For pro-life progressives, the mainstream pro-life movement is often viewed with a certain amount of ambivalence. We respect the passion of many in the movement, but are often troubled by the tactics they employ, the rhetoric that is used, the inconsistent commitment to life by many in the movement, and the support and promotion too often given to those who are profoundly ignorant about the real lives of pregnant women and young mothers. Yet if the mainstream movement is so bad, why are millennials not moving to the pro-choice side?

There are a number of reasons why this is the case, but an obvious one is that the leadership of the pro-choice movement is also dominated by awful leaders and spokespersons. I personally know supporters of abortion rights who believe abortion is a necessary evil in a flawed world. While we disagree on the need to secure legal rights for unborn children, I do not consider them to be even remotely malicious or sadistic. One can be a compassionate person and nevertheless have that compassion misplaced, sometimes with devastating consequences.

But there are also people like abortion activist Amanda Marcotte, an atheist writer who champions abortion on demand. She has no understanding whatsoever of why people are pro-life, seems blissfully unaware that tens of millions of Americans on the political left and center are pro-life, and roots her arguments in the glorification of hedonism and autonomy. Many supporters of legal abortion do not share her views, but she does offer a look into the mindset of many who dominate the movement and favor virtually no restrictions on abortion, something overwhelmingly opposed by the American people.

Here is what she thinks the real anti-abortion argument is:

I strongly believe in gender essentialism, and people who violate my beliefs about what women and men should do and be like scare me. In particular, I find the notion that women might be lascivious and/or non-nurturing at times to be frightening, because those qualities belong to men, and so I am eager to punish women and force nurturance on them to restore order to the world.

In her mind, there is no concern for unborn children, the human beings (scientifically speaking) that pro-lifers talk so much about. She thinks the real issue is that pro-lifers are actually scared that women will have too much sex. While there are pro-lifers who believe in traditional gender roles (some of whom hold double standards about sex), the idea that this is what really drives opposition to abortion is patently absurd.

Why does she think access to abortion is essential? Is it about compassion for poor women or some other humanitarian or progressive motive?

I like my life how it is, with my ability to do what I want when I want without having to arrange for a babysitter. I like being able to watch True Detective right now and not wait until baby is in bed. I like sex in any room of the house I please. I don’t want a baby.

Seriously.

Surely she must have some reasonable, nuanced thoughts on adoption, once again motivated by a humanistic impulse.

And don’t float “adoption” as an answer. Adoption? Fuck you, seriously. I am not turning my body over for nine months of gaining weight and puking and being tired and suffering and not being able to sleep on my side and going to the hospital for a bout of misery and pain so that some couple I don’t know and probably don’t even like can have a baby.

Perhaps she speaks nobly on why the sacrifices of bearing a child and giving him or her up for adoption is too much to ask.

I like drinking alcohol and eating soft cheese. I like not having a giant growth protruding out of my stomach. I hate hospitals and like not having stretch marks.

Why would we require anyone to give up soft cheese just to save a human life? We didn’t make the soldiers that were drafted to serve (and sometimes sacrifice their lives) in WWII give up soft cheese, did we?

Surely she can’t just be motivated by a desire to do whatever she feels like doing whenever she wants, regardless of any notion of morality.

Given the choice between living my life how I please and having my body within my control and the fate of a lentil-sized, brainless embryo that has half a chance of dying on its own anyway, I choose me.

Oh. Nevermind.

She seems to think that all men suffer from Peter Pan syndrome, which she evidently would also like to embrace as part of a heroic overturning of patriarchy, ushering in the noble equality of selfishness:

Don’t I sound selfish? Hedonistic? Isn’t there something very unfeminine about my bluntness here? Hell, I’m performing against gender norms so hard that even I recoil a little. This is actually what I think, and I feel zero guilt about it, but I know that saying so out loud will cause people to want to hit me with the Bad Woman ruler, and that causes a little dread.

I don’t know many people who think men should be free to be as selfish and hedonistic as they would like, while women should conform to a strict system of morality, but if I did, I would find their viewpoint repulsive. Yet I do not take a much brighter view of those who believe the quest for women’s rights and justice should center around the freedom to be selfish and enjoy all vices. Pretty much anyone with any ethical system of beliefs would find that form of feminism problematic.

The pro-life movement is flawed and has made grave mistakes supporting people who favor bombastic rhetoric over a comprehensive set of policies that would truly address the causes of abortion and improve the lives of pregnant women, mothers, and their children. Thankfully, the pro-choice movement has also suffered from poor leadership. Amanda Marcotte may be an extreme example, but the elites that control the pro-choice movement and shape its messaging are far more individualistic, hedonistic, and materialistic than the vast majority of the American people (an impressive feat). The pro-life movement needs to take advantage of this, fix its approach, and broaden its ranks before the pro-choice movement realizes how out of touch it really is.