As part of a reply to a thread about what commonly held misconception you'd like to get rid of, I posited the misconception that every single human life on this planet deserves to be protected as a matter of principle, and that Pro-Lifers are stainless, shining defenders of justice for taking up arms against abortion.
Okay, I'm not one of those people who think that people are universally scum and that we're all going to Hell, and blabbity blabbity blah. However, I do feel that an individual human life, in the grand scheme of things, has only the value which is ascribed to it by itself, by the humans around it, and the humans it affects indirectly. I've never understood the thought process that goes on with Pro-Lifers. They presume to care a great deal about all these unborn children being snuffed out, but it's not clear to me why they feel this way. Yes, abortions are quite horrific to look at and taking a life is generally a very unpleasant concept, doubly so when that life is innocent and helpless, but the problem with the Pro-Life stance is that the abortions themselves seem to be the main focus of their stance and not the children they presume to be saving.
I can't help but feel that if you took all these children who would, presumably, be saved from abortion and gave them to Pro-Lifers saying, "Here, you take care of this child you helped save," most of them would probably refuse. The thing is, they aren't the ones who will have to take responsibility for raising these children (and let's not forget BIRTHING them, which, any mother will tell you, is not an easy task); the mothers (and sometimes fathers too) of these children will have to bear this responsibility. And on the whole, aside from the fleeting emotional attachment one feels when seeing another person's baby, which, I would argue, is much closer to the feeling you experience when you look at an adorable kitten rather than anything you would feel for a member of YOUR OWN family, these people don't really care about any of these children. They're disgusted by abortion because they're disgusted by the thought of killing something helpless and innocent that just happens to belong to their own species (I very much doubt any of these people are morally opposed to mouse traps and RAID). In the end, if they get their way and the children live, they're perfectly willing to leave them in the hands of a parent, or parents, that never really wanted them in the first place, and will probably treat them as an unwanted burden rather than a beloved child.
The crux of my point here is that life is really hard, even under the best of circumstances. Even people brought up in developed nations who were raised by middle-class parents that love each other and actually wanted children will have to face hardship, depression, loneliness, rejection, disease, violence, loss, old age, and death at some point in their lives, and having parents that don't want you in their lives isn't going to make that any better. Going back to my first point, the life of any given human has only the value which is ascribed to it by the people around it (the parents, who don't want the child to the point where they're considering killing it, and their relatives, who are probably ashamed of the illegitimate offspring and wish it would go away), the people indirectly affected by that life (in the pre-birth stages, this is probably limited to taxpayers, who probably resent having to help support a child that was conceived irresponsibly and that nobody really wants anyway), and the individual (the child, who can't even live outside of their mother, let alone understand the affects they're having on the people around them). So if an unborn child is unwanted by their parents, is a burden on everyone else, and we can reasonably expect these conditions to continue or get worse for the child, maybe ending the child's life before it's born is really the best choice under the circumstances.
And you can always say, "You might be ending the life of the next Albert Einstein or Louie Armstrong or Vincent van Gogh." True. You might also be ending the life of the next John Wayne Gacy or Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh; and if this child is going to be born into a world that doesn't want them and probably never will, then which do you think is more likely?
Anyway, you've heard my stance on the subject. The question I pose is this: Are people with a Pro-Life stance motivated by a genuine desire to save the lives of unborn children, or is it about making themselves feel better because we don't like the idea that irresponsible parents can just dispose of children they've conceived but don't want? Is it both, to varying degrees across the board? Is it something else entirely?
What do you think? Am I making sense? Am I a cold, unfeeling monster of a man? Please keep it civil. Even though I think their cause would be better served by teaching people about birth control rather than forcing people to have children they don't want, I still respect the Pro-Life position.
Okay, I'm not one of those people who think that people are universally scum and that we're all going to Hell, and blabbity blabbity blah. However, I do feel that an individual human life, in the grand scheme of things, has only the value which is ascribed to it by itself, by the humans around it, and the humans it affects indirectly. I've never understood the thought process that goes on with Pro-Lifers. They presume to care a great deal about all these unborn children being snuffed out, but it's not clear to me why they feel this way. Yes, abortions are quite horrific to look at and taking a life is generally a very unpleasant concept, doubly so when that life is innocent and helpless, but the problem with the Pro-Life stance is that the abortions themselves seem to be the main focus of their stance and not the children they presume to be saving.
I can't help but feel that if you took all these children who would, presumably, be saved from abortion and gave them to Pro-Lifers saying, "Here, you take care of this child you helped save," most of them would probably refuse. The thing is, they aren't the ones who will have to take responsibility for raising these children (and let's not forget BIRTHING them, which, any mother will tell you, is not an easy task); the mothers (and sometimes fathers too) of these children will have to bear this responsibility. And on the whole, aside from the fleeting emotional attachment one feels when seeing another person's baby, which, I would argue, is much closer to the feeling you experience when you look at an adorable kitten rather than anything you would feel for a member of YOUR OWN family, these people don't really care about any of these children. They're disgusted by abortion because they're disgusted by the thought of killing something helpless and innocent that just happens to belong to their own species (I very much doubt any of these people are morally opposed to mouse traps and RAID). In the end, if they get their way and the children live, they're perfectly willing to leave them in the hands of a parent, or parents, that never really wanted them in the first place, and will probably treat them as an unwanted burden rather than a beloved child.
The crux of my point here is that life is really hard, even under the best of circumstances. Even people brought up in developed nations who were raised by middle-class parents that love each other and actually wanted children will have to face hardship, depression, loneliness, rejection, disease, violence, loss, old age, and death at some point in their lives, and having parents that don't want you in their lives isn't going to make that any better. Going back to my first point, the life of any given human has only the value which is ascribed to it by the people around it (the parents, who don't want the child to the point where they're considering killing it, and their relatives, who are probably ashamed of the illegitimate offspring and wish it would go away), the people indirectly affected by that life (in the pre-birth stages, this is probably limited to taxpayers, who probably resent having to help support a child that was conceived irresponsibly and that nobody really wants anyway), and the individual (the child, who can't even live outside of their mother, let alone understand the affects they're having on the people around them). So if an unborn child is unwanted by their parents, is a burden on everyone else, and we can reasonably expect these conditions to continue or get worse for the child, maybe ending the child's life before it's born is really the best choice under the circumstances.
And you can always say, "You might be ending the life of the next Albert Einstein or Louie Armstrong or Vincent van Gogh." True. You might also be ending the life of the next John Wayne Gacy or Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh; and if this child is going to be born into a world that doesn't want them and probably never will, then which do you think is more likely?
Anyway, you've heard my stance on the subject. The question I pose is this: Are people with a Pro-Life stance motivated by a genuine desire to save the lives of unborn children, or is it about making themselves feel better because we don't like the idea that irresponsible parents can just dispose of children they've conceived but don't want? Is it both, to varying degrees across the board? Is it something else entirely?
What do you think? Am I making sense? Am I a cold, unfeeling monster of a man? Please keep it civil. Even though I think their cause would be better served by teaching people about birth control rather than forcing people to have children they don't want, I still respect the Pro-Life position.
