BRIDGING THE ABORTION DIVIDE
A Modest Proposal for the Abortion Divide to Unite the USA — Part 3
How to fairly resolve the debate in state capitols
This essay is presented in multiple parts. The intent is to detail a balanced solution for resolving the reproductive rights issue. See Part 2 here.
I will quickly finish my desert tour of the major themes of conservatism from the prior essay, which discussed the first three pillars: tradition, transcendent order, and human imperfection.
4) Private property
Traditionalists vigorously defend the rights to private property. That was true historically for men — regardless of whether one was of noble rank or common stock. Today, both men and women are deemed endowed with property rights. That was Russell Kirk’s seventh principle.
5) Authority of the state or law and order
Accordingly, a fifth pillar is a heightened appreciation of government authority, which serves to restrain those previously mentioned human imperfections — inclusive of predatory inclinations. Conservatives (aka, “contras”) are assertive advocates for “law and order” and support unquestionably the military and law enforcement institutions — although recent aberrations have occurred.
Interestingly, it is not inconsistent with the contra temperament to be willing to sacrifice some aspects of liberty on the altar of conservatism to maintain the moral order.
Many on the right would likely argue that explains their insistence on abortion bans.
6) Personal responsibility
The political right believes the societal contract we enter into as citizens requires individuals to live with a presumption of personal responsibility for their own fates — every failure, every action, every success. Contras, consequently, are suspect of attempts to engineer society to affect the distribution of personal outcomes.
In summation, any description of traditional conservatism that I have spied pays homage to these six guiding principles. And they will have resonance for the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Hence, there is some value to be found in these principles — if one keeps an open mind.
My concern here, though, is that the current interpretation of these ideals has erected no-exit signs for fetal conception — that is, the closure of all alternatives for ending or even, as some now propose, preventing a female’s unwanted pregnancy, i.e., birth control contraceptives.
So, what trade-offs are acceptable in a moral and equitable society?
Sacrificing equality for future life
When framed as life vs. death, Americans who identify as pro-life pursue a cause with an arguably noble intent.
Granted, that posture may for some be a veil for hidden agendas, but I proceed by giving those proponents the benefit of the doubt — albeit that gift may be more latitude than they give to American females.
Accordingly, conservatism must be resolved to address the inherent standard of inequality in how their fetal mandates treat the sexes. Here caution must prevail to consider whether pro-life advocates are at risk of losing the long-term moral argument — i.e. when historians of the future look back to the tumult of this era.
Does the law make women tantamount to quadrupeds?
So, this is our present reality: anti-abortionists have assigned the burden for protection of human life exclusively to one-half of the American population.
We have seen something comparable to this before. An analogous imposition was mandated by the states when Blacks assumed the burden for the nation’s early development, while whites enjoyed the benefits of their labor or higher status by diminishing another human being.
Similarly, females will be commanded by the state (or states) to assume the bearing of unwanted infants. In contrast, males — at best — only will be exacted money for child support.
Pro-life purists, it seems, would treat women analogous to camels, beasts of burden for carrying the weight of God’s deemed morality, while men ride those desert sands unburdened — and atop a hump.
That strikes me as none too chivalrous by any standard of traditional manhood. We should deem that boorish — if we understand conservatism to embrace our past traditions, including treasured standards of gentlemanly behavior.
Additionally, American males should understand there is a risk in making the female uterus a beast of burden. Push that creature too far south beyond the Sahara sands, and she may inexplicably transform into a raging lion.
I’m reminded of the legions of pink pussyhats: We have not yet seen them extend their claws.
Managing perils before they combust
The good news is that the ideology is capable of recognizing standards of equity and equal treatment under the law. In this, it can find ways to reconcile its pro-life imperatives with the scales of justice.
We can explore this further by an analogy any owner of real estate will appreciate. Modern governments establish building codes dictating how structures should be constructed to prevent the outbreak of fires and promote public safety. Such laws are accepted as the legitimate exercise of the police power of the state.
And while traditionalists frown upon the expansion of government, they still recognize the necessity of the state’s role in protecting public welfare. Thus, the legitimacy of building fire codes is a closed question — rarely subject to conservative opposition.
So, while abortion bans do impose something akin to a subordinate relationship, contra-thinking has within its principles the capacity to mitigate unequal treatment.
On this, we may consult the lessons of British history: The 19th-century Conservative Party politician and prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, recognized that a stark cleavage of the haves and have-nots was unsustainable — for the conservation of the British republic.
Perhaps such prescience is why Great Britain never suffered a Bolshevik revolution in the early decades of the succeeding century.
We must, therefore, consider twin protective measures in order to give equal treatment to both sexes under the new abortion regimes. Neither measure is sufficient by itself — just as two pans are needed to make the scales of justice.
And all American males must man up and be prepared to assume personal responsibility (which has been cited as a central principle of conservatism) in order to defend human life and the property rights of female persons.
The specifics are revealed in my next installment.
Thanks for your continued focus and attention. This proposal further unfolds in Part 4; please press the button on the right to follow these posts. — Geronimo Redstone
