I frequently encounter individuals—at least in certain debates and on specific topics—who are hysterical, emotionally driven, and consequently predominantly irrational, and who tend to identify as left-wing on the political-ideological spectrum. My years of debating on social media have led me to conclude that they are the most irrational group, given the frequency of these encounters. Yet, sporadically, the other side of this human cockfighting ring—orchestrated by the political class—also presents itself to me in a despicable light; this happens when I advocate for common sense, only for a similar horde of irrational, emotionally charged individuals to appear and defend absurdities that ought to be as obvious to any adult human being as they are to me and others who recognize them as such. Not to mention the personal attacks and other fallacies they often pass off as "arguments"... Of course, different topics tend to inflame different types of people. Perhaps "uber-capitalists" aren't as easily triggered by the topic of abortion—or at least no more so than traditionalists are. This very topic was addressed on Instagram by Nine Borges—a highly intelligent Brazilian influencer and academic—who took a completely radical stance against the practice. I have written about abortion before and reached a conclusion—which seems the only reasonable one when approaching the topic with impartiality, objectivity, and careful consideration—that although it is a drastic measure, it cannot be banned in every single instance or scenario; there are important exceptions where the pregnant woman's health, dignity, and autonomy must also be taken into account. Yet, even after making it clear that I acknowledge these important exceptions and am not advocating for the trivialization of abortion, a horde of emotionally charged anti-abortionists appeared to attack me and defend absurdities: the idea that if a woman is raped, she must carry a completely unwanted and traumatic pregnancy for nine months because "human life is sacred"; the idea that she must sacrifice herself emotionally, even though terminating the pregnancy in the early days, weeks, or months—which would be the ideal course of action for anyone guided by common sense—is an option. I also considered an even worse scenario: a hypothetical woman who is raped and becomes pregnant while in a relationship—with a boyfriend or husband—and who, according to anti-abortion "wisdom," would apparently be expected to tough it out for nine months in that situation. I believe this represents an extreme, almost impossible test of resilience for an ordinary couple. Another scenario where abortion might be the recommended course of action is when the pregnancy poses a high risk to the pregnant woman's life. Of course, a Caesarean section is an option. However, if the pregnancy proves so dangerous that even a C-section cannot resolve the issue, resorting to abortion at any stage of the pregnancy to save the woman's life remains a possibility. This is one of the most extreme scenarios, even though the ideal approach is for any recommended termination to take place during the early days, weeks, or months. Because, indeed, those on the right tend to be more correct in asserting that a woman's autonomy over her body ends or diminishes significantly once she becomes pregnant—since she is no longer alone, but carrying a budding human life in her womb—and that life begins at conception. Yet, because we do not live in an ideal world where preventive measures are always sufficient to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (not to be confused with an unplanned one), this "morally right" stance in theory does not align perfectly with what is "most right" in practice. Ideally, people would avoid pregnancy through preventive means, given that abortion is a last resort—used only when all other preventive measures fail or are inaccessible. However, after being exposed to the arguments of radical anti-abortionists, it became clear to me that they champion a stance akin to veganism or the generous welcoming of poor immigrants and refugees: a moral purism that disregards real-world contexts, even if it is theoretically more correct. It is precisely a form of "pathological altruism" or unrealistic idealism—except that, in this instance, the ones being sacrificed are women who are pregnant due to rape, those facing high-risk pregnancies, or those lacking the psychological, cognitive, or social means to sustain a pregnancy or assume the role of a mother...
I also find it "amusing"—in a grim sense—to see the hypocrisy of invoking the "sanctity of human life" to argue for an absolute ban on abortion, while radical anti-abortionists (who are typically right-wing) often appear completely indifferent to the suffering of that same "sacred human life" once it is "outside the womb." For example, they may defend or justify the exploitation of workers by capitalist business owners—such as in debates regarding the end of
6x1 schedule...
Even the—primarily leftist—appeal to the "social standpoint" fallacy is used by radical anti-abortionists, especially women (as I witnessed during my "immersive experience" in that group). This is actually quite amusing, given that if I—as a man—lack the "identity-based authority" to speak about reproductive rights and women's bodily autonomy, then an abortion advocate who has actually had an abortion would possess the exact same authority as an anti-abortionist...
