Let’s be honest for a moment.
Readership: All
Theme: Gunk
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes
The Arguments
Eternity Matters: Pro-Lifers Don’t Care About Kids After They Are Born? (2024/4/19)
In this post, Eternity Matters offers an excellent logical / moral / philosophical rebuttal to the common arguments defending abortion. However, it misses the central, underlying, problematic issue of selfish motivation. Let me explain.
Let’s start with the titular accusation.
“Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born.”
This psychological projection reveals the pro-choicer’s position, NOT that of pro-lifers. It is the pro-choicers who don’t care about kids, before or after they are born. They are more concerned about allowing women to evade responsibility for their poor choices. That’s why they’re so fervent in defending abortion, in spite of any moral argument thrown at them.
EM offers a couple arguments against the common pro-choicer’s claims.
“First, show that pointing out a moral wrong does not obligate you to take responsibility for the situation.”
True, but this argument doesn’t apply to the person making the choice — the woman who wants an abortion. In this case, pointing out that abortion is a moral wrong requires her to take full responsibility of the situation for the next 18+ years. Of course, she’s not going to ‘hear’ any rationale that undercuts her preconcluded interests.
“Second, explain that while we aren’t morally obligated to help after the babies are born to be able to speak out against abortion, Christians do many things with their time and money anyway…”
Again, no matter what others do to help babies or mothers, this doesn’t allow pregnant women to escape their responsibilities. Abortion does. So this argument fails to fall on morally deaf ears.
“…unless you are truly pro-abortion, then you are obligated to help as well. After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.”
Another non-starter, simply because it does not absolve them from their responsibilities or make selfish immorality any more acceptable.
“Reee!!! How dare you demand that women who want to escape accountability and responsibility should be obligated to care for other women who wish to escape accountability and responsibility and apparently were not able to do so!” (More projection.)
Another witty comeback I’ve heard is this one.
“I am pro-choice before conception, and pro-life after.”
But this argument is even more opprobrious to ‘pro-choicers’, because it requires one to take more responsibility, not only for a pregnancy, but also for one’s sexual behavior. Unacceptable!
Politics are Personal
Remember the catch cliché, “The personal is political”? The converse is just as valid (within wimminz wanky world view): “Politics are personal” (viz. NOT moral philosophizing).
Thus, to debased minds, “taking responsibility” has a completely different meaning. In this context, ‘responsibility’ is NOT a moral issue surrounding sex and procreation. Instead, it means doing what is necessary to AVOID taking responsibility (for a pregnancy in this case) and making it appear politically acceptable. “Taking responsibility” means taking the necessary precautions to evade responsibility.
Peeling Back the Veil of Faux Propriety
Let’s be honest. The lawlessness of the defiled land stipulates that when no one is willing to be willingly responsible (e.g. father, mother, government, society…), then a sacrifice must be made to redeem the sins of the Feminine Imperative.
The root motivation of ‘pro-choicers’ is to evade holding women responsible for their sexual / reproductive behaviors, euphemistically called ‘choices’, when in fact, there is very little thought or planning behind it. Abortion is more of a default institutionalized failsafe.
So when you get down to the nutz and boltz of it, it’s not about babies, or mothers, or costs of living, or ‘family planning’, or freedom of choice, or lifestyle, or ‘quality of life’, or any other proxy wall of philosophical defense. The bare truth is, most pro-choicers are actually anti-accountability and anti-responsibility, and if given a ‘choice’, they will always choose less responsibility (for themselves, but more for others). They are thus pro-abortion by default, but they aren’t willing to own it because of the backlash they would receive (another evasion of responsibility).
Remember, accountability is anathema to women, and therefore will not be tolerated in a gynocentric society.
Furthermore, this attitude is not limited to abortion but extends to other morally tinged social issues as well (e.g. the role of big government, health care, homelessness, !mm!grat!0n, sanctuary cities, social contracts, socialism, welfare, etc.). For example, in his post, How Strange… (2024/4/14), fellow blogger Giuseppe Filotto points out how liberals mindlessly push a narrative (hosting !mm!gr@nts in this case) but have no wish to actually deal with the consequences of said narrative. They are essentially anti-responsibilitists.
The Conclusions
The problem with EM’s otherwise excellent post is that any moral or rational argument is ineffective when debating against a moral child masquerading in an adult skin suit and LARPing adulthood. You can’t argue with a moral child who is determined to eliminate children so that they can continue to be a selfish child themselves. You can’t remove an ego supply of oxytocin from a narcissist any easier than you can take candy away from a baby. Women want an easy out, and just like selfish children, they will fight fang and claw to retain it. That is the real issue. That’s why the issue of abortion will never go away.
Society has to be structured around the incompetencies of those who are the least morally responsible. Everyone else bears the burdens, pays the costs, and suffers from the antics of the lower moral quintile. That’s why, regardless of any other moral, political, or social positions they might have, women, even conservative “Christian” women, will vote for any politician who supports abortion (i.e. Kamala Harris). That’s why every politician has to be ‘pro-choice’ if he wants to win an election (e.g. Trump’s waffling).
Once upon a time, I used to feel sorry for women who got abortions and their lost progeny. But over the years, after seeing the stubborn and sometimes violent incorrigibility of anti-responsibilitists (AKA ‘pro-choicers’) and learning that the majority of abortions (~95.3%) are chosen as a form of birth control, I’ve come to regard any empathy for them as a wasted emotional effort. Sympathy for blatant, unrepentant immorality is likewise immoral. They’ve lost the moral argument, they’ve forfeited the moral high ground, and there is no way to moralize immorality. There’s no way to justify anti-responsibility.
Related
- Σ Frame: Abortion and Birth Control
- The Guttmacher Institute: Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence (2003/3/1)
- Master Class: Understanding the Tragedy of the Commons: Definition and Examples (2022/10/13)
- Pew Research Center: What the data says about abortion in the U.S. (2024/3/25)
- Giuseppe Filotto: How Strange… (2024/4/14)
