I think some of the problem with people that are anti-reproductive rights is that they are forced to follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion. Namely that the deaths in the Holocaust are matched seven times over every year and that the death of a fertilized egg is morally equal to the drowning of a three year old. They perceive a near-infinite evil being done all the time and thus adopt an “any means necessary” attitude to ending abortion rights which results in them. Lying about dangers present to the patient, slandering people who get abortions and then saying that abortions make people feel bad, forcing charities to choose between funding or providing care, exposing children to graphic violence to shock them into piety; these are all excusable under that mode of thought because those that act in this way consider themselves to be doing the same thing as those who would lie to Nazi authorities to protect Jews. They might even consider themselves greater since under their view, more “live” are being saved.
I think for some of them it acts as a counter-weight for sins even. If you found out that someone that saved thousands of Jews had committed adultery, would you not still consider them on the whole to have been a just person? But what if instead of thousands, someone managed to help save millions of “lives” by passing a law requiring a 12 year old to give birth to her father’s child? Wouldn’t all your other sins be simply drowned out.
I’m saying this by the way as a former “pro-lifer” that legitimately had those thoughts. I read the pamphlets went to the talks and even almost protested a clinic. I ended up abandoning those views when I 1) studied the philosophy of personhood and realized the incoherence of the “pro-life” position (who says philosophy never applies to real life?) but more importantly 2) found out a friend of mine was going to get an abortion and the circumstances as to why she was getting one. I was simply unable to hold onto a pretense of religious fundamentalism when I saw that the I could dispense compassion to either a person I knew and cared about and who I knew had hopes, feelings and felt loneliness and despair or a mound of human DNA which is sometimes capable of exhibiting primitive behavioral states in a sufficiently advanced form but nonetheless was declared a full and whole person by Holy Writ. Most people who consider the latter a person would not do so had they not been told by the theologians who claim divine knowledge. If I was supposed to provide compassion to only one, I only saw one option. Ethics is about real people, not theological constructs.
People that call themselves “pro-life” (as I did) are not monsters scheming to restrict freedom, they sincerely see themselves as life-savers. But their basis for believing that they are saving lives is ill-founded and has had disastrous consequences with little to nothing good to show for it.
Thanks for anyone with the patience to read this. It was just something I had been wanting to get off my chest for awhile and I figured this was as good a medium as any to do it.