My intent is rather ambitious. It is arguing that when conservatives argue against such liberal values as the right for abortion they do not intend to inflict misery on women as a whole, nor is such misery a necessary eventuality of the values they advocate. It may appear that they do, since denying a person of any bit of freedom is typically painful to the person. Yet, as I said, this may be compensated for by socium-wide effects. They argue that there is nothing intrinsically horrible in a society in which abortion as a mechanism of family control is barred from use. The more traditional society which they advocate differs from the liberal one in a number of ways, and some of those ways (lower divorce rates, increased communality, to name a few) compensate for the cuts in the personal freedom department. It pains me when intelligent liberals consider conservatives as a whole as either idiots, evil persons, or both, and I do not believe that such an approach is either helpful or justified in the majority of cases.
One argument against pro-lifers that I have seen is "women will continue to have abortions anyway, but in worse conditions and under greater risk". True, but you may also say that in a society in which theft is illegal burglary still occurs, with increased risks both for the burglar and the robbed. (I apologize for making this analogy, as I know it is very inflammatory, but I bring it because the general principle in operation is in my opinion similar)
Another argument is that in some cases abortion makes sense due to medical or other reasons. Well, most pro-life proponents are not radically against all abortions. In fact, in medieval Christian Europe if the life of the mother was perceived to be in danger during birth, they had a practice wherein they'd drill the skull of the emerging child and extract it by parts. The life of the mother came first. Neither are there many countries in which abortion is illegal under all circumstances.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 09:45 pm (UTC)One argument against pro-lifers that I have seen is "women will continue to have abortions anyway, but in worse conditions and under greater risk". True, but you may also say that in a society in which theft is illegal burglary still occurs, with increased risks both for the burglar and the robbed. (I apologize for making this analogy, as I know it is very inflammatory, but I bring it because the general principle in operation is in my opinion similar)
Another argument is that in some cases abortion makes sense due to medical or other reasons. Well, most pro-life proponents are not radically against all abortions. In fact, in medieval Christian Europe if the life of the mother was perceived to be in danger during birth, they had a practice wherein they'd drill the skull of the emerging child and extract it by parts. The life of the mother came first. Neither are there many countries in which abortion is illegal under all circumstances.