I think animal cruelty is very bad, and probably happens thousands or even hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of times per year in America. But it’s not murder – not really even close. Animals aren’t people.
Based on the actions (inaction, really) of Americans who oppose abortions, I think it’s most likely that, morally, most of them believe abortion is morally equivalent to something like animal cruelty – morally very bad, but not really close to equivalent to murder.
Because that test is not remotely applicable. They are not discussing what pro-lifers claim to believe. They are discussing what they actually believe, deep down, at a level they may not even admit to themselves.
If you believe abortion is murder, then it is just as wrong as killing a baby after it is born. So it is perfectly valid to compare the reactions of both and see if they actually believe they are equivalent. What someone does means a whole lot more than what they say.
There is no need to pretend like we’re a pro-lifer and put forth their best arguments in a way they would agree with. That won’t tell us what they actually think. It only tells us what they say. If I did an ideological Turing test on the alt-right, you better bet I wouldn’t admit the arguments are fueled by racism, even though we both know they are.
As for being out of touch with reality: you kinda need to explain who you are talking about. Those saying that they won’t actually overturn Roe v. Wade? Or those saying that they really might?
Both are valid positions, though I would argue we need to behave like it’s the second option. We cannot count on what we wish to be true to actually be true.
And I 100% agree. It is about that level, in my own personal experience. And, as a former pro-lifer myself, I have to admit that was about the level I thought of it. It never occurred to me to think of a woman who committed the “sin” of abortion as a murderer.
It was one of those things you just repent of, not something you’d need to serve time for.
That’s right, BPC. I have direct experience on what pro-lifers actually think. And I also know I would have never admitted to thinking that back then.
Ultimately. It’s about controlling women’s sexuality, that’s why they are opposed to contraception and don’t give a shit about the kid the second it is born. It’s about oppression. If they were pro-life, they would be opposed to war, the death penalty and the murdering of journalists by despotic governments and support health care for all: abortion would be pretty far down their to do list.
I’ve seen the OP’s argument presented in many other places, and I do find it quite appealing. Unfortunately, there’s still plenty of other material available to fire up that particular base. In my experience, a significant amount of the motivation behind the anti-choice crowd is deeply rooted in a hatred of anything straying from the heterosexual Christian ideal – one man (the sole breadwinner), one woman (subservient housekeeper and baby incubator), and unquestioning devotion to religion. They won’t stop at abortion; they’ll go after birth control, public science education, same sex marriage, and any pro-LGBTQ+ legislation, for starters. I truly think they would go after women’s voting rights if it wasn’t for the fact that so many women are happy to vote against their own self interests.
Okay. And this?
Or this?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs who happens to be a fucking lunatic]
No, because the point of opposing abortion is to persecute, torment and kill women. Keeping women from getting contraceptives is not only oppressive in its own right, but the resulting pregnancies are yet more opportunities for abuse.
A woman is miserable because she’s pregnant and doesn’t want it? Victory. A woman dies in childbirth? Victory. The pregnancy goes wrong and kills her? Victory. She has a miscarriage? They jail her for “abortion”, and it’s victory again.
[/QUOTE]
I’d be willing to buy that most anti-abortion activists don’t actually view abortion and murder as morally equivalent, even if they won’t admit that to themselves. But “it’s all about controlling female sexuality”? Abortion, as a moral issue, is actually pretty hard. It’s hard to dispute that a fetus is alive and human, and no matter how we draw the line on personhood, the consequences end up looking pretty awful.* But instead of admitting that, many people seem to want to pigeonhole the conservative position on abortion into increasingly absurd boxes that not only don’t match up with what they claim to believe, but also don’t even make much sense within their declared morality. That’s where you lose me.
*I feel like the best available answer is, “Regardless of whether you consider it murder, banning abortion doesn’t reduce abortion and only puts those who need abortions at risk”, and I personally lean towards “you’re not a person until you’re self-aware”. (Speaking of awful consequences: this would allow abortion up to about 18 months after birth, but it seems like a far more reasonable place to draw the line on personhood than birth. This would put killing an infant into a similar moral category as killing a beloved family pet.)
I remember a squabble on these boards about how a woman getting multiple abortions instead of using birth control was morally wrong. Why? If abortion is perfectly acceptable, what difference does it make how many abortions a woman has?
Most anti-abortion types see pregnancy as a “temporary minor convenience” and think a woman should be able to hand a newborn child over to adoption like a sack of laundry.
And they are in favor of adoption until the word “gay” is put in front of it. Then it’s “child abuse.”
And if don’t think the anti-abortion crowd thinks The only moral abortion is my abortion, you are wrong.
Putting down an unwanted pet is “acceptable” (at least it’s non-criminal and justifiable under the right circumstance), but a person who chooses to put down litter after litter of kittens rather than get their cat spayed is a terrible person.
Where is all of this coming from? When have Republicans advocated for outlawing contraceptives?
This isn’t “murder” it’s a literal Holocaust. Hundreds of thousands of helpless babies are systematically killed every year with the approval of the government.
You’re concerned that women would be at risk of getting hurt or killed when trying to murder their babies?
I’m a big ol’ libby-lib, but I generally don’t worry too much about whether or not a murderer gets hurt while committing murder. Surprising that you’re putting the welfare of murderers ahead of the welfare of helpless babies.
So, a woman who has multiple abortions is a terrible person?
Like I said, impractical in real life. Same with the death penalty.
I’m sorry, did you forget your own post from 15 minutes ago?
Getting multiple abortions instead of using birth control is not the same thing as getting multiple abortions. There is plenty of room in the group called “terrible people” to include someone who chooses multiple abortions instead of responsible birth control use.
I know, stopping a Holocaust is just so inconvenient. Who’s got time for THAT?
Well, a right winger’s concept of “religious freedom” is that everyone is free to be A CHRISTIAN. In fact, they want to practice, for a lack of a better term, the Christian version of Sharia Law.
See, thousands of years ago when there were maybe ten million people on the entire planet, it was an abomination to do anything else but produce as many kids as possible. Even masturbation was decried as a sin because it “spilled the seed upon the ground” instead of in a fertile womb.
The right wingers, who pride themselves in living in a past that is virtually irrelevant to today’s world, feel we need to obey those mandates. Their motto shouldn’t be, “Make America Great Again”, it should be, “Make the Planet Great Again; Go Back to Genesis”.
Then you tell me why abortion is the one issue for so many voters, not war, not poverty, not the death penalty, not access to contraception and health care? Why is it abortion and none of the conditions that make abortion likely or none of the conditions that cause pain suffering and death once a child is born?
Because it’s what their pastors tell them.
Back when abortion was strictly a Catholic issue, this wasn’t the case. Abortion just fit in with the entire Catholic moral framework and was not a stand-alone issue.
Sometime after Roe v Wade, evangelicals also became anti-abortion (not sure how or why), but they never adopted the rest of the Catholic moral framework, and they pretty much hijacked (and polluted, IMO) the whole movement.
In defense of pro-lifers, many of them do get involved. There are pregnancy resource centers all over the place that attempt to provide alternatives to abortion and assist pregnant women in all kinds of different ways.
It’s really not fair to say that pro-lifers don’t do anything but vote.
Yes. Neither of your examples are about what they claim to believe. They are about what they actually believe. Hence the ideological purity test remains irrelevant. If you want to argue against them, you need to provide evidence they are wrong.
In what way is trying to control female sexuality incompatible with their stated belief system? Pro-lifers are almost always conservative. Conservative morality (not including finances) is basically Evangelical morality. And what is one of the main factors of Evangelical Christianity? Despite it never explicitly saying so in the Bible, it is that sex is only for marriage. It is all about restricting sex.
I can guarantee you that, as a kid in church, I thought poorly of the women who got pregnant out of wedlock, thinking they were bad people. The teen father was either good for staying with them (or even marrying them) or I had no idea who they were, because there was no shaming of them.
But there are some non-relgious pro-lifers, I’ll admit. Not many, but some. But they are still with conservative morality. What about their stated beliefs is incompatible with controlling women’s sexuality? I’m not talking libertarianism. I’m talking the people who want to control gay people and trans people. I’m talking people who only support “traditional families.” Sure seems they have no problem controlling sex of others.
As for the personhood question: you kinda already answered it. If you agree they don’t think of it as murder, then you’ve just admitted that they don’t think of them as persons. That’s what personhood means: If something has personhood, then it has all the rights of a person. Thus, to kill this fetal person, you are committing murder. If you are consistent.
Again, this isn’t about what they say they believe. They say that it is murder. They say that they see these babies as persons. But they don’t. Not completely. Their own actions are in conflict with their stated beliefs.
I’m not saying you can’t disagree. I am, however, saying that dismissing this out of hand by using the “ideological Turing test” or “lost touch with reality” as thought terminating cliches does not work.
There is a legitimate argument that the pro-life position is about controlling women and not about preventing murder. And, well, I largely believe that is the origin.
I think a lot of people just believe what they are told to believe. But then, the reason they are told to believe those things eventually chains back up to these other issues. It goes back to, well, since I am a feminist, to the patriarchy.