Abortion is Like Baking a Cake…

Dissecting Abortion: Liberalism vs Conservatism -- Scientifically Murder, but Justifiable At Its Core

Resources:

X Article

Google Doc

X Highlight

***

Abortion is Like Baking a Cake…

The United States House of Representatives has twice this year passed the Women’s Health Protection Act, creating federal protections for abortion providers and patients. The debate of abortion in the United States is not just a debate on abortion, but rather an ideological deliberation of liberalism vs conservatism. Those to the left often take the pro choice side, declaring rational autonomy as the essential feature of the good life and justification for legal abortion. Those on the right regard abortion as unjustified because it is scientifically murder and a wrongful intervention of the natural way. Abortion has long been federally legal in the US until this past year when Roe v Wade was shockingly overturned, which is why this debate is back at the forefront of American discourse. The Women’s Health Protection Act is not only justifiable but necessary in order to establish rational autonomy, the most important human value, as the defining feature of the good life.

Before understanding why federally legal abortion is a necessity in establishing rational autonomy, we must understand the philosophical theory that governs this premise - liberalism. Liberal thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have long deemed rational autonomy as the defining feature of the good life, and for good reason. At their cores, liberal thinkers understand autonomy and self governance to be the most important human values. Because of this innate rational autonomy, humans can be regarded as inherently valuable and the main purpose of the state is to protect this capacity and thus this innate value. Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior with the hopes that we can live morally by our own choice and not because a divine being requires it. The ‘Lockean’ notion of the social contract theory stands that authority must arise from below rather than above and can only be based solely upon the consent of the governed. Although it is debatable as to whether Thomas Hobbes was truly a pure liberal, he is regarded as the ‘father of liberalism’ because helped establish two of the defining features of liberalism: the fundamental moral fact is the existence of the rights of man rather than original duty and the purpose of the state is to uphold these rights.

Based on these core liberal sentiments, abortion can be understood as an example of rational autonomy. Abortion is a highly personal and often difficult decision that establishes rational autonomy as it allows a woman to make an informed decision about her reproductive health and future; it is a decision that should not be taken lightly and should be made only after careful consideration of all potential outcomes. By allowing individuals to make the best decision for themselves and their health, abortion helps to empower individuals and establish their autonomy over their own bodies and lives. Without the Women’s Health Protection Act, the state would be directly violating their role in upholding ‘the rights of humanity’ and thus debilitating the inherent value of all human beings.

On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives like Edmund Burke would reject the validity of abortions and the Women’s Health Protection Act. Juxtaposing Hobbes, Burke has long been dubbed ‘The Philosophical Founder of Conservatism in the United States’. Conservatives believe in the protection of traditions, values and institutions, reticence towards social political change, stability as primary political value and regard practical exploration as more significant than abstract theorizing. Burke rejects autonomy as the defining feature of the good life and believes changes should be assessed on “reference to established practice, preservation of successful societal value and tradition NOT conformity to the subjective idea of justice”. Additionally, conservatism is regarded as a skepticism of sorts because it rejects the appropriateness of Priori Moral Reasoning (arguments that proceed from general to specific) in politics and acting based on an untested moral ideal. In the case of abortion, conservatives would be skeptical of its implementation because it is a subjective idea of justice with no reference to the preservation of successful societal values, and because it is based on an untested moral ideal. The conservative argument does not stop here; Burke would contend that abortion is indeed murder based on the laws of science as conception is inarguably the beginning of human life. Once the sperm meets the egg cell and the zygote is formed, the only thing separating this cluster of cells and a human baby outside the womb is… time. Conservatives core mantra “if it ‘aint broke don’t fix it”, supports the natural way of things and believes that any interference with this natural process is undoubtedly immoral.

Bill Burr is one of my personal favorite stand up comedians who is well known for his commonsensical life outlook and ‘straight shooting’ standup style. During a viral rant in 2016 Burr preached “Pro choice always made sense to me because I don’t like telling people what to do. It’s your body so who the fuck am I to tell you what to do with your body… However, I still think you’re killing a baby” (1:07). He continued his rationale by comparing an abortion to baking a cake, “It’s not a baby yet, that’s what they say but my gut tells me that doesn’t make sense. That would be like if I was baking a cake and poured some batter in a pan and put it in the oven and then 5 minutes later you came by, grabbed the pan and threw it across the floor. That wasn’t a cake yet? Well it would’ve been if you didn’t do what you just did… The point of the procedure is to kill a baby, you aren’t going in there because you have an earache” (2:40). Burr’s seemingly elementary analysis on abortion strengthens the conservative argument as he argues the only thing stopping the zygote from becoming a baby is an abortion the same way the only thing stopping the batter from becoming a cake is someone throwing it on the floor. This analogy reinforces the conservative rejection of abortion as it deems the interference with ‘the natural way of things’ to be murder. Conservatives would conclude that abortion intervenes with the laws of nature and thus disrupts the way things ‘ought to be’.

Despite this conservative rationale, certain pro choice arguments can be made that provide seemingly indisputable reasoning for abortions to be federally protected. Stability and the argumentation for ‘the natural way’ is just as (if not more) subjective as the liberal ‘idea of justice’: who’s to say what constitutes stability? Who’s to say that things ought to be based upon what seems to be ‘natural’? As we boil down to the depths of philosophical debate on a polarizing issue that has persisted for centuries, it is important to note that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and that we must value logic, reasoning and morality in order to avoid brainless disputes. However, the federal government must make a verdict.

Locke once articulated that “conservative arguments are often rooted in status quo bias”. The status quo, the existing state of affairs regarding social or political issues, often blindly leads people to accept that ‘things are the way that they are’. Conservatives are pulled toward this path of least resistance because they personally don’t see a direct need for change. Their perceptions, however, are often blinded by their subjective worldview and life experiences. Whether it be our gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, family or friend values, or media intake, we are all being influenced to think a certain way in one form or another. In this technological day and age and world of mounting competition, we rarely get the time to step back and dissect this reality for what it is. This overall lack of self reflection and introspective thought, funnels people into reinforcing their previously established thoughts rather than engaging in nuanced debate and questioning what they think they believe. Most people’s lack of willingness to alter their position and expand their perspective doesn’t really come as a surprise as Newton’s First Law says an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion, unless acted upon by an external force. We the people, however, have the power to change the status quo and increase the number of external forces that lead us down a path of reflection and enhanced perspective. We can do such by something as simple as asking our conservative friend, “Do you really think a teenage girl who got raped should be forced to keep the baby? Is ruining a real person’s life really better than taking a pill to get rid of a few cells”? In order to evolve as a species, we must act on untested moral ideals from time to time, otherwise nothing will ever change and thus nothing will ever improve. Resistance to change is inevitably resistance to reform in some cases. Additionally, prior to this year, abortion had been federally legal in the US for multiple decades - this counteracts the idea that this is ‘an untested moral ideal’. Conservative characterization of justice, reform and legitimacy as ‘distractions’ is rooted in ignorance and likely an unwillingness to see things for what they are because they themselves are in a position of privilege of some sort. Is there truly such a thing as being ‘overly concerned’ with ethical principles? Stability, effectiveness and efficiency are all important values in a political realm but are we really beings of higher morality if we pursue these values instead of justice?

The philosophical conservative vs liberal debate is a never-ending ping pong match regarding topics like this because there will always be a counter to the counter argument. The argument ultimately boils down to differing worldview and perspective, however, there are certain realities that cannot be denied. Without federal protections for abortion, in reality, it will be the lower socioeconomic status (SES) citizens who will be disproportionately adversely impacted. Low SES citizens likely don’t have the opportunity to take a flight to a place abortion is legal nor the financial capability to successfully undergo the procedure. As a result, lower SES citizens will be forced to have a baby they never wanted and are coerced into increased financial responsibilities and decreased time to pursue their optimal life. Because of this indisputable phenomena, one can ascertain that federally illegal abortion further perpetuates our capitalistic system that makes it extremely difficult for poor people to become rich and seek their most desirable life. The next important reality we must acknowledge is that abortion is federally illegal in the United States of America today because of organized religion and staunch Christianity. Obviously everyone should be entitled to free speech and prayer, but it is our nation’s Bill of Rights’ First Amendment that tells us there must be a separation between church and state. National laws mustn’t be representative of religious ideals because then religion is subtly being forced upon people without their consent.

If conservatism was fully adopted in practice, there would never be any changes in policies and thus there would be limited improvement in society over the course of time. Not only is the conservative disposition often rooted in ignorance but the ideology lacks ambition in improving humanity on a grand scale - it fears innovation, creativity and all things that have not already been previously established.

It is interesting and valuable to consider potential mediums and hypotheticals regarding abortion. The overall reason abortion is such a polarizing topic is because of the lack of clarity on where the line should be drawn: should it be fully legal or illegal, or are there mediums to consider? Is third trimester abortion permissible? What about general contraception? Out of the box thinking and pure common sense can overlap more than we think. The first hypothetical question that points to pro life arguments being rooted is misogyny: what if men were the gender that got pregnant? If nothing in our current reality changed besides the fact that men were the ones who happened to get pregnant, the issue of abortion would never have even arose as debatable, it would be a given. Abortion would likely not only be normalized but maybe even praised as men are largely responsible for policy decisions on such a scale. Actually, men are more than ‘largely responsible’ than decisions on such a scale - they are actually 95% responsible to get precise. 110 out of 116 supreme court justices have been men over the course of our nation’s history and it was 5 men in the supreme court who overturned Roe V Wade this past year. I pose the radical idea that maybe 5 men, all of whom are products of a broken two party system, shouldn’t be responsible for making laws that affect 330 million people, especially in a country that labels itself as a democracy. Why not hold a nationwide vote on hot button topics like such, electoral college and all? Abortion is most certainly a spectrum; contrasting the teenage girl who was raped, what if there was a 35 year old women in a married relationship who wanted to get the 5th abortion of her life simply because she ‘didn’t feel like having another kid’. There’s likely something about that situation that doesn’t sit well with a lot of people and so, I propose ‘The 3 Strike Rule’ as a means to appease both sides of the spectrum. Every women would be legally entitled to two abortions while a third procedure would result in jail time. By the same token, an abortion within the first two trimesters of pregnancy would be permitted while a third trimester abortion would not. Drawing the correct line on abortion is difficult, maybe even impossible, but the right to an abortion, in some sense, is necessary in order to allow humans to be autonomous, valuable beings.

It is time we start acknowledging the reality about abortion: it is justifiable murder. Based on the science, yes it is technically murder but based on the grand scheme of things that need to be considered, it is also justified. This does not mean that abortion is good or a positive thing in any way, it rather means that abortion must be legal because it is better than the alternative of it not being legal. After all, Bill Burr wasn’t quite done with his rant after declaring abortion to be murder. He concluded by saying “Before all you pro life people get excited, I think it’s great you’re killing your babies. Help mother nature out, there’s too many of us. It’s 130 degrees out, animals are going extinct, there’s plastic in the ocean. We don’t need anymore fucking people” (3:28). There is a reason guys like Bill Burr can sell out arenas just by talking for an hour. Multidimensional thinkers like Burr are able to acknowledge both realities: abortion is murder as well as a necessary option to have.

The right to an abortion is clearly an example of autonomy, which must be the defining feature of the good life, or else our free will and human rights are insecure. Humans are the only life form in our known universe with sentience and so we must be able to use our sentience in order to better the state of affairs and improve humanity rather than passively reject reform because of ‘stability’ and ‘efficiency’. Conservative sentiments were likely more useful in the beginning of human existence when we were a primitive, violent, and destructive species rooted in survival. Over time, we must lean on our autonomy in order to innovate, solve problems and make the world a more moral place. Despite the conservative designation of ‘subjective morality’, we all have an innate idea of what is right and wrong - it is what separates us from our ancestral primates. Ultimately, rational autonomy is the defining feature of the good life because it perpetuates the most essential component of humanity - individuality. Our individuality is what makes us unique and is what facilitates transcendent innovations by the most creative and multidimensional thinkers of humankind. Rational autonomy must be prioritized at all costs otherwise, humanity will lose its most valuable asset.

Works Cited

Burr Bill, “Abortion is Like Ruining a Cake” Youtube

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston, Penguin Books, 2004.