The Obedience Mandate: Why Pro-Life Stance Is About Power, Not Life
In the bitter trench of America's abortion debate, few positions seem as morally resolute as MAGA's pro-life stance. The rhetoric is saturated with words like "life," "innocence," and "God's will." On the surface, it appears to be a noble defense of the unborn. But scratch beneath that surface, and a pattern emerges. This is not about compassion. It’s about control, hierarchy, and the age-old comfort of obedience.
This isn’t mere speculation. A growing body of political psychology reveals that MAGA’s opposition to abortion is deeply rooted in authoritarian psychology, rigid group identity, and a chronic aversion to perceived social instability. It has little to do with science, and everything to do with maintaining a moral order that places obedience over empathy, and submission over autonomy.
From Womb to Symbol: Fetuses as Moral Currency
Authoritarian movements thrive on symbols, and the fetus has become one of their most powerful. It doesn’t speak. It doesn’t sin. And crucially, it cannot disrupt the hierarchy. It is the perfect blank slate onto which traditional values can be projected.
In the psychological framework of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), as outlined by Bob Altemeyer, the world is best understood in binary terms: right versus wrong, pure versus corrupt. Those high in RWA cling to traditional structures because they fear moral decay. The fetus is no longer just a developing life, it is a cultural relic, a stand-in for a bygone era of moral certainty.
This helps explain why so many who passionately defend fetal life remain curiously silent about childcare, healthcare, or maternal mortality. The unborn serve a purpose not as lives to be protected, but as ideological props to preserve moral order. They are defended because they are obedient, passive, and conveniently voiceless.
The Consciousness Disconnect: When Life Isn’t Lived
What does it mean to be alive? From a philosophical and ethical standpoint, the value of life is not defined solely by cellular activity. Consciousness, awareness, and the capacity for experience matter. Research by Lee et al. (2005) makes clear that the structures required to perceive pain or form consciousness do not exist in a fetus before the third trimester.
This introduces the concept of "irreversible absence," a condition where the biological potential for consciousness does not and will not exist. Philosopher Jeff McMahan argues that the "capacity for interests,” the ability to experience anything at all, is what makes life ethically significant. A fetus before this threshold doesn’t suffer, doesn’t think, and doesn't want to live. It is biologically alive, but ethically empty.
And yet, these scientific and philosophical distinctions are irrelevant to the MAGA worldview. Their view of life isn’t empirical. It’s absolutist. A clump of cells becomes a holy emblem not because it can feel pain, but because it can restore order.
The Coma Comparison: False Equivalencies and Motivated Reasoning
A favorite talking point among pro-lifers is the coma comparison. “If a person in a coma deserves life, why not a fetus?” It’s rhetorical sleight of hand. A person in a coma had a history of consciousness. They retain the potential to regain it. A fetus without a developed cortex does not. Its condition is not temporary dormancy, it is foundational absence.
This kind of argument is a textbook case of motivated reasoning, a psychological phenomenon in which individuals twist logic to protect emotionally cherished beliefs. As Kunda (1990) and Nyhan & Reifler (2010) note, the goal here isn’t truth, it’s consistency with identity.
Pro-life rhetoric isn't designed to engage complexity. It’s designed to shut it down.
Hierarchy Disguised as Morality
Abortion, for the MAGA mind, is not just a moral issue, it’s a structural one. As research into Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) shows, individuals high in SDO prefer a society with rigid hierarchies. They are uncomfortable with movements that seek to equalize power—whether those involve women, people of color, or LGBTQ+ communities.
Choma et al. (2016) demonstrated how SDO is closely linked to resistance against women’s rights and reproductive autonomy. Banning abortion isn't just about “saving babies.” It’s about reinforcing the belief that women must remain subordinate—particularly poor women and women of color.
This is domination disguised as moral concern. Freire, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, warned that oppressor consciousness reframes control as protection. And indeed, to MAGA, denying women reproductive freedom is not seen as cruelty, it is framed as righteous guidance.
Collective Narcissism: Saviors in Their Own Story
But it’s not enough to dominate. MAGA must see itself as morally superior while doing it. This is where collective narcissism enters the picture. Golec de Zavala (2020) describes it as the belief that one's ingroup is exceptional and morally pure, but constantly under attack.
The pro-life movement satisfies this need perfectly. MAGA can imagine itself as heroic defenders of the voiceless, even as they vote to defund programs for mothers and children. They can cry for the unborn while cheering the deportation of immigrant families. The contradictions are not just tolerated; they’re invisible.
This dual illusion, of being both dominant and persecuted, allows cruelty to parade as compassion. The fetus becomes a moral shield, not a subject of empathy but a tool of vindication.
Conclusion: The Politics of Obedience
What we are witnessing in MAGA’s pro-life stance is not the defense of life. It is the defense of obedience. It is the enforcement of a worldview where questioning tradition, resisting control, or stepping outside assigned roles is seen as moral betrayal.
Scientific facts about fetal development won’t sway this ideology. Empathy won’t penetrate it. Because the abortion debate, for MAGA, is not about when life begins. It is about when control begins, and who is allowed to exercise it.
Until we understand that, we will continue to mistake cruelty for conviction, and dogma for debate.
References:
Adorno, T. et al. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The Authoritarian Specter.
Choma, B. L., Hodson, G. et al. (2016). Social dominance orientation and support for traditional gender roles.
Duckitt, J. (2010). SDO and RWA as ideological attitudes.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Golec de Zavala, A. (2020). Collective narcissism and intergroup attitudes.
Jost, J. et al. (2004). System justification theory.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning.
Lee, S. J., Ralston, H. J., et al. (2005). Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review. JAMA.
McMahan, J. (2002). The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life.
Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail.
It's also about the ruling class maintaining their supply of fresh new workers.
This is a very good observation. I have noted as well as the "pro-life" stance is, generally speaking, pro capital punishment, as well as being notoriously silent on collateral civilian damage in military actions. Both situations fit into your narrative around a perceived moral order.