And to cut to the chase … making abortion illegal has never stopped it. It will never stop it. It just made it more dangerous.
It’s easier to hate them and dismiss them as wackos if that is what you believe, but the “anti-abortion movement” is not some monolithic group think movement. I’m sure there are those who think as you describe, but plenty of people who are anti-abortion truly want to reduce the number of abortions because they believe in the sanctity of the life of the fetus and not because they want to subjugate women. Honest
Assuming I even believed that, so what? They clearly have no meaningful effect on the the movement nor society in general, and are willing to support those who do just want to hurt women. Their existence or lack thereof is a distinction without a difference.
The apologist argument that “not everyone in insert awful movement is bad, some in their hearts are well meaning” never makes sense. What matters is the results of their actions, not supposed inner thoughts that aren’t ever acted upon.
I get the impression that anti abortion activists absolve themselves of any responsibility for a child as soon as it’s born. Anything that happens to it after that is morally on the parents alone and is Not Their Problem or Doing.
And when those groups publicly disassociate themselves from the nutjobs and refuse their money I might have a listen, but when the ends justify the means they are no better than the pigs they lay down with.
In the debate on contraception, I’m intrigued by the fact that condoms were widely considered illicit for many years, and even afterwards for decades they were sold with the disclaimer “for the prevention of disease only”. If being against birth control was entirely a patriarchal men controlling women thing, one might think there would have been little objection to condoms; but there was. Apparently even many men who would have been the beneficiaries of consequence-free sex believed it was immoral. I suppose that if nothing else one would have to concede that they weren’t hypocrites in that regard.
you’re ascribing a singular motivation (intent to subjugate women) on actions (pushing for laws to outlaw abortion) that could be motivated by other values (belief in the sanctity of life of the unborn). Those in the latter group are NOT willing to support those in the first group with respect to outlawing contraception, etc.
Again, even if I bought that they simply don’t matter. As the saying goes, “What do you call it when somebody sits down at a table with nine Nazis? Ten Nazis.”
The fact that any such people are willing to support the anti-woman faction politically, monetarily and at the ballot box means that for everyone outside their own heads, they are indistinguishable.
In his autobiography Will, Watergate convict/radio DJ/devout Catholic G. Gordon Liddy described how he and his wife concluded it would be OK for her to start taking the pill. She’d had several kids within a few years, and her health was suffering.
She would take the pill only to stabilize her period, and the Liddys would continue to practice the rhythm method. And presumably continue to fuck like rabbits three weeks a month.
As MAD magazine put it, “Catholics are a conservative people. But sometimes, they get a little off-beat”.
I would suggest you have it backward, at least for some initiatives (anti-abortion laws in particular). The anti-women faction is politically supporting the sanctity of life faction
Although I think your point is valid, it is still worth realizing that many people who do not support abortion are not as extreme as those who are making policy. I know that it may not make much difference at this point. But nothing stands still. The same people who find abortion troubling now might be the people who realize that an absolute ban has horrifying consequences, tomorrow. So it is useful to not cast everyone who wishes there were no abortions into the outer darkness. Nuance, it exists.
They’ve had decades to do that, all over the world but it never happens. Even among the ones for which the “horrifying consequences” aren’t the entire point. The pro-choice people have to override them, they don’t suddenly find their conscience or develop empathy.
Its a desire to control women’s reproductive systems
Okay, I didn’t make the distinction that the RCC is okay with married couples having sex for fun as long as the MAIN reason is to procreate. Fine.
The point I was making still remains which was that Evangelicals are just fine with people having sex and enjoying it while also using contraception but the RCC, Santorum and other conservative Catholics aren’t.
From my reading of Dobbs it appears Thomas and Alito are two people who have problems with married couples having sex for “fun” as well. Thomas did list Griswold as one of the cases he thought was decided incorrectly and should be revisited.
To connect this post to the topic of the thread - part of the reason both Evangelicals and the RCC support abolishing abortion is that it will cause people, mostly women, to either refrain from sex when a child is not the desired result or confront the consequence of having an unwanted pregnancy. So at the end of the day it is about punishing promiscuous women and letting men off the hook.
Completely agreed.
Keep it clean, keep it clean!
It matters because it informs how you should act if your goal is to reduce the power of the anti abortion movement. People who oppose abortion for the reasons @We_re_wolves_not_werewolves describe can perhaps be convinced that the best way to minimize the number of abortions that happen is to educate teens about safe sex and make contraceptives widely available, while people who oppose abortion for the reasons you describe cannot be convinced because their goal of oppressing women is fundamentally at odds with the goals of those of us who want to live in a liberal society with humanist values.
Perhaps I am wrong about this, but in my experience the average individual person who is against abortion is motivated by what @We_re_wolves_not_werewolves described. However, the average “influencer” - politician, public figure, “conservative” ideological “thought leader” - they are motivated by what @Der_Trihs describes. The main issue is that this average individual is deeply, deeply ignorant and thus easily manipulated.
In response to the OP, as someone pointed out, a large number of pro-lifers do in fact believe abortion is murder. They aren’t (necessarily) motivated by some sneak agenda to control women’s uteruses or promote fascism or prevent sex or whatever. They really believe what they say.
One can disagree with their logic, of course, but their motives are just what they say.
If they truly believed that, they would be champions for comprehensive sex education and free birth control. Can you point me to the link of a major “pro-life” organization that champions those things?
Seriously?
IME comprehensive sex education has been opposed by the conservatives and the religious right as an instruction manual for young people on “how” to have sex and therefore “EVIL”.
As if kids have ever needed something like an instruction manual.
Free birth control has always been decried as carte blanche to fuck like bunnies with no consequences.
So, no. Just a few years ago these were the same fools pushing abstinence to teens. Abstinence rings and clubs and blah blah blah.