Skip to content
March 31, 2015 / compassioninpolitics

The radical cognitive dissonance in our nation’s policy on abortion on demand

As a moderate five issues concern me with the Lefts approach to the issue–which seems to have a tremendous level of cognitive dissonance and paradox embedded within it:
1) Democrats are the first to defend the idea that rights and responsibilities go together……but on this issue that dialog is notable Missing in Action. What happened to “we’re all a family” and “we’re in this together?” What happened to “radical individualism” isn’t what America is all about? Our failure to see the decision to have unprotected sex as an incredibly serious one–one with huge ramifications–one you can’t magically take back. Those who have unprotected sex x100 are probably going to pay the consequences for those actions. Consequences with a potential third party (that being a fetus)
2) Those who favor abortion be freely available as Democrats don’t seem to take seriously the part about keeping it “infrequent”–at least not recently and at least not since Clinton (this line is barely mentioned–and effort to explain a vision forward on this issue is likewise missing). They may actually do so–but it only seems to be a line thrown in to garner votes since then.
3) Animal rights seem to trump concern with fetuses. Making a philosophical argument for why this would be justified seems beyond me.
4) Aborted babies or fetuses are the one agent or living being who literally can’t speak for themselves and who don’t have a voice at the table. Democracy and America really does and should mean that the least vulnerable–the crippled, the elderly, the poor, have a voice at the table in our discussions when it concerns their well-being and lives. On any other issue this would be an outrage for Democrats and those on the left. And the risk that they are living beings–is pretty profound. For people on all sides–I’m sure we can agree to disagree–but at least we can agree that there is some grain of truth in the need to as a community confront these issues and perhaps work through them. I’m not a woman & I haven’t been in any situation that required me to make that tough, tough decision. It does seem to be a rather profound disconnect when everyone…..everyone…..who has a kid and intends to keep it calls it a baby when its in the womb….and refers to it lovingly as a being…..but when it comes to the political debate…..we can abstract them as a group as a form of living cells. Say what you will about the policy either way…..that perspective is certainly divided in a peculiar and dubious fashion.
5) And it sounds a bit dubious to hide behind love if you aren’t going to defend love for the new living cells….new life…..in the mother’s womb. They look at the ultrasound with glee and treat it as a genuine person or potential person–they rub the mom’s belly with love, affection, and joy. Clearly that being is something more than just a ball of cells….every cell in our being knows it and acts on the fetus/baby in this regard. Thought experiment: If I was a mother….and someone I was close to called my baby a “just a bundle of cells”……I would be highly, highly offended (I would probably laugh it off somehow–but still I would probably be upset) In fact….in terms of our legal code…..if someone kills the mother…..and the baby dies….its double-murder. A third level of cognitive dissonance on this issue. And i’m not advocating an overturn….just a consideration of current policy in light of whatever grain of truth I’ve pointed to. To be fair, both sides probably have culpability in terms of the polarized approach on this issue. I think the way forward is probably something akin to what Clinton’s motto was–but re-doubling our collective efforts in that direction.

—————–
As a moderate four issues concern me with the Lefts approach to the issue–which seems to have a tremendous level of cognitive dissonance and paradox embedded within it: 1) Those who favor abortion be freely available as Democrats don’t seem to take seriously the part about keeping it “infrequent”–at least not since Clinton. They may actually do so–but it only seems to be a line thrown in to garner votes since then. 2) Animal rights seem to trump concern with fetuses. Making a philosophical argument for why this would be justified seems beyond me. 3) Aborted babies or fetuses are the one agent or living being who literally can’t speak for themselves and who don’t have a voice at the table. On any other issue this would be an outrage for Democrats and those on the left. And the risk that they are living beings–is pretty profound. For people on all sides–I’m sure we can agree to disagree–but at least we can agree that there is some grain of truth in the need to as a community confront these issues and perhaps work through them. I’m not a woman & I haven’t been in any situation that required me to make that tough, tough decision. It does seem to be a rather profound disconnect when everyone…..everyone…..who has a kid and intends to keep it calls it a baby when its in the womb….and refers to it lovingly as a being…..but when it comes to the political debate…..we can abstract them as a group as a form of living cells. Say what you will about the policy either way…..that perspective is certainly divided in a peculiar and dubious fashion. 4) And it sounds a bit dubious to hide behind love if you aren’t going to defend love for the new living cells….new life…..in the mother’s womb. They look at the ultrasound with glee and treat it as a genuine person or potential person–they rub the mom’s belly with love, affection, and joy. Clearly that being is something more than just a ball of cells….every cell in our being knows it and acts on the fetus/baby in this regard. Right….in terms of our legal code…..if someone kills the mother…..and the baby dies….its double-murder. A third level of cognitive dissonance on this issue. And i’m not advocating an overturn….just a consideration of current policy in light of whatever grain of truth I’ve pointed to.

2 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. CitySnacks / Mar 31 2015 5:43 pm

    I get the part about animal rights vs fetal rights in certain circumstances. Many animals being campaigned for are endangered; humans are not endangered. But everyone has their own passion. For some it’s the fetus, for some it’s dogs or cats or factory farmed animals, for some it may be an endangered animal. But I like to think of the slogan ‘extinct is forever’. In terms of endangered animals time is of the essence.

  2. compassioninpolitics / May 18 2015 3:30 am

    But animal rights is much bigger than that. Its not just endangered species.

    Plus, we’ve had mass extinctions and lose a number of species each year, the science of whether one species is key or not is less than clear. Those scientists who keep saying “each species is key” seem to be crying wolf.

    Plus, that argument is much larger. I was just referring to the one to one comparison of death vs. death. Your criticism largely misses the point of what I said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: