Woozle/2022/02/18/2

abortion and r/K reproduction strategy

So, let's talk about abortion, because it's such a fun subject[1]! ...and also because it came up as the first item on Brad's list of objections to the Dem Party (https://nextdoor.com/p/ZFQfbpLLxkwW/c/721462797).

It seems to me that much about the way people disagree over abortion can be seen as an expression of the way r/K selection strategy varies within individual humans.

Background

In case you don't know what r/K selection strategy[2] is (it's not something that gets a lot of press), it has to do with the amount of care given to individual offspring within a given species:

- An r-selection strategy emphasizes high quantity and low investment: many fish, for example, will lay hundreds or thousands of eggs at a time, and leave the hatchlings to fend entirely for themselves. It is almost inevitable that the majority of any brood will not survive to adulthood.

- a K-selection strategy, by contrast, produces a very small number of offspring, and lavishes attention on each one until it is able to survive on its own. Whales and elephants, for example, often produce only one offspring at a time, and engage in a highly nurturing long-term relationship with that offspring.

Humans are generally thought to be K-strategists, since the default is to produce only one offspring per pregnancy, and parents are expected in most cultures to provide for their children until they reach adulthood -- a span of time lasting well over a decade, a substantial portion of a human life.

The Connection

When "pro-choice" progressives look at laws advocated by abortion prohibitionists, aka "pro-life"/"right-to-life" (PL/RtL) advocates, we often comment that they seem obsessed not with saving lives, but with maximizing reproduction. We also note how they seem to be against measures which would actually reduce the thing they claim to be trying to reduce-- abortions -- while supporting measures which do nothing to reduce it.

This seems hypocritical to us -- how can you be "pro-life" when you're bombing abortion clinics, or demanding that abortions be denied even to save the mother's life? and how can you claim to be against abortion when you prevent kids from having access to contraceptives? -- but maybe it's not as hypocritical as it seems.

Maybe the main problem is that we place slightly different value on different stages of life -- and those small differences leave the door open for outrage-farmers to polarize the issue still further.

If you're thinking more in terms of maximizing reproduction for the good of the species -- many kids, left to fend for themselves, so that only the strong reproduce -- it makes a certain amount of sense[3] to care more about a fetus than the fetus's mom, or to maximize the opportunities for childbirth (wanted or not) than to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

This could also explain the popularity of movements like Quiverfull[4], which seem designed to turn women into little more than breeding stock.

== Extrapolating Further ==

...and actually, when you think about it, this could explain a *lot* of the differences between Right and Left views.

Right-wingers generally don't want safety-nets or public services. They do want to reward winners and punish losers -- which we on the Left see as increasing economic disparity and leading to a less-just society, but which the Right often seems to justify in terms which sound an awful lot like an r-strategy species thinking out loud: "I actually don't want too many kids to survive, because that way only the best will reproduce, and that leads to a better future for humanity".

-- Footnotes --

1. this is wry sarcasm 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory 3. ...in a eugenic kind of way, I guess 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull