Thought I've had about SOME anti-choice types

[Ken Burch]

(note: this observation does NOT apply to anyone who takes the Seamless Garment philosophy, a position that is at least consistent and relatively compassionate and recognizes the humanity of the women in the equation as well)

Most of these folks aren't really "pro-life"...in general, they seem to hate the notion of life, as least as most of us live it and recognize it. Certainly they reject the notion that "life" includes the right to be treated with respect or to have one's dignity respected and maintained. Many are also militarists, which means they are fine with the notion of extinguishing life if a temporary holder of power says it should be extinguished on a battlefield(or even in the home of a non-combatant that is destroyed by troops or drones). And they are perfectly ok with life being ended early through untreated illness or unfed hunger as a result of the poverty caused by "the invisible hand of the free market".

What I think these people really object to is the idea of "the unborn" not having a long spell of misery and pain on the Earth. In short, they not only think that women who are able to choose abortion are avoiding the suffering that these people believe to be their natural station in life, they also think that "the unborn" may be getting off too easily.

It's not about "life". It's about somebody not feeling enough agony to suit these types, because they believe that life(other than life for the privileged few)should be nothing but obligation and suffering, free of spontaneity, free of joy, free of anything other than soul-crushing torment.

[Th1onein]

1. I'm the Seamless Garment variety, EXCEPT when it comes to physician assisted

suicide, or suicide, in general.

Having said that, I don't know if the people that you are talking about really feel that way? What do you base that on? Do you really not think that they believe that life begins at birth and to destroy that life is wrong?

[Ken Burch]

3. I feel that if they really believed that, they would also believe

that living and born people must be treated with dignity and respect throughout life, and that war, poverty and exploitation must be removed from life as well.

[Th1onein]

4. Not necessarily true.

I don't GET that they are for war and for the death penalty, and anti-abortion. It is not a consistent stand given the issues, certainly. But, then, I am of the Seamless Garden variety, too.

I don't think that demonizing them really helps your position, however. And it is polarizing. Plus, I don't think that you are correct. These people really believe that life begins at conception, but they also believe in a lot of crap regarding "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps," etc. The two ideologies can and do co-exist.

[Ken Burch]

6. I'm not trying to demonize these people as much as understand them.

The ideas I laid out in the OP are the only explanation that I can think of, for example, for someone like Rick Santorum, who has actually said that he doesn't think that people should have any right to EXPECT happiness from life.

[Th1onein]

7. Rick Santorum is a politician and bends with the wind.

The people he wants to represent are a different cup of tea. They believe that life begins at conception. Those are the people that both you and me AND Rick Santorum have to deal with. To understand them begins with the idea that, unlike Rick Santorum, they don't have the ulterior motives that you attribute to them, but truly believe in what they purport to believe in.

[Ken Burch]

9. There ISN'T any way to deal with them...they're lost to any humane values and any reasoning.

If they really wanted to stop abortion, they'd work with the Democrats who wanted to make it "safe, legal and RARE&quot they know perfectly well that it's impossible to get to the place where there are no abortions at all, since we never were at that place at any point in U.S. history)

They'd also be pressing the Catholic Church, for example, to abandon its opposition to any use of reproductive technology....because greater use of embryo transplants would be a way to both minimize the number of abortions AND protect choice. The reproductive technology position has nothing to stand on in terms of either logic or the history of Catholic religious teachings...because the Church doesn't forbid its members to use all other forms of medical technology...ALL of which can be said to "interfere with God's will" in the exact same way that things like embryo transplants, surrogacy, and in-vitro fertilization do.

[Th1onein]

10. See? There you go again!

If you expect them to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to attribute decency and morality to you, you're going to have to give the same to them, instead of saying things like "they are lost to any humane values and any reasoning."

I'm sure it's nice to think that way, and it feels good to you, to think of yourself as morally superior to them, but that is not going to solve the problem. And that IS what you want to do, isn't it? Solve the problem?

Get together with them, stop demonizing them, and talk about the things that you have in common: NOBODY LIKES ABORTION. You view it in the light of a woman's right; they view it in light of the child's right. Those are the only two things that you can be certain of. Then, work as a unit, to SOLVE the problem, both conceding respect for the others' views, but finding common ground: ABORTION NEEDS TO BE RARE. How do you get to that point, then, is the only question that you BOTH need to solve.

All of this demonizing of the other does nothing for either side. It just exacerbates the problem, and it allows those who would use it as a wedge issue, to divide us, to continue to do so, to our detriment.

Stop taking the easy way out; stop patting yourself on the back that you have the moral high ground, and start actually working on the problem.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Intersting thought, but I always thought...

more that they were terrified of the unknown. In this case the unknown is the life that may not be and is extinguished before we have a chance to see what it will become.

Is that rational? Not really, but most of the rhetoric is hardly rational and invents "rights" where none are really obvious. I lean toward the rights of the woman carrying the thing as more important, but arguments can be made otherwise and make that seem selfish if medical needs and childcare is guaranteed. Rights of society, rights of the family, rights of the woman... Rights are all over the place without a common definition or thread.

You're right about Seamless Garment, though. Agree with it or not, it was one solid attempt to define the life and what to do with and about it. With all the arguing, there haven't been many others like it. Too bad the Church too often downplays the war and capital punishment parts of it while it yaks on about abortion. Curiously, take out the soul and abortion parts, and it could have been written by any of us.

[Ken Burch]

5. They do fear the unknown, but not just that...

I think they also fear spontaneity, surprise, laughter, and, at some level, life itself in the larger sense.

And I think they fear the idea of people who are different then they are being happy(I'm not sure they're too hot on people LIKE themselves being happy either).

[dawg]

8. Nah. You want to know what it really is?

Outside of a few, truly sincere individuals, it is this:

They are selfish. They would rather poor children starve to death than to see their taxes go up. They vote based on this, but they do have at least some remnant of a conscience, so they need some way to rationalize this horrible, selfish choice they continue to make. And abortion is their way out.

"I vote to save the babies", they tell themselves. They don't give a damn about the babies. But they tell themselves this so they can feel morally superior while they vote to cut food stamps, cut education, cut medical programs, drop bombs on innocents in other countries, and generally tread on anyone who isn't part of their immediate family.

I guarantee you, that if a way was found to end abortion 100%, but it required a 10% across the board increase in income taxes to do so, those hypocritical bastards would oppose it.

[Laelth]

11. That explanation makes a lot of sense.

Not that I think it applies in all cases, but I suspect it does apply to far too many people.

-Laelth