That tweet response, and this article, do a good job of underlining the hypocrisy in the whole “pro-life” game (and yes, there’s hypocrisy on both sides). Much like work is largely about control, the pro-life movement is largely about control as well — it’s a trope now to say “of women’s bodies,” but that’s largely what it is. It’s the need for control over women — the whole “You’re not ready at home with a cocktail anymore? You have a life of your own?” thing scares people — and it falls into the “existing world vs. encroaching world” narrative shaping much of modernity. Women with power and options terrifies a lot of men — hell, men are generally terrified of women, TBH — and all you need to do is look at the affluent subdivisions around you for proof of this.
The national stat on “mother doesn’t work outside the home” is about 20–25%. In affluent subdivisions, it’s usually 75–80%. This is the world a lot of white, successful guys do want. I’m painting with a broad brush, but they want to be warriors at work, heroes at home, warriors in the bedroom, and generally “in control” of everything. In reality, a lot of them are needle-dicks who couldn’t manage or “warrior” their way out of a paper bag. But eh.
I’m not saying “war on men” or “cancel all men.” We need dudes. They serve a societal purpose. I do think we could evolve that purpose, yes, but I am but one generally unsuccessful man myself.
Go back to this article. It gets political here, but:
Conservatives may well believe that embryos and fetuses are persons. But to claim that anti-abortion legislation is about children is deceitful. “Pro-life” is a magic trick that wraps disdain and revulsion for women’s bodies and lives inside a shiny silver box with pink and blue ribbon. Forced-birth legislation fails to protect children at all, while punishing women who abort — or even miscarry. But punishment is precisely the point, isn’t it? Because such legislation has never been about the children.
The political stuff is stupid, because the “left” does a lot of two-faced shit as well. But it’s always been hard for me to see someone as “pro-life” with all the contradictions. Those are often the same people who hate paying taxes the most. Well, if you deliver more babies that are unwanted or can’t be taken care of, you just jacked up the social safety net. When you jack up the net, you probably need to pay more taxes — and if you want to scream about crime, well, I’d reckon a lot of people who commit property crime are people who didn’t see a lot of point in following the law, which usually comes from people who lack purpose. That doesn’t necessarily mean they were a child who could have been aborted, but it could, yes.
Beyond any of those contradictory far-right talking points, the issue is this:
It needs to be about some form of female autonomy. Without that, you can’t really have “a society.”
Completely understand that a lot of dudes are straight workaholics, and work + siring children for relevance are the closest things they have to fun, but you can’t call yourself “pro-life” if you then ignore:
Affordable, available health care
Time with the baby for moms and dads
Their neighborhood
Mental health as they age
What usually runs up against the “You don’t care!” narrative is the “Bootstraps” narrative, meaning: “I care, but I want you to work harder to get where I’m at.” That narrative is increasingly a bit faded given the rise of automation and the generalized suppression of wages aside from 3–4 industries, but … I understand why a generation that evolved with cheaper education and a better overall economy (still in the throes of post-WW2 victory) feel like they “did it” and you should too.
Lot of overlapping narratives at this point, so I’ll stop with this: if you don’t care about the baby once it arrives Earth-side other than to tell the mom “Try harder and make it work,” you’re not pro-life.
AUDIO: We're Not "Pro-Life" So Much As "Pro-Birth" Or "Pro-Baby"