Let me begin by acknowledging that I understand the issue of abortion disproportionately affects women. Their bodies are the ones which endure the effects of bearing a child, and all too frequently fathers leave mothers to take care of a child by themselves. I completely understand how one could look at the pro-life Christians through the filter of vocal distortions of Christianity, and decide that Christianity is anti-woman. I can see why one would think that the pro-life case is an attempt to perpetuate patriarchy and subjugate women. However, I want to throw a crazy sounding idea out there. Though the issue certainly looks different for men and women in terms of how consequences are borne, I want to argue that the pro-life case may actually harm men as much as it does women.
Being pro-life means that you are unwilling to compromise as to the humanity of the unborn, and the rights and value which must be conferred to the unborn due to this fact. We cannot kill the unborn for reasons which wouldn't be justified for killing any other human. This means that even if the unborn could benefit my life as a male, I cannot advocate that the unborn be killed to aid me.
There is very significant research going on right now in the area of stem cells. I will not get into it in detail here, but if you want to know more you can look in the "Resources" section and read the article "Harvesting the Unborn" as a start. One of the main types of stem cells scientists are studying are called embryonic stem cells. They're embryonic because they are very early stage embryos. Some scientists believe that these types of cells could be used to cure pretty much everything - Parkinsons, Alzheimers, blindness, etc. They have even been used to cure paralysis due to spinal cord injury in rats. As California's CIRM says, "In theory, there’s no limit to the types of diseases that could be treated with stem cell research. Given that researchers may be able to study all cell types via embryonic stem cells, they have the potential to make breakthroughs in any disease."
The problem is that the pro-life position is strongly against this. To harvest embryos and destroy them is to undermine human rights and value. While Michael J. Fox is advocating for this type of research, many Christians are against such research. And that is exactly how the issue of life and human value affects men. See, males are far more likely to die before birth, more likely to die sooner after birth, and more likely to have all sorts of genetic diseases as well as injuries resulting from physical activity and risk taking (article). Men would benefit much more from embryonic stem cell research than women. Now I haven't taken the time to sift through all diseases and calculate whether this fact would balance out the weight of this issue for men and women. I don't even know how we'd measure the impact. But the point is, as Michael J. Fox attests, men have a huge interest in the unborn being viewed as non-human property.
Christian men who are pro-life are also against embryonic stem cell research. I know people and know of people who would greatly benefit from stem cell research, but who refuse to compromise on the value of life for their personal benefit. Men's lives are at risk as a result of this issue, and pro-life men are consistent in being willing to sacrifice their benefit for the lives of others.
Beyond this more weighty matter, men do also have a vested interest in defining life and human rights. It may be true that historically, men have had an interest in a woman keeping her child in order to pass on their lineage. However, the opposite may also be true. If I am a man who is well-off, it may be in my best interest to support abortion, as abortion tends to impact minorities and lower classes. Supporting an agenda which has other men kill off their lineage is beneficial to me - and potentially more beneficial to society as a whole. That's at least what the minds at Freakonomics show the data as saying in the Donohue-Levitt Hypothesis. Furthermore, having less progeny birthed to lower classes - a group which will suck resources from society - and potentially from my progeny - is in my best interest. Evolutionarily speaking, it is just as likely that I would support abortion from a patriarchal standpoint.
Furthermore, a man who gets a woman pregnant and doesn't want to have to pay child support or be tied down in commitment is very interested in defining life as beginning after birth. Consider that over 50% of abortions are performed on women who are not married or cohabiting, and over 85% of women who had abortions were unmarried (source). While we can't know the thoughts of every man represented behind each woman, it isn't a stretch to argue that the vast majority of these men were not interested in being tied down and/or paying child support. Regardless of what the woman wants, she becomes a threat to the individual who impregnated her, her parents who may feel the pressure to support her and the new child, and various others. How many boyfriends have been patriarchal and subjugated women by pressuring them into getting abortions the women may not have wanted to undergo? Men have a huge vested interest in defining the unborn as a non-human without rights or value.
Finally, the patriarchal bias claim is undercut by the internal inconsistency of the claim itself. The claim implies that abortion should be made available to women because women are harmed by not having access to such a procedure. However, this overlooks the fact that females are much more likely to be harmed by the allowance of abortion. Sex-selective abortion is a huge problem worldwide, and the problem primarily affects women. Girls are aborted far more frequently than boys. This isn't just a problem in places like Pakistan, where the culture and legislation make this choice seemingly more natural, though it certainly does exist there, and to a great extent. It's also a problem in a secular country like the UK. Acting as though having abortion on the table is a panacea for patriarchy is ignorant, as we see abortion can often just be a perpetuation of patriarchy and misogyny by killing off women and perpetuating a view of women as a lesser class of human.
Bias doesn't prove or disprove a side, but it is important to look at. As you can see, patriarchy and bias exists on both sides, and only on the pro-life side does the position significantly harm the males and require self-sacrifice (with the few exceptions of boyfriends/husbands who don't want their pro-choice girlfriends/wives to have abortions). A boyfriend maintaining a pro-life position means accepting responsibility and great cost to himself (financial, social, temporal). A man maintaining a pro-life position means foregoing research that could drastically improve and/or save his life. Pro-life men have a lot of skin in the game.
1. The Foundational Question: What is killed in abortion?
2. How to Determine Value and Rights: What quality and types of qualities confer rights and value to an individual?
3. Justified Reasons for Taking Human Life: What justifies the taking of human life?
4. Unjustified Reasons for Taking Life: What reasons fail to justify the taking of human life?
5. Bad Christian Arguments and Witness: Common pro-life/Christian arguments and actions which can undermine the pro-life position.
6. Counterrebuttals: A response to significant objections to the pro-life arguments.
7. Conclusion:
8. Resources:
There is very significant research going on right now in the area of stem cells. I will not get into it in detail here, but if you want to know more you can look in the "Resources" section and read the article "Harvesting the Unborn" as a start. One of the main types of stem cells scientists are studying are called embryonic stem cells. They're embryonic because they are very early stage embryos. Some scientists believe that these types of cells could be used to cure pretty much everything - Parkinsons, Alzheimers, blindness, etc. They have even been used to cure paralysis due to spinal cord injury in rats. As California's CIRM says, "In theory, there’s no limit to the types of diseases that could be treated with stem cell research. Given that researchers may be able to study all cell types via embryonic stem cells, they have the potential to make breakthroughs in any disease."
The problem is that the pro-life position is strongly against this. To harvest embryos and destroy them is to undermine human rights and value. While Michael J. Fox is advocating for this type of research, many Christians are against such research. And that is exactly how the issue of life and human value affects men. See, males are far more likely to die before birth, more likely to die sooner after birth, and more likely to have all sorts of genetic diseases as well as injuries resulting from physical activity and risk taking (article). Men would benefit much more from embryonic stem cell research than women. Now I haven't taken the time to sift through all diseases and calculate whether this fact would balance out the weight of this issue for men and women. I don't even know how we'd measure the impact. But the point is, as Michael J. Fox attests, men have a huge interest in the unborn being viewed as non-human property.
Christian men who are pro-life are also against embryonic stem cell research. I know people and know of people who would greatly benefit from stem cell research, but who refuse to compromise on the value of life for their personal benefit. Men's lives are at risk as a result of this issue, and pro-life men are consistent in being willing to sacrifice their benefit for the lives of others.
Beyond this more weighty matter, men do also have a vested interest in defining life and human rights. It may be true that historically, men have had an interest in a woman keeping her child in order to pass on their lineage. However, the opposite may also be true. If I am a man who is well-off, it may be in my best interest to support abortion, as abortion tends to impact minorities and lower classes. Supporting an agenda which has other men kill off their lineage is beneficial to me - and potentially more beneficial to society as a whole. That's at least what the minds at Freakonomics show the data as saying in the Donohue-Levitt Hypothesis. Furthermore, having less progeny birthed to lower classes - a group which will suck resources from society - and potentially from my progeny - is in my best interest. Evolutionarily speaking, it is just as likely that I would support abortion from a patriarchal standpoint.
Furthermore, a man who gets a woman pregnant and doesn't want to have to pay child support or be tied down in commitment is very interested in defining life as beginning after birth. Consider that over 50% of abortions are performed on women who are not married or cohabiting, and over 85% of women who had abortions were unmarried (source). While we can't know the thoughts of every man represented behind each woman, it isn't a stretch to argue that the vast majority of these men were not interested in being tied down and/or paying child support. Regardless of what the woman wants, she becomes a threat to the individual who impregnated her, her parents who may feel the pressure to support her and the new child, and various others. How many boyfriends have been patriarchal and subjugated women by pressuring them into getting abortions the women may not have wanted to undergo? Men have a huge vested interest in defining the unborn as a non-human without rights or value.
Finally, the patriarchal bias claim is undercut by the internal inconsistency of the claim itself. The claim implies that abortion should be made available to women because women are harmed by not having access to such a procedure. However, this overlooks the fact that females are much more likely to be harmed by the allowance of abortion. Sex-selective abortion is a huge problem worldwide, and the problem primarily affects women. Girls are aborted far more frequently than boys. This isn't just a problem in places like Pakistan, where the culture and legislation make this choice seemingly more natural, though it certainly does exist there, and to a great extent. It's also a problem in a secular country like the UK. Acting as though having abortion on the table is a panacea for patriarchy is ignorant, as we see abortion can often just be a perpetuation of patriarchy and misogyny by killing off women and perpetuating a view of women as a lesser class of human.
Bias doesn't prove or disprove a side, but it is important to look at. As you can see, patriarchy and bias exists on both sides, and only on the pro-life side does the position significantly harm the males and require self-sacrifice (with the few exceptions of boyfriends/husbands who don't want their pro-choice girlfriends/wives to have abortions). A boyfriend maintaining a pro-life position means accepting responsibility and great cost to himself (financial, social, temporal). A man maintaining a pro-life position means foregoing research that could drastically improve and/or save his life. Pro-life men have a lot of skin in the game.
1. The Foundational Question: What is killed in abortion?
2. How to Determine Value and Rights: What quality and types of qualities confer rights and value to an individual?
3. Justified Reasons for Taking Human Life: What justifies the taking of human life?
4. Unjustified Reasons for Taking Life: What reasons fail to justify the taking of human life?
5. Bad Christian Arguments and Witness: Common pro-life/Christian arguments and actions which can undermine the pro-life position.
6. Counterrebuttals: A response to significant objections to the pro-life arguments.
7. Conclusion:
8. Resources:
RSS Feed