Posted on 05/16/2015 3:12:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not all pro-choice arguments were created equal. Some are much worse than others. Perhaps the worst is the claim that most pro-lifers aren’t consistently pro-life but are “only anti-abortion.” The assertion impersonates an argument when the pro-choice advocate starts to throw in various causes one must support in order to be “truly pro-life.” Here is an example taken from a recent email exchange I had with a friend:
“I get tired of pro-lifers who are really only anti-abortion. If they were truly pro-life, they would adopt minority babies, donate to cancer research, and drop their opposition to national health care. Their concern for children seems to stop at the point of birth.”
That argument is flawed because it diverts attention from the central issue in the abortion debate, which is whether the unborn child is one of us and, hence, deserving of basic human rights.
Obviously, whether or not pro-lifers are morally consistent has no bearing on the central issue in the abortion debate. If I and other pro-lifers were to do everything pro-choicers want us to do, would they then concede that the unborn are suddenly transformed into human beings deserving of life? And what if one or more members of the pro-life movement were then to relapse into some form of “inconsistency” (according to the subjective judgment of one or more pro-choicers)? Would they then argue that the unborn are no longer human beings possessing equal rights?
If it means anything, being inconsistent means we are human. It doesn’t mean the unborn lose their humanity. So my friend’s position is absurd from a logical standpoint. But it is also misleading from a factual standpoint - and I mean that in two ways.
First, every pro-choicer has to answer the following question: If the pro-life movement is merely anti-abortion why are there two Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) for every abortion clinic in America?
These CPCs help women who are facing pregnancy. They donate clothes, help with medical expenses, and do everything they can to help women make the right choice – because they really believe the choice isn’t morally neutral.
Churches who are not supporting these centers should be ashamed of themselves. But the pro-life movement needn’t be ashamed. The movement is focused on helping women make good decisions in the present, rather that imposing guilt over past decisions. That hasn’t always been the case. But our movement continues to move in a compassionate and helpful direction.
Second, pro-choicers have the burden of answering this question: Where is the empirical evidence showing that your policies really save lives?
For example, big government has been making health care more expensive and therefore less accessible for decades. Obama Care is no exception to the rule. Surely, there is nothing pro-life about driving up health care costs. Put simply, feeling good about yourself for supporting programs that you hope will save lives doesn’t make you pro life. Pro-choicers have the burden of supplying the evidence showing that their causes are really saving lives.
Of course, pro-choicers don’t want to get into a numbers battle with pro-lifers. The numbers reveal several years in which the abortion industry killed around 1.5 million babies while 1.5 million couples stood in line waiting to adopt. Their “safe, legal, and rare” mendacity is underscored by the fact that the abortion industry has made billions snatching babies from the hands of willing adoptive parents.
The audacity of pro-choicers who demand that pro-lifers conform to their vision of “moral consistency” can be further amplified by applying their arguments to other issues in our nation’s history. For example, imagine the arguments of pro-choicers being applied to the 19th Century debate over slavery. (It’s easy to do because the same party that supports abortion is the same one that supported slavery). Here is what such a conversation might sound like:
Democrat: Would you support a national job-training program implemented by the federal government and supported by a national sales tax?
Abolitionist: I’m not sure I would support that.
Democrat: Well, then you really aren’t pro voluntary servitude. You’re only anti-slavery.
Ultimately, “you’re inconsistent” it not an argument at all. It’s just a political weapon wielded by those who pretend that they might consider joining your cause if you would only support their programs or take care of their children. It is also a personal attack meant to make the pro-choicer look morally superior.
In the end, smug moral superiority is hardly consistent with the claim that the unborn aren’t one of us.
I reserve this same reasoning back on liberals with race and nationality. I tell liberals they have no credence to say anything about those two areas unless they are married to someone of a different race and different nationality, because they obviously don't believe their own tripe.
Death to Socialism
One could flip this “inconsistent thinking” on libs and ask why they are against killing people guilty of murderer, but for killing babies in the womb who are guilty of nothing.
How ? It's the left that's always haranguing us that Whites shouldn't be allowed to adopt and raise Black babies.
What’s wrong with just being anti-abortion? It is not as much pro life as is THOU SHALT NOT MURDER! !
Easy one...
Libtard baby killer: "The state sanctions one and the other is a personal decision"
Another example: They want the government to stay out of their vagina until some rapist imposes himself on it...unless it's free contraception...
Under every libtard or progressive is a statist itching to get out and show their true colors...
Just like every good libtard believes, their rights supersedes or are superior to other people's rights (like living) if it's inconvenient to them...
Thought this would be an article about Hillary.
LOL!
You win the Taxman “Comment of the day” award!
As a libertarian I am opposed to abortion because I believe the life in utero is a unique individual entitled to full human rights. I also oppose capital punishment because I believe the powers of the estate should be limited; a prison sentence imposed in error can be compensated for, albeit imperfectly but a death sentence imposed erroneously cannot be corrected. One trip to the DMV will show the states propensity for error and unreason.
The next time you get in an argument with a pro-abortion person who tells you that you’re morally inconsistent if you’re anti-abortion but pro-death penalty, put out your hand and say we’ll shake hands and agree: no more death penalty, and no more abortions. Watch how quick their hand goes back to their side. Abortion is the holiest sacrament of the left.
I think your position on capital punishment is reasonable and morally-defensible (although I don’t agree with it), but I’m curious - would you impose the death penalty on Tsarnaev if it was your call?
My “middle ground” on capital punishment would be to limit it to cases in which at least two of the following circumstances were fulfilled: that the perpetrator volunteered a confession that was not coerced; that the conviction was supported by incontrovertible physical evidence (DNA, fingerprints, videocam footage, etc); that the conviction was supported by at least two eyewitness accounts; and/or that the perp was convicted of more than one capital crime in more than one separate trial. Lots of room for legal fuzziness in those conditions, I realize, but hopefully the legal system could deal with those, and that sort of system would (I would hope) go about as far as one could to minimize death penalty mistakes.
I temper my emotions with reason and I see my view of state laws as dangerous. Few deserve to die more than Tsarnaev. That said, allowing the state to kill a citizen opens the door. With a few legislative moves the state can decide that having too large a magazine is death worthy
My brother is libertarian, and we have the same basis for contention on tough issues - where do you draw the line between anarchy and empowering a state that has a natural drift to more and more control of our lives?
I’m unconvinced, but I do admit I wish the author of your tag line was still around - I’d love to ask Chesterton if he’d be comfortable pulling the lever on a Tsarnaev.
Please add me to your Mike Adams ping list.
I have added you. :)
Pardon me, I thought this was an article about Jeb Bush.
Pardon me, too. I thought the article was about Killary.
>>“I get tired of pro-lifers who are really only anti-abortion. If they were truly pro-life, they would adopt minority babies, donate to cancer research, and drop their opposition to national health care. Their concern for children seems to stop at the point of birth.”
>>I reserve this same reasoning back on liberals with race and nationality. I tell liberals they have no credence to say anything about those two areas unless they are married to someone of a different race and different nationality, because they obviously don’t believe their own tripe.
I’m interested in finding out how many illegal immigrants, that the liberals supposedly care so much about, are living in their homes. How many are they personally feeding, clothing, providing schooling and medical care for?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.