The Paradox of Abortion Politics
You may want to disconnect politics when forming views on abortion
Women, Children and Animals are considered property in many parts of the world. Their rights vary by country. Several progressive movements around the world strive to enhance these rights, and to seek to grant individual rights to animals.
With children, legal paternity exposes a rhetoric of ownership, possession, and exchange. That is, by law, children are like “owned” by their parents. However, the law obligates parents to respect children’s right to life and a decent upbringing.
This has not always been the case.
Even less than a century back, if a parent beats a child to death, the parent suffered no legal consequences. Prior to that, for several decades, adult and child slaves were “free game”. Even the Bible talks about Abraham willing to sacrifice his son, Issac, with no legal or even moral consequences. It took several progressive steps to recognize many of childrens’ right to life until they turn into an adult.
It would then seem natural for progressive movements that seek animal rights to raise voices for human children in a mother’s womb and for alternate movements to seek to conserve the absolute property rights of a woman over her body. Paradoxically, in the US, it’s the conservative republican party that is “pro-life” and the liberal progressive democratic party that is “pro-choice”.
Paradoxically, in the US, it’s the conservative republican party that is “pro-life” and the liberal progressive democratic party that is “pro-choice”.
Why this Paradox Exists?
Less advanced societies prefer to have a large number of children per household with little concern around how each of them are brought up. Hence historically, much of the pain and suffering of parenting a child has been during the nine months when a child is in a mother’s womb and during the process of giving birth.
Feminist groups are concerned over a woman’s disadvantaged position from her overwhelming pre-natal obligations. They seems to have won over other progressives in the democratic party in the US and other progressive parties around the world to prioritize women’s property rights over the life of a child. The debate around “when life actually begins” appears to exist merely to suppress progressive questions around children’s rights. The republicans, who for nearly 50 years since Roe v Wade, have never federally legislated on the issue and apparently have merely “taken the other side” for political gains.
This can change
Pre-natal care has improved, but carrying a child and giving birth is still a life altering event for a woman. But, as society progresses, parental responsibilities post partum carry a larger emphasis. An advanced society prefers fewer but better groomed children. In this process, several societies now demand net equal effort from men over the course of bringing up a child. Several companies in the United States now offer equal duration for maternity and paternity leaves.
As contraceptive methods become more reliable, and women are perceived less disadvantaged by the pre-natal cycle, and over the course of bringing up a child, it is likely that progressive political parties would start to seek increased rights for unborn children and turn more pro-life while conservative parties switch to advocate to preserve property rights. Although pro-life movements appear driven by religion, a conservative pro-choice position may find support from all the semitic religions where the holy texts proclaim parental property rights over children and emphasize the need for absolute obedience from children, even at the cost of their life.
Like this article? Join Medium using my referral link
References:
- Rethinking Children as Property: the Complex Family — https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=lawpub
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights