What really motivates people with extremely strong opinions on abortion

[lavenderviolet]

@Chronos

Why the assumption that all people who are opposed to abortion have the same motivations? There are doubtless at least some people who really do get their kicks from oppressing women for its own sake, but there are likewise doubtless at least some who are sincere about considering fetuses people subject to all the same rights as the born. Denying the existence of either group is absurd hyperbole. Now, one can certainly debate the relative proportions of those or other motivations, but what is accomplished by insisting that everyone on one side of an issue is 100% homogeneous?

Thank you. The pro-life movement has been around for over 40 years now and encompasses millions of people. It’s ridiculous to think that everyone who has been in the movement over the decades all has the same reasoning for it.

There are people who are pro-life because they have been involved in an abortion and had an unpleasant/traumatic experience or regret it for various reasons.
There are people who are pro-life for philosophical reasons.
And, sure, there are people who are pro-life for religious reasons, but that doesn’t mean ALL pro-lifers are religious. Ask 100 people “Why is it wrong to steal?” or “Why is it wrong to murder?” and I’m sure a lot of them would bring up something about God. That doesn’t mean that religion is the only or best reason not to do those things.
Same thing goes for “Oh, those pro-lifers must not really care about babies because they’re such mean people” vs. “Oh those pro-lifers must not really think abortion kills babies or else they’d be bombing every abortion clinic”. Imagine that our society condoned infanticide of born infants. 100 random people who were against it would probably express their opposition to infanticide in various ways. Some would peacefully debate the issue, others would become hysterical and scream insults at the opposition, others might very well turn into terrorists to try to stop it. People’s reactions really have nothing to do with the merits of the issue itself.

Personally, I am a secular pro-lifer who doesn’t have any moral objection to birth control. That’s why I was very excited when I recently found out about All Our Lives, a new pro-life group which supports all non-violent forms of reproductive freedom (i.e., everything except abortion). I’d love to see an end to unplanned pregnancy so this issue would finally be put to rest. I am optimistic that as birth control technology progresses and becomes more foolproof we will see that eventually happen.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

If pro-lifers were just misogynists who got boners from oppressing women why not try to pass laws that allow man to have power in having women get abortions. A lot of the time after all fornicating or adulterous men want their mistresses pregnancies erased for convenience?

This kind of misogyny is rooted in sexual control of women and a view of women as baby factories. The motivation isn’t blind, irrational hatred of women and a desire to hurt them in any way possible, but a desire to keep them subject to men, and keep them from having sexual freedom.

[lavenderviolet]

@Zsofia

I don’t think all pro-lifers (and really, how did they get to claim that bit of linguistic real estate)

How did pro-choicers get to call themselves that when the vast majority of them aren’t libertarians (or even anarchists if you prefer)?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Just because it is legally sanctioned does not make it a legally justified killing.

What does “legally justified” mean? Is it the same thing as “legal?”

Are you talking about fetuses or abortionists when you say “they have no idea what they’re doing”?

Let’s just say they do not share your irrational, religious belief that a non-sentient embryo or a zygote is a “person.” That is magical thinking, not rooted in any scientific or medical reality but goofball superstition.

Alright then. I concede your point. However the majority of pro-lifers do not approve of pro-life terrorism while the most pro-choicers approve of abortions.

That’s because abortion has no victims.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@lavenderviolet

How did pro-choicers get to call themselves that when the vast majority of them aren’t libertarians (or even anarchists if you prefer)?

It’s a position on one issue, not a holistic philosophy of life.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Revenant_Threshold

That I would like cites for what you’re claiming. I’m from the UK - i’m afraid i’m not as familiar with demographics research across the pond. So, yes, i’m afraid you need to go further.

Ahh apologies for my implied assumption

Well:

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm

on abortion:

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

on bigotry, and homophobic hatefulness

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Energy.htm

on preventing the next Exon Valdez:

Any legislation to increase domestic exploration, drilling and production must minimize any protracted legal challenges that could unreasonably delay or even preclude actual production. We oppose any efforts that would permanently block access to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

on Anthropological global warming:

Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government. We can – and should– address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly.

War of delusions:
2003 state of the union

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. " -Expresident Bush (before initiating a war that killed hundreds of thousands, and found no evidence of this claim).

Torture:

Cheney confirms waterboarding

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al-Qaida suspects to a controversial interrogation technique called waterboarding, which creates a sensation of drowning.

Cheney indicated the Bush administration doesn’t regard waterboarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it. “It’s a no-brainer for me,” Cheney said.

The Bush admin went on to enjoy strong support from the Republican party.
So given it’s association with the party of death, torture, and bigotry I have trouble accepting “prolife” folks are caring people. I’m sure some are and feel they’re making a lesser of evils choice, but the apparent blindness to the other evils they’re associated with, and vote for is very troubling to me.
If you’d like cites that the opposition is more into good stuff I could prolly dig those up too.

[TriPolar]

I’m sure there are people on both sides of the argument who take an extreme position based on sincere, consistent beliefs based on the morality of the subject. I’m also sure most people with an extreme position don’t. They want to pick a side and use politcal rhetoric to justify their choice.

Personally I only draw a hard line on the issue of a pregnant woman who will die and the fetus she bears will also die unless an abortion is performed. If a woman chooses to give up her life under such circumstances, that is her choice, but I can’t see a justifiable moral position in forcing a person to give up their life to save another, much less forcing them to give up their life to save none.

[Wesley_Clark]

@you_with_the_face

Like others, I do believe a lot of it comes down to a visceral reaction against women being “free” to have sex without getting saddled with unwanted consequences. It’s not fair, you see, that a slut can be a slut and not be burdened with the bastards her wanton conduct would naturally produce. With abortion in place, the sluts can blend in with non-sluts, without anyone being the wiser. This disrupts society because it makes it harder to put women in their little boxes. The chaste women don’t know who to look down upon to make themselves feel superior and the men can only speculate as to who is sufficiently pure.

But I don’t think most people who are anti-abortion are conscious of feeling this way. They probably do think their stance is about protecting children. And I’m sure back in the day, contraception was perceived in the same way that abortion is now. The concern, at the root of it is, is not about children, but about consequence-free sex. Nevermind that abortion is not consequence-free (and neither is birth control).

I also noticed a long time ago that conservatives seem to think anything that keeps people from incurring negative consequences is automatically deemed bad if the action associated with the consequence is deemed bad. For instance, I’m currently reading Malcolm Gladwell’s What the Dog Hears. In one chapter, he discusses a radical intervention for chronic homelessness that is being implemented in Denver, CO. The intervention? Provide housing, rehab, and counseling to these people. Get them off the street so they don’t rack up huge hospital bills when they get sick and drunk in the alleys, thereby creating a drain on society. Now although this method is backed by a pretty compelling analysis of costs-benefits that shows that society is probably better off with this system in place, many conservative detractors can’t stomach the idea that no-account bums get this kind of helping hand. Because it goes against their “everyone must face the consequences” philosophy. It doesn’t matter to them whether housing the chronic homeless serves the greater good. They are more concerned that some drug-addicted slacker somewhere could be getting away with free rent and groceries, and they’re not, and it is just not right!

Opposition to abortion is not that much different. Women having pre-marital sex* is deemed bad. And because it prevents women from dealing with the consequences of their bad behavior, abortion must also be bad. Now we could throw out figures all day which show how society is better off with legalized, accessible abortion, but people who put stock in the “all natural consequences are just” belief system care not one whit about any of that.

*Cuz we all know that only single women get abortions, duh!

That was pretty thoughtful, and was closer to what I meant to say in my OP. I don’t think it is about women’s rights as much as controlling a woman’s sexuality and ensuring actions have consequences. A lot of it can be lifted from George Lakoff’s ‘strict father’ morality.

As for people who are assuming I meant all anti-abortion opinions were the same, I didn’t. I said in the title ‘extremely strong opinions’, not ‘all opinions’. By that I mean the people who generally come across as the most anti-abortion claim to do it out of compassion and empathy for fetuses, but by and large those people tend to be among the least compassionate and empathetic people around.

Does anyone sincerely believe that the heavily armed citizen militias full of young males, operating in places like Montana and Idaho are motivated by a deep seated empathy for an unconscious collection of cells like a 12 week old fetus?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Revenant_Threshold

Well, it would be accurate to say for both. But in this case I was talking about abortionists.

A lot of people break laws and commit certain crimes because they have no moral problem with it.

Again, there’s still the problem of belief. Most pro-lifers, I would wager, would consider the bombing of a clinic to be murder. Most pro-choicers, however, would not consider abortion to be murder. You may claim, objectively speaking, that pro-choicers support murder in that way (though of course, I would disagree with you); but you couldn’t claim that pro-choicers support murder* knowingly*. If you pressed a button that you were led to believe would give you some tasty cake, but actually killed someone in the other room, it would be wrong of me to consider you to have harboured violent thoughts, the desire to murder. In fact i’d argue that you would not be a murderer, morally speaking, at all, despite the fact that the death of the person may be directly attributed to your actions.

I agree-to an extent. If a man for instance thought that killing communists were eliminating a threat from the nation and went around killing them believing them not to be murder but rather altruistic action should they not be held accountable? If a man thought stealing was ethical and he was doing good to his family by making a living for them should he not be held accountable?

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Ahh apologies for my implied assumption

Well:

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm

on abortion:

on bigotry, and homophobic hatefulness
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Energy.htm

on preventing the next Exon Valdez:
on Anthropological global warming:

War of delusions:
2003 state of the union

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. " -Expresident Bush (before initiating a war that killed hundreds of thousands, and found no evidence of this claim).

Torture:

Cheney confirms waterboarding

The Bush admin went on to enjoy strong support from the Republican party.
So given it’s association with the party of death, torture, and bigotry I have trouble accepting “prolife” folks are caring people. I’m sure some are and feel they’re making a lesser of evils choice, but the apparent blindness to the other evils they’re associated with, and vote for is very troubling to me.
If you’d like cites that the opposition is more into good stuff I could prolly dig those up too.

Yes because I’m sure waterboarding terrorists is comparable to murdering would be human beings who have done nothing but to inconvenience the mother. :rolleyes:

[Alley_Dweller]

What I can’t really wrap my mind around is why the mainstream pro-life movement is willing to allow rape and incest exceptions to anti-abortion laws. Are they saying it is permissible to execute a human being for the sins of his or her father? Or are they more concerned about limiting the options of the mother if her role in the conception was intentional?

At least the Roman Catholic church is consistent in allowing no exceptions.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Thanks, TTR, but I would say those were cites about the political leadership of the Republicans. Certainly we may assume that Republicans at large support some part of their party’s policy - but to what extent, and for what reasons? I certainly don’t support all the platforms of the parties i’ve voted for. It isn’t enough to point to some Republicans being pro-life, and some supporting waterboarding, and declaring that they must be the very same people. I suppose I was looking more for something like opinion polls that could be cross-linked.

Too, that the Republican party doesn’t like abortion doesn’t preclude that there are other groups that think likewise; that seems to be something of a failure in generalisation overall. Part of that is tarring a whole group with the actions and beliefs of part of that group, and even really then I don’t think you can assume you understand a specific mindset by making a general approach from some specific examples.

[Xenocrates]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Let’s just say they do not share your irrational, religious belief that a non-sentient embryo or a zygote is a “person.” That is magical thinking, not rooted in any scientific or medical reality but goofball superstition.

Calling someone’s moral position a “goofball superstition” does not make you look like a critical thinker, just arrogant and snide. But on to more substantive matters. The status of a “person” is here a moral status. Given this, why do you think that it should be rooted in scientific or medical (are these different?) reality? Do scientists look at torture under a microscope to find the wrong? Of course not… the opposition to torture is not rooted in scientific or medical reality, yet there is nothing magical about it.

One need not believe that an embryo or fetus has full moral status to oppose abortion, especially in certain circumstances. After all, we think that it is wrong to kill babies - i.e., they have a right to not be killed. To think that a fetus immediately before birth has no moral status whatsoever is pretty strange and it is certainly not irrational, nor necessarily religious, to deny this claim.

On to the OP’s question. Every pro-life person with whom I have had a calm, rational discussion about abortion did not seem to really have hidden motivations. Instead, it really did seem to be their position that a fetus (or zygote) has the same rights as a fully developed human. This seems pretty weird to me, but there is some logic to it. I doubt many of them believe right from the get-go that a zygote has full human rights. But we pretty much all think it’s wrong to kill babies. Well then what about a fetus 10 minutes before it’s born? How could those 10 minutes be morally relevant? And what about the 10 minutes before that? So it seems like we have to pick a point at which rights are granted, since we do want to grant babies those rights, and it seems like any point will be arbitrary. Conception IS a pretty landmark event and so somehow it is supposed to be less arbitrary, I guess. Note that all the pro-life people with whom I’ve had calm, rational discussions about abortion were college students.

But of course there are extremely angry, militant people on both sides of the issue. I could certainly be wrong about this, but I think that a large part of their motivation is the social reinforcement and feeling of righteous indignation toward the other side. These people on both sides have a cause, and they make the other side out to be evil. Fighting evil feels good. And when you’ve constructed this identity for yourself and embedded yourself within social groups that share your views and attitudes, it’s pretty hard to step back and really consider the concerns of the other side.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

A lot of people break laws and commit certain crimes because they have no moral problem with it.

But abortionists aren’t committing crimes (well, presumably some do, but abortion itself is not inherently a criminal act). They aren’t breaking laws; they are acting legally.

And again, I think you’re mistaken. There is a difference between not having a moral problem with something, and not thinking there is a need for a moral situation in the first place. Abortionists aren’t going “Well, off to murder some kids today; luckily, I have no moral issue with murder!”. As compared to, say, a thief, who knows what they are doing is wrong and so takes precautions to stop being caught, yet is still able to commit their crime because they have no moral issue with doing so, who accept the idea that they are doing something wrong, either morally or legally, and don’t care.

It’s the difference between a deliberate murder and you pushing your button. When you’re pushing your button, you aren’t thinking “I realise that by doing this I am killing someone, but I have no moral disagreement with that” - you don’t know that you even need to have that thought. You aren’t aware there’s a moral quandary at all.

I agree-to an extent. If a man for instance thought that killing communists were eliminating a threat from the nation and went around killing them believing them not to be murder but rather altruistic action should they not be held accountable? If a man thought stealing was ethical and he was doing good to his family by making a living for them should he not be held accountable?

Ah, but we have means in place for people who do not understand their actions. We don’t try children in the same way we try adults, because we don’t consider them to have the same level of understanding that an adult does. A mentally handicapped person, or an insane person, would also be treated in a different way, due to their different understandings of what they have done, than an average adult. Crime requires not only action, but intent. If your communist-murderer is truly unaware of his murdering, then he would be incapacitated in some fashion, incapable of understanding. If he is aware, but accepts his crime, then he is different to an abortionist. You, pushing your button, with no knowledge of the results, are not a murderer; nor would I be correct to say that it proves you have no moral issue with murder.

Do you believe, in such a circumstance, that in pressing the button you are a murderer, legally or morally? What accountability should you be held to, in that scenario?

[Chronos]

Quoth Qin Shi Huangdi:

Yes because I’m sure waterboarding terrorists is comparable to murdering would be human beings who have done nothing but to inconvenience the mother.

Who said anything about waterboarding terrorists? That quote was about torturing the folks locked up at Gitmo, not terrorists.

Back on topic, I’ve said for a while now that part of the problem with the abortion debate is that there aren’t two sides to the issue, but at least six: You’ve got the pro-life folks, the pro-choice, the anti-life, the anti-choice, the pro-abortion, and the anti-abortion. In the US, the way the political lines are drawn, the pro-lifers, the anti-choicers, and the anti-abortioners all call themselves “pro-life”, since that’s the best-sounding of the three labels, but they’re actually quite different positions. Likewise, the anti-life, pro-choice, and pro-abortion contingents all self-label as “pro-choice”, despite their differences. To illustrate what I mean, consider, for example, the situation in China, where a woman who’s already had a child and who gets pregnant again is forced by law to get an abortion: Where do such laws fall on the supposed pro-life vs. pro-choice divide? They don’t. Such laws are repugnant to both the true pro-lifers and the true pro-choicers.

[TriPolar]

@Alley_Dweller

What I can’t really wrap my mind around is why the mainstream pro-life movement is willing to allow rape and incest exceptions to anti-abortion laws. Are they saying it is permissible to execute a human being for the sins of his or her father? Or are they more concerned about limiting the options of the mother if her role in the conception was intentional?

At least the Roman Catholic church is consistent in allowing no exceptions.

Some people would say that that the underlying reason for the rape incest exceptions are that the woman did not voluntarily have sex, and should not be ‘punished’ by being forced to bear a child. I think there is some basis for this, but I’ve seen that many women champion this concept knowing that to many, bearing a child under such circumstances might drive them to suicide, or destroy their mental health.

Catholics rely on the doctrine that a fetus is a human being, and it is never permissible to kill a person. They don’t seem to take that stand on any other type of killing though.

[The_Second_Stone]

@SpoilerVirgin

For some, it’s not just a desire to dominate and control women, but to dominate and control their sexual activity. There is a mentality that says that it’s fine for a woman to be a soldier or President, but she should still remain chaste until marriage, and should be subservient to men in her sex life. From this, you get the idea that a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy has engaged in immoral behavior that must be punished. Allowing women to choose to terminate a pregnancy means allowing them to have sex without consequences. This is a belief that can be held equally by men and women, without regard to whether they support women’s equality in general.

This is important. Yes, I am sure that they have convinced themselves that abortion is murder. Now I’ve met some people who are against abortion for whom it is only intellectual, they aren’t part of a movement,etc. But I do know a lot of people for whom it is an important political issue, and for them the world is very much about who is better than someone else and who is “lower”. Mean racist comments are not unusual from these people.

[The_Second_Stone]

@TriPolar

Catholics rely on the doctrine that a fetus is a human being, and it is never permissible to kill a person. They don’t seem to take that stand on any other type of killing though.

I’m pretty sure that the RCC is against the death penalty in all situations. They will not refuse communion to a supporter of the death penalty as they will for a supporter of abortion rights, but they will say that the death penalty is wrong.

[even_sven]

To me, the whole debate becomes very, very, very clear when you throw in the fact that almost every pro-lifer is willing to make an exception for rape.

If you genuinely, honestly believe that a fetus is a person along the lines of you and I and deserving of the same rights as you or I, you would not be okay with killing it under any circumstances. You would regard an unborn child conceived during rape to be an extremely unfortunately soul who never the less should be protected to the fullest extent possible. After all, what level of emotional torment would ever merit killing an innocent? While the emotional state of the rape victim is a sad state of affairs, she doesn’t get to go killing random people.

But that’s not generally the thought process. Even ardent pro-lifers admit that it’s a bit much to expect a rape victim to bear her attacker’s child.

This suggests to me that it’s ultimately about control of sexuality. Basically, if you chose to have sex, you should potentially be punished for it. You are culpable. If you didn’t choose to have sex, you get a pass. This logic has nothing to do with the fetus and everything to do with the mothers and the degree to which you approve of their actions/

I actually have more respect for pro-lifers who do not make a rape/incest exception. At least they are consistant.

As for me, I’m extremely pro-choice. For me, it’s a body sovereignty thing. Basically, I don’t care what is growing in my body, be it a tumor or be it Britney Spears, if I and my doctor decide it’s a bad thing, I want the right to treat it as I choose without anyone knowing or caring. The idea that the government could override my decision- and all the baggage to go with it (if it really is a child, wouldn’t they need house arrests and restraints for someone who really didn’t want to be pregnant?) is veering into creepy sci-fi dystopia territory.

[Xenocrates]

@even_sven

To me, the whole debate becomes very, very, very clear when you throw in the fact that almost every pro-lifer is willing to make an exception for rape.

If you genuinely, honestly believe that a fetus is a person along the lines of you and I and deserving of the same rights as you or I, you would not be okay with killing it under any circumstances.
…
For me, it’s a body sovereignty thing. Basically, I don’t care what is growing in my body, be it a tumor or be it Britney Spears, if I and my doctor decide it’s a bad thing, I want the right to treat it as I choose without anyone knowing or caring.

Um… you say at first that if the fetus has full personhood rights that it would be wrong to kill it under ANY circumstances. This does not follow, as even you seem to acknowledge with your Britney Spears example, assuming you grant Spears full personhood rights. For a thought experiment and an argument for why it does not follow, see the famous “violinist” thought experiment. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Secondly, I think there is a principled way to make the rape exception. The argument (which I do not necessarily assent to) begins by making the, I think, pretty reasonable claim that there are two primary issues at stake: the right to life of the fetus (where right is understood loosely as something that can be outweighed) and the autonomy of the mother. One factor that mitigates the value of the mother’s autonomy is her role in bringing about the pregnancy. The more careless, irresponsible, etc. she was in becoming pregnant, the less likely the value of her autonomy will override the rights of the fetus. The rape case is on the extreme end of the spectrum, in which the pregnancy was put upon her against her will, increasing the relative value of her autonomy. We might also think that in the rape case an entirely separate issue at stake - were she to have the child, the rape victim might be constantly reminded of the horrific crime committed against her, so that this emotional suffering and the value of autonomy jointly outweigh the rights of the fetus.

I am generally pro-choice, so I do not ascribe to the argument I sketched above but I do think it is a balancing act. There are opposing values at stake, and in some cases one side of the scale will be more weighty while in others the opposite will be true.

[even_sven]

Sorry, but all I see there is "she was careless/irresponsible/whatever (code for “she freely chose to be sexually active…the slut!) so we feel comfortable enforcing these negative circumstances because she basically deserves to be punished. I guess it would be an dick move to do that to rape victims. So abortion is murder when a slut does it, and a humanitarian act when a good girl who said ‘no’ does it.”

This has a lot to do with women and their sexuality, and very little to do with “life,” babies" and “murder.”