloganeering types
These types only think in abstractions, as many radical leftists do.
Given that life has been proven by geneticists to start at conception, with all genetic material present and nothing added or altered as the newly formed human being develops, the pro-choice side must acknowledge that their stance is of arbitrarily deciding who is worthy or unworthy of living.
It is a contradiction when in the same hospital, babies of a similar age are either saved through intense medical assistance, when born prematurely, or aborted, according to someone’s determination of their value (wanted or unwanted). Medicine has progressed to the level of being able to save extremely premature babies and even perform in utero operations.
Empirically, objectively, these babies being either saved or aborted are the same – the only difference deciding their fate is someone’s arbitrary value assessment of their lives. This contradiction must be discussed someday as it makes no sense.
If many can agree abortion at a very early stage, while the newly formed human being cannot become aware of it, can be completed without causing physical suffering, the same cannot be said for most abortion procedures, which are barbaric.
Most involve dismemberment, either quick (though aspiration) or gradual, which involves severing limbs one by one on a living body, and one particular method neutrally termed “induction abortion” involves injecting chemicals into the womb, which burn a living body inside-out over many hours or even an entire day. The latter has a chance of the baby being delivered alive, with various impairments (one notable survivor is Giana Jessen), after hours upon hours of torture and the body struggling to survive.
If someone did that to an animal, they would undoubtedly be imprisoned for animal cruelty.
I needn’t mention that humans are sentient animals as well and should be shown the same amount of consideration.
What perplexes me is that many of these pro-choice types are on the far left, with compassion as a staple motif. They tend to be rainbow-loving, peace-loving, anti-war, anti-racist and anti-violence in general. The only type of violence they never discuss is the one mentioned above. That is, of course, a glaring contradiction.
They simply refuse to think about it, and throw the slogans out in the vein of cult members, who use thought-stopping mantras whenever potentially worrying information is presented to them.
What is worse, they oppose a woman’s right to be thoroughly informed regarding what happens during an abortion procedure. Now why do they oppose that? What are they afraid of, if not the visceral reaction any normal person would have when reading the description of these procedures?
They find the thought of a woman reconsidering abortion, after more information, objectionable, as if she’d been shamed or pressured and not merely given the facts. Mind you, if she reconsiders it is still her choice, but a choice they don’t seem to agree with.
Crisis Pregnancy Centres, feared by the abortion lobby
These centres perform an invaluable service – they give women the facts and point them to other resources, letting them know there are other options available.
They do not shame or coerce anyone to reconsider an abortion. Again, if a woman reconsiders, she did not want the abortion in the first place. They simply present the information those selling abortion services, as well as the media, often siding with them, would not give them upfront.
Why are pro-choice activists so afraid of ultrasounds, if they should have no bearing on a woman’s decision?
If abortion is so normal, harmless and involves no loss for the woman, why would looking at an ultrasound change that? Or being exposed to any aspect regarding the abortion? Perhaps because that ultrasound shows reality and not slogans or abstractions, and those only operating with abstractions are afraid of reality.
Considering fathers’ rights
A father has rights and obligations by simply helping to conceive a child, though the biological involvement per se stops there. Paternal feelings are recognised and taken into account, even if men do not give birth.
A father’s grief when losing a child after birth is recognised as equally strong and important as that of the mother.
The same applies to a father’s grief when losing a child to a miscarriage, stillbirth or other complications.
Strangely enough, it does not apply, in terms of acknowledgement, when a father loses a child he wants to abortion, as if his feelings or commitment to raising that child were any different (they are obviously not).
I personally find it incredibly cruel (and poorly though out legislatively) when a parent, either male or female, loses a child they conceived and want to raise, to an abortion someone else decides and enforces (including the other biological parent).
Women are often coerced into aborting their children, either by their partners or families, especially when economically disadvantaged or underage (or both). It is insanely cruel. The only advantage they have is that no one can physically coerce them to go through with it (unless they live in China). However, they can be threatened and intimidated to such a degree that they often cave in.
It is equally cruel to disregard a man’s intentions of bringing up their son or daughter, even without the mother’s involvement, if the mother does not want the child. That child is not unwanted and would have a secure future if the father committed to that.
I can just imagine rad fems frothing at the mouth when reading something of this sort.
Giving life is complicated and every aspect of a complicated issue (every possible one) should be considered for all involved. Right now it isn’t (by any side involved in this debate).