This is a little bit of a muddled thought, but it is something I am very curious about so I will try my best to explain myself coherently.
As a casual observer of the abortion debate with no strong feelings one way or the other, I see the issue presented in a binary way in which on the one hand exists the pro choice position which argues for women’s rights to do what they choose with their body, and on the other hand we have the pro life side whose concern is for the rights of the unborn. For pro choice activists, abortion is empowering and gives women freedom. On the other side the pro life activists who tend to focus on when exactly life begins. These arguments are often, but not always, infused with religious ideology and all stem from a corcern for the fetus.
Living in DC I read about these issues coming to a head when the people involved in the women’s march did not want pro life women’s groups to participate.
Anyhow, remembering from some of my college classes (a long time ago) and looking a various sources on the internet, it seems as if historically, infanticide, which was practiced with impunity for much of human history, lead often to a disproportionate amount of men in the population. So, could not the argument be made that with sex typing in the womb that the selective nature of choice could easily lead to a similar situation to what was had in say China? Does not the ability to choose abortion have the potential to reinforce the power imbalance inherent in a patriarchal society? Basically, from what I know, it has historically always been female babies killed in much higher numbers than male babies.
So, to get back to my original question, if the answer to the above questions is true or maybe, then why is none of this used by the pro life side to persuade, or attempt to persuade the pro choice side?
I want to know the opposite as well. Framing abortion as a woman’s rights issue allows pro-life activists to focus on the very few amount of “late term abortion” since they want to allow all abortions. Whereas pro-choice groups would seem to have a more airtight case if they focused on when life actually began – i.e. the fact that an embryo and early fetus, which are the vast majority of abortions, are way less sentient than any number of animals we kill for food.
You are attempting to apply some logic to a contentious issue when so many have strong, even extreme, emotional feelings on this, coupled with religious fervor that defies logic, per se.
There is the view that “pro-choice” is not necessarily “anti-life”, either. It all turns on whose business it is to make judgements as to quality of life, and what the place of criminal law is in all this. And that argument runs a bit athwart the binary argument about whether abortion is, in principle or in any specific case, morally right or wrong.
The argument might work (does work) in India, where freelance ultrasound clinics were assisting in sex-selective abortions. It resulted in a significant gender imbalance, just like China, but with fewer infant girls being killed. India has banned ultrasound gender determination for just this reason. there have been calls for similar prohibitions in countries with significant Asian communities (Canada). The moral of the story being, be careful what you ask for. Once a woman has a right to have an abortion on demand, society has no right to dictate the reason.
However, generally in first world countries there is no great tradition of female infanticide so calling pro-life a pro-female-rights issue doesn’t really fly. OTOH, limiting access to abortion is generally espoused by groups that also want to limit access to birth control, and also limit women’s rights to anything that would help them raise above their traditional historical subservient role. The groups advocating no abortion, for example, don’t seem to be rallying for more daycare, or paid maternal leave. no matter how much lipstick they try to stick on the pig, it’s still a part of male-dominance social groups trying to jam women back into the subservient role.
Basically you’re arguing that what’s good for society should be considered, whereas many in the pro-life camp believe that the infant’s right to life is the only thing that matters and no other issue should be considered regardless of whether or not it supports their argument as a whole. Their feeling is that abortion is murder and nothing else matters.
It would be wrong to assume pro life people are pro-fetus. They are, I believe, anti-women.
If their intention was simply to prevent fetuses from being aborted, they would be pro sex education, pro contraception, and pro welfare for mothers who have chosen to keep their babies. Generally speaking, pro lifers are against these things. I cannot find any logic in being against abortion, and sex ed and birth control.
Pro lifers I believe, want any unwed woman who has dared have sex after being told not to, to be punished with a child.
It’s not like there isn’t data. We’ve had legal abortion in the country for decades. Is there a skewing in the sex ratio? If not, then the argument doesn’t have much merit, does it? Besides, most abortions are performed before you know the sex of the fetus anyway. First 8 weeks for the former, ~18 weeks for the latter. It’s theoretically possible to learn the sex earlier, but I’m unaware that it’s a common procedure for women seeking abortions.
Sex education does not lower the abortion rate. The vast majority of pro-life people are pro-contraception. Welfare traps mothers and their offspring in poverty so that is bad policy.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am using the analysis of infanticide to make the point that in every society throughout history where there has been a long standing and widely used option of sex selection, the ratios skew male. The salient point here is sex choice of offspring - whether it happens in the womb or shortly after birth is not relevant - has very consistently lead to a larger portion of males to females in a society.
You nicely exhibit one of the misunderstandings that prevents resolution of the abortion debate: When life begins is completely, utterly irrelevant. We know when life begins: It’s over three billion years ago. Discussion of “life” (or “human life”, or “a beating heart”, or a number of other similarly-unrelated points) is just a distraction from the real issue, of when a person begins.
And there we have another of the major misunderstandings, the assumption that there are two sides to this debate. There are actually at least six, and countless gradations, mixtures, and variations between those six. Pro-life, anti-choice, and anti-abortion are not all the same thing, nor are anti-life, pro-choice, or pro-abortion the same thing.
But of what quality is the data? I think a more rigorous analysis is required to come to a firm conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter how long there has been abortion - that is completely irrelevant data. The data that matters is abortions that occur after the sex of the baby is determined. There is no reason to believe that abortions without this knowledge would skew one way or another.
The ability to determine the sex of a child in the womb is relatively new technology. Since there is an expense involved in determining the sex of a fetus in the womb, there is a financial barrier that could skew the data in various directions that tow various demographic lines. At this moment in time, cost saving technology is constantly improving allowing for greater access to prenatal care. Therefore, the environment of the future could be more similar to the environment of our infanticidal past where there were no barriers to sex selection which would greatly reduce the predictive quality of any data currently available.
And not to stray to far my original question, what would the pro life side not explore any of these arguments?
They do use this argument, sometimes. I’ve also seen arguments (based on dubious facts) about the psychological impact to women who have abortions. In fact, if you listen in-depth to a well-versed pro-lifer, you can hear probably dozens of arguments about why it’s a bad thing.
But the reason you don’t hear those arguments very often is that, on contentious issues, the most impactful argument is the one that’s heard. It boils down the best, it provides the best sound-bytes, and it evokes an emotional reaction. “Abortion = Murder” is incredibly clear and fits easily on a poster. “Abortion historically has resulted in more female fetuses aborted which reinforces societal views that women are less valuable than men…” and you’re definitely out of poster space, and probably a good third of people you’re talking to have lost the point. And the more complicated argument is in some ways a weaker argument. Anti-murder and Pro-personal choice are much stronger positions, so if you think either of those arguments are correct, the statistical impact on society argument is simply irrelevant.
Also, the people talking about abortion are very much not a representative sample of what the average person thinks. They are generally the most extreme in their views. Someone who thinks that abortion is a morally murky problem that doesn’t have obvious solutions is not going to march, or attempt to influence policy, or even really try to convince many others to share that view.
The hardcore members of the anti-abortion movement are extremely scary. I’ve witnessed them outside a women’s health clinic, yelling, assaulting, and chasing after women. They have to have buffer zones and escorts so women can even get into the clinic.
They talk about adoption like it’s a magical la-la land. Until you put “gay” in front of it, and then it’s child abuse. Only straight Christian couples should be allowed to adopt in their world.
They insist that abortion leads to mental problems, and even breast cancer and homosexuality.
Hardcore anti-abortion “expert” David Reardon is NOT a licensed doctor, psychologist or therapist. He is a licensed electrician, and that is it.
The only thing the hardcore anti-abortion movement is about is punishing women for having sex and getting pregnant. But of course, as far as they are concerned, The only moral abortion is my abortion. If you think the anti-abortion doesn’t get abortions, you are deluded.
To the extent that our society is “patriarchal” (an idea worthy of broader debate), I don’t believe it’s because of the ratio of men to women. According to the last census, America is 51% women and 49% men.
These things (sex education, contraception, and support for families) are discussed and promoted, with vary degrees of fervor, in the pro-life community.
Go to any Catholic forum and you’ll see vigorous debate on this very subject, with many advocating for these very things (and even advocating for changing Catholic teaching on contraception).
But it’s true that there’s a lot of overlap between pro-lifers and political conservatives, who are generally against all those things.
That’s way too broad a brush. Some pro-lifers may want that. Many (most?) don’t.