"How Dare You Be Pro-Life"
An impression I think, dear reader, has been allowed to form, and perhaps even to coagulate and to congeal and that is that it is only those of us who oppose the systemic extirpation of unborn children that have any explaining to do.
I think that is a precept that needs to be challenged from the very beginning.
A great many people stare slack-jawed at me upon the realization that I can be a pro-lifer.
The silliest argument I have so far come up against has been "as a man, you don't get a say". No sexism there, right?
I think that is a precept that needs to be challenged from the very beginning.
A great many people stare slack-jawed at me upon the realization that I can be a pro-lifer.
The silliest argument I have so far come up against has been "as a man, you don't get a say". No sexism there, right?
Would these same people allow me my opinion even though I'm a man if I were to say I was pro-choice? Of course I am slave to speculation on this point, but I daresay they would. Accepting that presupposition, it would follow that the issue isn't my membership of the unfair sex, but rather my gumption in expressing disagreement. I claim an absolute right to be interested in the condition of the human fetus because … well, I used to be one myself.
The abortion question seems to me to be a rather straightforward argument, though that doesn't stop its supporters from introducing complexities to sully the otherwise clear and undisturbed well of inquiry.
The pro-choice argument landscape is a howling wilderness riddled with strawmen, euphemism, and of course, shaming.
First, we have a moral imperative to fight for what is so ludicrously referred to as a "fetus". George Orwell wrote in "Politics and The English Language " that euphemism is what the speaker resorts to when they want the listener to not be able to form a clear picture in their mind of what the speaker is saying, and thus is denied the subsequent emotional reaction. As a slight digression, we see this a great deal in foreign policy. "Surgical strike" is only the least of these, "collateral damage" is probably the ugliest and the silliest. Both terms that oddly enough, one could apply to the abortion question as well.
"My antagonists on this point will, unfailingly, respond with militant indignation. What “individual”? What “person”? A very famous book—Our Bodies, Ourselves—captures the tone to perfection. If we need to remove an appendix or a tumor from our own personal spaces, then it’s nobody else’s goddamn business. I used to cringe when I heard this, not so much because in the moral sense fetuses aren’t to be compared to appendixes, let alone tumors, but because it is obvious nonsense from the biological and embryological points of view. Babies come from where they come from. That most intimate of all conceivable spheres. The diagram of a vacuum-suction abortion in Our Bodies, Ourselves gave the female anatomy in some detail but showed only a void inside the uterus. This perhaps unintended concession to queasiness has since become more noticeable as a consequence of advances in embryology, and by the simple experience of the enhanced sonogram. Women who have gazed at the early heartbeat inside themselves now have some difficulty, shall we say, in ranking the experience with the planned excision of a polyp."
One small area of consolation I have is that the number of abortions has dropped significantly in the last 20 years. From 908,203 in 1995 to 638,169 in 2015,according to one poll.
The thing I am most exasperated about would be the tired, intellectually imprecise arguement that I and others like me seek to deprive women of their rights. Why do I say intellectually imprecise? Because, the people that say this do so without acknowledging that my argument begins with the presupposition that I believe the unborn child is a life. Once that premise is established, then it would follow logically that to seek to put a legislative stamp on the halting of these lives isn't subject to women's rights at all, as we the people have no right to halt said lives. I hope that is clear, even if you disagree as I suspect many of you will.
By the way, about 50% of women in this country are pro-life so I do not believe that the pro-choice side of the aisle can claim this as a women's rights issue without looking slightly sneaky.
I suppose my closing appeal will be this, do not ask yourself what others will say in this, ask yourself how you yourselves would vote if the casting vote was to be your own. That's the sense of "we" in this argument. Thank you.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/02/hitchens200302
The abortion question seems to me to be a rather straightforward argument, though that doesn't stop its supporters from introducing complexities to sully the otherwise clear and undisturbed well of inquiry.
The pro-choice argument landscape is a howling wilderness riddled with strawmen, euphemism, and of course, shaming.
First, we have a moral imperative to fight for what is so ludicrously referred to as a "fetus". George Orwell wrote in "Politics and The English Language " that euphemism is what the speaker resorts to when they want the listener to not be able to form a clear picture in their mind of what the speaker is saying, and thus is denied the subsequent emotional reaction. As a slight digression, we see this a great deal in foreign policy. "Surgical strike" is only the least of these, "collateral damage" is probably the ugliest and the silliest. Both terms that oddly enough, one could apply to the abortion question as well.
"My antagonists on this point will, unfailingly, respond with militant indignation. What “individual”? What “person”? A very famous book—Our Bodies, Ourselves—captures the tone to perfection. If we need to remove an appendix or a tumor from our own personal spaces, then it’s nobody else’s goddamn business. I used to cringe when I heard this, not so much because in the moral sense fetuses aren’t to be compared to appendixes, let alone tumors, but because it is obvious nonsense from the biological and embryological points of view. Babies come from where they come from. That most intimate of all conceivable spheres. The diagram of a vacuum-suction abortion in Our Bodies, Ourselves gave the female anatomy in some detail but showed only a void inside the uterus. This perhaps unintended concession to queasiness has since become more noticeable as a consequence of advances in embryology, and by the simple experience of the enhanced sonogram. Women who have gazed at the early heartbeat inside themselves now have some difficulty, shall we say, in ranking the experience with the planned excision of a polyp."
One small area of consolation I have is that the number of abortions has dropped significantly in the last 20 years. From 908,203 in 1995 to 638,169 in 2015,according to one poll.
The thing I am most exasperated about would be the tired, intellectually imprecise arguement that I and others like me seek to deprive women of their rights. Why do I say intellectually imprecise? Because, the people that say this do so without acknowledging that my argument begins with the presupposition that I believe the unborn child is a life. Once that premise is established, then it would follow logically that to seek to put a legislative stamp on the halting of these lives isn't subject to women's rights at all, as we the people have no right to halt said lives. I hope that is clear, even if you disagree as I suspect many of you will.
By the way, about 50% of women in this country are pro-life so I do not believe that the pro-choice side of the aisle can claim this as a women's rights issue without looking slightly sneaky.
I suppose my closing appeal will be this, do not ask yourself what others will say in this, ask yourself how you yourselves would vote if the casting vote was to be your own. That's the sense of "we" in this argument. Thank you.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/02/hitchens200302
Non Profit Groups like New Life Family Services are providing wonen with information on just what is beating inside them and it is amazing the minds and hearts that are changed when this occurs.
ReplyDeleteWomen over the years have stopped drinking the "not a baby " kool aid ,with the exception of insanity in recent abort up to 9 months in NY state.
Your viewers nay not know that I am a theist from head to toe and believe all of us will be asked to account for our choices to our Creator. Nothing wrong with having to account for them now before ruining lives and destroying our babies. Good blog,but I am a tad biased....
Thank you for saying so. I am glad you enjoyed my article!
Delete