Abortion and Practical Arguments

Idealism, moral signaling, and the weakening of a position through avoiding material reality

Abortion is a hot-button issue. Unfortunately, this means that by mentioning it in a recent entry, I found myself entangled in backlash fueled by individuals who prioritize exploiting controversial topics for personal gain and perpetuating a toxic culture of political fandom, where divisive boundaries are created and maintained to cast aside all nuance.

This particular incident has been stirred up through intentional misinterpretations perpetuated by the influential anarchist/socialist YouTuber Thought Slime (and their sad orbiter John Duncan, who will be elated at his own mere mention, for he clearly must be of consequence). Their distortion of my views, particularly in relation to abortion and its ties to capitalism, underscores the urgent need for practical arguments that cut through ideology.

Margaret Goddamn Sanger Again

To begin, I must (again) address the issue of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger initially championed birth control as a means to protect women from dangerous self-induced abortions. However, her views shifted over time as she became involved with the Neo-Malthusian League and collaborated with John D. Rockefeller. This collaboration led her to abandon her socialist advocacy and promote the concept of limiting breeding among the poor and marginalized, deeming them "unfit." Even Wikipedia, a milquetoast source that often doesn’t properly acknowledge controversies like this, chronicles this shift, ultimately leading to Planned Parenthood disassociating from Sanger in 2020 due to mounting pressure.

Within the realm of birth control and abortion, Sanger shows us both the "good" and "bad" versions (with an understanding that I’m using these terms relatively in this example, as there is no objective “good” or “bad”). The "good" version is imperative in a socioeconomic system restricting genuine bodily autonomy, whether through legal constraints or coercive economic circumstances. Women were tragically dying due to unsafe, self-performed abortions prompted by their inability to afford the costs of raising a child (as well as the illegality of abortion at the time). The "good" version aimed to address this pressing issue. However, it is essential to recognize the existence of the "bad" version, which seeks to eliminate the "unfit" from society—an ideology rooted in Malthusianism.

Regrettably, many bodily autonomy proponents fail to acknowledge the necessity of discussing forms of birth control, including abortion, within a practical, socioeconomic context. Instead, their focus remains predominantly on the realm of rights and idealism. This oversight is at the heart of the controversy Thought Slime and his supporters stirred. They criticize my approach while failing to realize the importance of fully defining the issue in material terms.

It should go without saying, but practical arguments, which consider the realities we face, hold significant value when seeking meaningful progress.

The Pitfalls of Idealism

Thought Slime and others who share his perspective often express an idealistic desire for abortion to be not only legal but deemed universally "good" as a reaction against conservative ideologies. However, they often neglect the crucial step of defining what constitutes "good" in this context (which is why I use the term on a primarily colloquial basis). By contrast, I strive to define and understand the issue from a practical standpoint that reflects its real-world implications. It is frustrating to encounter resistance from those who refuse to provide clear definitions while vehemently opposing specific viewpoints without proper reasoning.

The issue, particularly, is that I have been critical of Thought Slime for their utopian, idealist perspective. As an anarchist, their lack of material basis for criticism and reliance on cultural signaling is, in my opinion, divisive and superficial. So, because abortion is held up as an ideal in these fandom-driven circles that view me as an enemy attacker, my ideal must be that of the opposite.

This can be seen in responses to how Thought Slime characterizes my views:

They can not fathom that I would argue in favor of abortion for any reason outside that it is “ethical” or “good,” but the vast majority of people I've spoken to who've had an abortion considered it horrifying and traumatic, which puts it into murky territory for either.

Only true ghouls believe that “horrifying and traumatizing” things are “good.” Arguments presenting abortion as this look disconnected from reality. In some instances (increasing in frequency), advocates intentionally provoke their opponents by making provocative glorifying statements such as, "I love abortion," which runs counter to the reality of getting one, as presented to me by virtually everyone I’ve talked to who has had one. This kind of behavior only alienates everyday people, and it should be no surprise that these individuals are often seen as deranged or extreme.

This is why I attempt to make arguments on an exclusively practical basis; if it's about ethics, it's a question of what one believes. Every version of idealist arguments for abortion eventually runs against this hurdle: many people do not believe it’s ethical. One can not simply change this entirely subjective belief, as it is deeply entrenched within the ideological beliefs of the individuals in question, and simply calling them “bad” only widens the divide.

The overwhelming majority of abortion cases are driven by necessity. In terms of economic circumstances, many cannot afford to provide a stable, nurturing environment for a child. Similarly, when a pregnancy poses significant risks to the physical health of both the mother and the fetus or when the fetus is no longer viable, there really is no “choice.” Furthermore, mental health concerns can also play a crucial role, whether unable to bear the emotional responsibilities of parenthood, grappling with the prospect of becoming an unfit parent, or being burdened by the emotional weight of carrying a child conceived through abusive circumstances.

There has never been a single abortion that has occurred “for fun” and to glorify it is bizarre. Every single abortion that has ever happened is a result of material conditions (broadly the ones from the previous paragraph), whether one cannot raise a child or is averse to the idea. In the case of abortions performed for the latter reason, they happen because birth control (of whatever nature) either failed or was not used. This is an invasive medical procedure, not a trip to a theme park.

Moreover, whether one can have fun or not having an abortion is a stupid, irrelevant avenue for discussion, as it is generally stated as spite towards anti-abortion advocates and comes off as a massive cope anyways.

The Pendulum

It is crucial to recognize that many self-proclaimed socialists, and even some Marxist-Leninists, fall victim to a tendency to idealize socialism in the Western world. This is not necessarily their fault but rather a reflection of how our society functions. However, this idealization often leads people to lose sight of the bigger picture and focus solely on their own pet issues. As a result, the pursuit of revolution becomes nothing more than a social club or a cynical social market devoid of genuine organizational efforts or effective planning.

But as is the tendency of the Thought Slime following, so is the tendency of those who assert the opposite but remain in the realm of idealism:

Firstly, the very idea I have some convoluted, conditional way of being against bodily autonomy while hiding it (to remain… acceptable to liberals?) is absurd.

More importantly, we must understand the point of body autonomy: it is a protection from the state granted to an underclass. Currently, the state is bourgeois, which is inherently coercive towards those outside the bourgeoisie whose interests conflict. Consequently, this protection is a necessity for all members of the underclass who wish to maintain some semblance of control over their circumstances, particularly within a system that inherently restricts it (and it bears repeating that the “rights” paradigm is ultimately permissive).

These idealists, whether for or against abortion, simply see the state as a vehicle to ensure their own ideals are enshrined “good.” Not only do they fail to see the state as an apparatus intended to protect ruling class interests, but also through the lens of practicality, and thus no consensus can be made at even a pre-organizational level. Meanwhile, the growing number of people who feel totally alienated from all forms of the political process feel stuck.

I know a few hardline Republicans that acknowledge abortion is a necessity despite their own personal beliefs about it. They are turned off by many of the arguments for/about it, but when presented with the question in cold, rational terms, they ultimately support it. I know many Catholics/Christians who acknowledge this issue as one of separation of church and state, a dynamic necessary for democracy to function at the base level (including in a hypothetical proletarian state).

These groups could form part of the basis for a focused coalition to advance the issue's legal situation. However, due to idealism and fandom (the bourgeois neoliberal ideology where everyone who isn’t on my team thinks the opposite as me and is, therefore, “bad”), such a coalition is impossible, as these groups do not show the ideological deference to what is quickly becoming a fetishized idea of abortion.

Conclusion

The pitfalls of idealism are evident in the utopian perspectives of Thought Slime and others who fail to define what constitutes "good" in the context of abortion. By dismissing practical considerations and resorting to cultural signaling, they alienate everyday people and impede productive discussions. Acknowledging that subjective beliefs on the ethics of abortion vary (and will continue to no matter what), it is important to approach the topic from a practical standpoint that considers material conditions and respects individual perspectives.

Furthermore, moving beyond ideological divisions and recognizing the necessity of forming coalitions based on shared goals is crucial. Focusing solely on ideals and engaging in divisive fandom prevents the formation of meaningful alliances in service of a concrete goal. Whether acknowledging abortion as a necessity despite personal beliefs or recognizing the importance of separation of church and state, there are potential avenues for collaboration that do not (further) restrict anyone’s bodily autonomy, regardless of people’s individual positions on the issue.

To make progress on the issue of abortion, it is crucial to embrace practical arguments that address the real-world complexities faced by individuals living in a coercive bourgeois state. By doing so, we can work towards solutions that resonate with a wider range of people, ultimately leading to a more nuanced and effective approach to this contentious topic.

However, this isn’t what people like Thought Slime and their fandom are interested in. They desire to appear unique, superior, or both. Politicians who loudly pander to either side also don’t desire resolution or progress; it’s a convenient issue for maintaining their electoral strategies (which also more or less revolve around fandom as well – “vote for me because the other side is bad”). These paradigms lend themselves to preserving the status quo (or even regression), intentional or not.

Thus, those who don’t buy into these frameworks must rise above the moralist nonsense. Abortion is not a fun or pleasant thought. However, it is necessary in many, many situations. Any argument people make about “unnecessary” abortions, for or against them, is likely superfluous or a cope.

Lenin himself made the distinction between necessity and ideology, clearly swatting down Malthusianism while supporting “bodily autonomy” a century before we were even using the phrase:

It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses. Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another. Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes.

-V.I. Lenin, “The Working Class and Neo-Malthusianism”

Ultimately, to advocate bodily autonomy in any meaningful fashion, one must answer the question, “Autonomy from what?” I can and have. To make the bizarre assertion that talking about necessity somehow tempers support for something unpleasant undermines any attempt at a grounded, non-moralistic argument for it.

Why would an advocate for something want to do that?