mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Arguing Abortion
Anti-Smoking Pro-Choicers Have a Problem
Features Icon
show comments
  • Dain Fitzgerald

    Cosmo’s political stance is intended to signal solidarity with the lower class. When it moves into discussing the effects of smoking on a fetus, it’s speaking to the bourgeois would-be moms who buy the magazine and who’ve decided not to abort.

  • Brett Champion

    Speaking as someone who opposes abortion, I don’t think there’s really any cognitive dissonance on display here. It’s the similar mistake that people make that because it’s okay to execute someone for “X” crime, it’s therefore okay to do anything else you want to them because nothing is worse than taking someone’s life. That’s not really true.

    And just because someone is okay with a woman having an abortion (i.e., the woman permitting the taking of the life of her child), doesn’t mean that person has to be okay with the woman causing in utero damage to the child from her smoking, drinking, and other activities. They are different circumstances.

    • Josephbleau

      There is no logical consistency to be obtained here, would you agree that killing a foetus is OK but causing it pain by snipping its neck with a scissors is OK? If a foetus is not a living creature and outside of protection by law then why is it a crime to injure it> Don’t pretend that any reason applies to this debate, we just have decided that we can kill whatever we want to kill.

  • Lee Dryden

    The way pro-choicers handle this is that if you smoke during the pregnancy that you intend to carry through, a baby will be born in a sub-optimal condition that it will suffer from. If you abort then there will be no born child who suffers. In the context of legal abortion, there is some logic to this.
    The cognitive dissonance for me involves permitting the ultimate harm to be directed at the unborn child, while fastidiously opposing a much lesser harm. Anyone who is aware of fetal development must feel this dissonance.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Perhaps we need lawmakers and Supreme Court justices who do NOT believe abortion should be permitted and who also do NOT believe in high-end tax cuts, corporations over people, deregulation of nearly everything, voter disenfranchisement, unlimited money in politics, unlimited guns walking about in pockets, disregard of the environment and disregard of the wealth divide. We probably would find such sentiments coexisting in the mind of Pope Francis, for instance, but we can’t get his followers in the high end of politics and the judiciary to go along. Some famous names coming to mind include John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

    So many people who campaign politically against abortion are in lock-step favor of all that other stuff. Why is that?

    • Josephbleau

      Summary: Don’t dare believe a thing, or I will blame you for believing other things too.

      • FriendlyGoat

        I’m just operating on the associations we observe in abundant frequency.

        • Josephbleau

          Projecting the anecdotal to the general is the source of all prejudice. Humans are easily fooled by small sample sizes.

          • FriendlyGoat

            It’s not a small sample size of conservatives who claim to be against abortion and who also claim to be in favor of high-end tax cuts, deregulation across the board, Voter ID, repeal of the Affordable Care Act, denial of man-made climate change, opposition to gun regulation, opposition to a larger minimum wage, opposition to immigrants already here and opposition to campaign finance limitations.

            C’mon, Joseph. Nearly all self-identified conservatives against abortion also share those other beliefs. The question AGAIN is why is that so?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service