Psychological Analysis of Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life Arguments In Regards To Abortion Debate

Psychology & Sexuality
1

To the average pro-life person, the pro-choice crowd is using mental gymnastics to support murdering innocent babies. Most pro-life debates are focused on the simplicity of “Murder is wrong, and everyone knows this.” But that’s not going to convince any pro-choice people because they’re operating under a completely different paradigm.

image

To me, the pro-choice framework has horrific implications on female vulnerability, nature, and existence itself. The bodily autonomy argument pro-choice people use is essentially one of existential fear, “I have a body that can be impregnated and I would be forced to give birth if I was pregnant”; bodily vulnerability. Does abortion solve this fear? No, women would still be afraid of being raped, beaten, exploited, being physically weaker than men, et.c. Abortion just moves the goal post and offers temporary security but doesn’t manage the problem at it’s root.

Pro-choice women seek comfort at the idea of being able to get out of vulnerability, but this is impossible. As humans in general, something can always hurt us. Hence, pro-choice arguments lead themselves into trying to reject nature and existence if taken to the logical extreme.

The solution to this existential fear is not trying to treat it from a top-down approach and trying to medicate the fear, but rather, face it head on. Radical acceptance of bodily vulnerability is something pro-choice women would benefit from accepting. That’s life, and pro-choice arguments essentially say “No, being vulnerable is bad” which is essentially rejecting being human. Abortion doesn’t offer safety, but these women yearn for strong men to take care of them and lead them deep down.

I would liken it to Wilfred Bion’s containment theory in psychoanalysis. Like a mother contains an infant’s fear of being overwhelmed so the infant can develop and mature, a strong man contains a woman’s anxiety about being vulnerable so she can develop and mature. Feminism has destroyed this and weakened men. Many people repeat patterns psychologically despite it hurting them, the psychoanalyst Jacquis Lacan would probably call this ‘jouissance’, people need to break the cycle. Feminists double down on their feminism in a cycle of wanting more and more safety but never reach it. Logically-consistent feminists essentially have 3 choices:

  • Realize that nature makes them vulnerable and reject it entirely, becoming an antinatalist and being against life itself
  • Try to outsmart nature somehow and become something other than human women (good luck with that)
  • Accept that one is vulnerable and cease to be a feminist

What do you guys think?

2

I think this:

If society degenerates to the point where many woman slut around and then want to murder their own children so they do not have to deal with any conseqeunce and can keep sluttin’:

Then no law is going to fix that. You have to fix the moral fabric of society itself.

Right wingers: “We need to get the same government that is confirmed to be ran by zionist pedo degenerates, enforced civil rights, and enforced covid bullshit, to ban degeneracy, such as abortion! I am sure that will work and end degeneracy!”

Even if the degenerate government played along and banned abortion outright, the damage would still be done due to woman long ago becoming sluts that don’t wanna do wedlock no more, at least not until they want to live off of someone at age 30 or so.

Also:

Right wingers hate “muh fatherless faggots” and “muh ebil, slutty single mothers” but…

They oppose abortion? Huh?

“I hate wasps, but DONT YOU DARE HARM WASP LARVA!”

Right wingers demonize “muh ebil single mudders” and then act surprised when said mother would rather murder their unborn child than live with the stigma of being a single mother.

Right wingers endlessly kvetch about “muh fatherless faggots” and even portray them as mass shooters. They seem to be oblivious to what most murdered unborn children would have grown up to be.

And that is only what the White murdered children would have grown up to be. The brown spawn that get aborted would be brown regardless of upbringing.

Even when the “muh fatherless faggots” that rightoids complain about grow up to be right wing, rightoids still hate them for being “muh fatherless faggots”.

Anyway, the gist is:

If someone wants to murder their unborn child, then they are not fit to be a parent and, if forced to be a parent, the child will likely grow up to be not-so good due to probably living in the household of a whore who hates the kid for being alive.

“Let’s force evil people to be good I’m sure that will work.”

3

I’ve always viewed it more as shirking responsibility. Motherhood being one of the greatest responsibilities conceivable. Women despise being solely responsible for anything, they’re more group oriented.

In the modern era motherhood is a solo endeavor. There is no village.

In fact, quite the opposite. Most women will actively warn others not to have children, signaling that they won’t be supported.

They’re happy enough to be violated, it’s the responsibility that scares them. If bodily violation scared them that badly, I think most women would become celibate after a single abortion.

Not many scared of equipment failure would skydive. It’s more like illegal BASE jumping, where consequences that aren’t injury or death come after, and rather than skipping it entirely, they moan about the consequences online.

4

Exactly, the reason for abortions is that they are allergic to responsibility, especially since being a mother is hard.

Also: the fact that the vast majority of aborted children would have grown up with no dad implies that men hate responsibility as well.

It is odd to see rightoids championing for the unborn when the unborn would have grown up to be the “MUH EBIL FATHERLESS FAGGOT TRANNY NIGGER MASS SHOOTERS” that rightoids endlessly bitch about.

The war cry of the modern cuckservative might as well be:

“I hate wasps, but dont you dare harm wasp larva!”

5

People in general hate responsibility, although I think women are much more guilty of this fault.

Everyone I’ve ever met who was fatherless was due to the father wanting to abandon the mother, the child is just collateral. Being connected even loosely with a woman they despise for at least eighteen years drives the decision to abandon them.

It’s also a sin of omission, rather than commission. Not saving a drowning man and pushing him in are two different moral situations, even if the end result is the same.

When rightoids call someone “fatherless”, it’s a derogatory diagnosis, like calling someone “autistic”.

It’s not their fault, but it’s pointing out why they might be acting a certain way in a derogatory manner. It isn’t someone’s fault that they’re autistic or fatherless, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can be annoying to be around because of that fact.