How do conservatives think about "the culture of life"?  An interesting e-mail to August Pollak argues that:

conservatives believe, humans ONLY learn moral information through punishment and discipline. The ONLY way that people will act morally is if somebody Smacks Them Upside The Head.
Therefore, the point of anti-abortion laws for the Right is not to prevent abortion, but to PUNISH "loose" women, for not adhering to the 1950's Christian nuclear family structure where sex only occurs on the honeymoon night, and then, statistically, on 1.7 other occasions thereafter during the marriage. The Right is not really looking to provide stable family structure or better living conditions, no matter what they say. Because adversity builds character, therefore adversity itself is not the problem.

The logical corollary is that if we actually do raise the standard of living and provide more security to young women, the Right believes we will actually have MORE abortions. Because that "type" of woman who gets an abortion, according to them, would simply take advantage of the freedom and security to act in a MORE morally degenerate manner, UNLESS she is "shackled" with a good proper Christian marriage.

Therefore I predict that Republicans will oppose any attempt to link abortion to womens' living conditions and care and prosperity. And the reason they will give is, that abortion is a sacred right-to-life issue which should stand alone on its own merits and not be sullied by economic calculations. What they really mean is, the right of authorities to punish "loose" women is a sacred issue and must be enforced or else society will spiral down the drain of degeneracy. I wish we could achieve some sort of compromise on this, but for the life of me I don't see how.

Thoughts?

Comments

[Chuckette]

I'll call BS. There are a lot of pro-life groups that who support/have teen pregnancy support and adoption arms.

http://www.pregnancycenters.org/about.html

[Vidiot]

Actually, I'm inclined to agree that that part of the argument is drawing the lines excessively broadly; I'm willing to accept that some pro-lifers, if not most of them, sincerely believe that abortion is morally wrong.

Just as I believe that abortion is a terrible thing and wish that no one should be forced to resort to it...but also that I don't have the right to force my views on someone else.

I do sometimes wonder at the Right's anti-abortion stance, coupled with cuts in social programs that make life harder for poorer mothers, though.

[caitlin]

The rigid anti-abortion stance is definitely moralistic. There might be an undercurrent of interest in having more white babies available for adoption - my impression is that the hard-liners are disproportionately white, and I'd be pretty surprised if they're providing teen-pregnancy and adoption support to black women.

The hard-line anti-choice stance is definitely blithe about suffering of women. It's pretty much beyond dispute that outlawing abortion means that only outlaws provide abortions, and that means profiteering and the suffering and death of young women. The moralistic response is simple: Don't fuck, you disgusting slut, and you won't have to flirt with death in a back alley.

The idea of linking abortion rates and prosperity is an interesting one. I feel certain that Republicans have no interest in publicizing the very simple fact that the more education and economic power a woman has, the fewer children she has. This is a profoundly threatening equation, and certainly goes to restriction and punishment of women as a class.

I don't think a better standard of living for women will lead to more abortions (although if the Right "thinks" that, it's only because it's trying to act believable when it claims that kind of thing). But it would be - in cases where it obtains, it already is - associated with lower birth rates. When the Right has margins of victory as slim as Bush's last year, can you blame them for considering every sperm to be sacred?