Conservative
Conservatives often make cases against abortion arguing for the ‘potential’ of human life. With regularity, although likely unintentionally, they invoke one of Peter Singer’s thought experiments, asking “Where do you draw the line” between a foetus and a human. Heartbeat? Brain function? They often agree that anytime we draw a line, we draw a line which can also be applied to adults, those who require assistance to maintain a heartbeat or those who have poor brain function. However, also with regularity, they fall short in their argument in that it is only ever applied to humans.
A popular argument for the existence of a creator is that the human eye is so complex that it cannot possibly have been a result of the ‘accident’ of evolution, while simultaneously apparently forgetting that many animals have eyes and must, therefore, also have been selectively created. Would a creator really have bothered to copy and paste human eyes onto other animals, but making them capable of seeing different waves of light arguably more advanced than humans?
Conservatives might also argue that, as people of faith, god’s word in the bible has given them ‘dominion’ over animals: “let them have dominion”. Theologians too will often argue this point, most indicating that it gives humans control over animals, while some argue that it suggests humans are tasked with taking care of animals. Of course, as with any passage in the bible, there is rarely any consensus on what any of these phrases actually mean.
If we are to indulge the fantasy and take literally what god has ‘said’ in the bible, there are a significant number of passages encouraging the killing of babies under two-years old as payment for the sins of their parents. Conservatives and theologians might choose to pass over these instances in their arguments in priority support of the ‘right to life’ of a foetus. Taking their concern further, should they not send the effort of this concern into greater funding for preschool and nutrition programs for actual, not potential, lives? These issues might not get their face alongside the headlines or boost their social media status, though.
Already these arguments are appear fragile, but further adding to the crumbling wall is the evidence that ‘right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption’ than almost anyone else. Conservatives, as a fundamental ideal, are resistant to change: they oppose progress, such as scientific or ideological, and they are economically stagnant. They are also significantly more likely to support activities which they erroneously view as ‘traditional’ for their ‘culture’, including significant abuses and uses of animals.
However, these are the same groups of people who encourage progress when it fits in with their self-determined image: they like better hunting guns; they like bigger, louder cars; they encourage brutal capitalism. All ‘traditions’ which have only existed for the past two-hundred years or less. The conservative argument for abortion holds failing substance when the idea of a valued life ends with their species, though many might fail to know exactly where their species ends or begins when they speak about their ‘traditions’, projecting their argument that it is natural for an animal to kill, while simultaneously separating themselves from animals to enact their ‘dominion’.
The full text of Genesis 1:26, depending on the translation, is “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Firstly, god made man in his image. God has dominion over humans and is self-enacted as their guardian. So, it must be understood that when the passage refers to ‘dominion’, it is not a dominion that is left to humans to define. It is the same guardianship dominion that god has imposed over humans, which is why the ‘image’ and ‘dominion’ points are made in the same passage.
(Of course, there are a number of other passages elsewhere in the bible which condones humans eating meat, but it is the ‘dominion’ argument which is most commonly presented by believers. There are also a number of passages which advocate for a plant-based diet, but these are often overlooked.)
Secondly, despite how much they proclaim they do, very few conservatives actually follow much of the advice set forth in the bible. A life living biblically looks rather ridiculous when it is overtly displayed, and despite proclaiming that they follow the guide of the bible, even most conservatives would admit that most of the passages are not to be taken literally. So why literally interpret ‘dominion’ as control and not figuratively as ‘guardianship’? Their animal abuse activities are less about ‘tradition’ or ‘religion’ and more about presenting the image of a person they want to be recognised as.
Their concern of abortion might not actually be about the act of abortion, but more a reaction to their concern about the safety of children. They engage in animal abuse as a way of holding on to what they believe to be their traditions. They rationalise to the point where they cannot be taken seriously because their reasons contradict almost every other part of their identity, a façade which is a similar attempt of display as that of a peacock trying to attract a mate. It is rarely who they really are, just who they want us to think they are. They just need a little more time to connect with.
