Conservatives, liberals and adaptationists

I am always annoyed by the fact that everyone has an opinion on evolution.  Regardless of whether they can explain the first thing about how it works, they know whether they “believe in it” or disbelieve.  Many people, especially in the US, use their disbelief in evolution as a basis for political action.  Others will attack the “scientific orthodoxy” and claim the “evolutionists” are ideologically driven.  The whole idea of the scientific method and the tentative nature of all scientific knowledge escapes these people.  But when it comes down to it, if the average person doesn’t choose to have opinions on real scientific controversies, why jump in about fake ones?

Over the last few weeks it has begun to dawn on me that I should be awfully grateful that the general public isn’t more invested.  I should be grateful that I am not an economist.  Most people can describe themselves in terms of political ideologies, and those political ideologies are usually linked to economic “beliefs”.  Many of the most loudly expressed beliefs are “conservative”…belief in the power of the free market, belief in lower taxes, opposition to redistribution of wealth (except, of course, when it comes one’s own way).  Political parties are based, in a large part, on political ideologies.  Ideologies.  Not scholarly work.  Not data about how the world really works.  Ideologies.

Supply-side economics is a failed idea.  It’s been tested, it has failed.  The unrestricted free market has failed and failed horribly; Enron was one test, the “mortgage backed securities” scam was another.  But political ideologues are unmoved by data.  It was the failure of human nature, not of the system.  Hmm…where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah…communism.  Great idea, if only it wasn’t for human nature.

It’s bad that biology has become a political issue.  People take a biological question like “when does life begin?”, impose an arbitrary answer on it, and use it as a motivation to go and pass laws restricting how doctors can care for their patients.  But at its worst, the political appropriation of scientific ideas pales in comparison to what has happened with economics.  “I’m a fiscal conservative” says the average person who knows little about economics.  “I’m an adaptationist myself”, one might answer.

“The only moral abortion…”

I have strong opinions with regards to abortion – strong but conflicted. When I read Joyce Arthur ‘s article at Talk2Action I was first angered by the hypocrisy, but then tried to figure out what drove this sort of attitude. The article documents a (large) number of cases where anti-abortion activists insist on their right to have what they would deny others. In some of the cases the doctors knew the women because they were regular protestors outside their clinics (and returned to that action after their abortion). In other cases they were called murderers by the very women who were asking for abortions, and called the other women in the waiting rooms “sluts” and worse.

So what drives this sort of behaviour?  According to Arthur:

Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique – not like those “other” women – even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call “sluts” and “trash.” Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for “convenience”.

People always seen their own case as special.  Sometimes the disconnect from reality is mind-blowing.

A 21 year old woman and her mother drove three hours to come to their appointment for an abortion. They were surprised to find the clinic a ‘nice’ place with friendly, personable staff. While going over contraceptive options, they shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now. Also, she wouldn’t need contraception since she wasn’t going to have sex until she got married, because of her religious beliefs.

Are people really this disconnected from reality?  Would they really rather get pregnant than admit to themselves that they are having sex?  Using abortion as a form of birth control because you can’t be bothered to use other forms is terrible.  Trying to pin the blame for that on religion is worse.  In my opinion, abortion should be legal, safe and very rare.  “Abstinence only” education makes abortion and sexually transmitted diseases more common.  People who seek to deny abortion for others (but not themselves) are not motivated by “life” – they are not “pro-life” and they are clearly anti-women.