I want anybody that cares about what a woman is allowed to do with her body to do one simple thing. Do not let ANYBODY use the term pro-life, ever. If they do, stop and challenge immediately. "Oh, so you are against the death penalty?" listen to them hem and haw, justify, evade, deny and then declare they are not. "Then you are anti-choice."
With that one distinction the logical fallacy of trying to impose religious beliefs on others is laid bare. If they don't subscribe to a Consistent Life Ethic (anti-abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, war), then they are not only trying to enforce their beliefs on others, they are doing so inconsistently.
This must be addressed, not by making accusations or spewing rhetoric, but by asking questions. "How do you reconcile that?" Yes, there is a chance that the person could turn it around on you and ask you to justify your own beliefs, that should be both expected and justified.
The vicious attacks on Planned Parenthood are just the latest skirmish in this battle. What is unthinkable now is made to be radical, then it is made acceptable, then... likely. This is how we lose our freedoms, and how the Overton window is utilized. To prevent this, the core basis of the emotional appeal of "Pro-Life" must be addressed. The idea is that the enemies of a woman's right to choose are not in fact crusaders for defenseless unarmed babies. They are hypocrites who could give a damn about a person AFTER they are born, this is the foundation for the moral disconnect that suggests killing a doctor that performs abortions could be justifiable homicide. (legislation currently tabled at the time of this writing)
Liberal mindset says: "If we start a debate and present the facts as they are... they will see the light and come to our side." No, sorry. Those looking to ban abortion and family planning (wha? Really?) often come with deep seated religious indoctrination, an effective way to chip at that is to not cede the language and moral high ground to those seeking to inflict their dogma on others.
Look, I really don't mind whatever anybody believes as long as it isn't inflicted on me. Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. I will never have to make that terrible and harrowing choice as a guy. It's a remarkably clear and strong statement, especially since so many "protectors of the unborn" tend to be old white dudes. However, it does not work because religion requires proselytization, and the saving of the souls that need it. You can mock it, you can castigate it. It only makes the believer more resolute in their stance. An effective approach is to put the burden of justification on the believer, it is a small thing that every one of us can engage in with minimal effort. if you are "pro life" does that extend to AFTER the fetus is born and becomes a child or not?
The attack against a woman's right to choose is *NOT* going to end anytime soon. Anybody that is shocked that the Republicans are using the full force of their political capital towards defunding, delegitimizing, and roadblocking has clearly been living in a different America than I have. Dust will be kicked up, language changed, and the debate framed. The modern Republican party is dedicated to imposing it's values on others, period. Lakoff puts it better than I, as to "What conservatives really want."
Changing the national climate is a daunting task, but instead of concentrating on the all encompassing problem, focus on something you can actually do. Nobody should be allowed to use the term Pro-Life without being challenged. There are other parts to this fight, and much more work to be done before civil consensus can be reached, but until then... these suckers aren't Pro-Life, they are Anti-Choice.
Go tell 'em.
Follow Conan Neutron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/conanneutron
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Regardless of party, gender, age, or religion, those Americans who morally feel or are concerned that a fetus is a human being are fighting for those small human being's rights in a spirit consistent with the heart of a true patriot. The oppressor is the one who has the power over the life of the other, and America was built on the idea that all men are free. For those of us who feel a fetus is a human being, giving the Mother the right to kill the child as if it were an object, not a human, is against everything America was built on and stands for. This is a true moral concern for us, not just a political position or religious teaching we've blindly decided to follow.
Abortion is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.
Third, the author commits another broad category mistake by saying that those who don't like abortion shouldn't get them. Abortion isn't a matter of taste, it's a matter of the objective truth of whether or not the unborn is human (and thus the subject of human rights). It is comparable to suggesting "Don't like genocide? Don't commit genocide."
And something I don't understand: if the author does not care what others think or do as long as it's not "imposed" on others, why does he rail against the alleged hypocrisy of pro-lifers who do not do much after birth? At best it's glibly inconsistent, at worst a double standard.
A sophisticated pro-life defense of the humanity of the unborn is founded on the science of embryology and the philosophy of natural rights--the idea that because we are human, we are the subject of certain inalienable rights, not because of what we can do, but because of what we are. So what happens when a government perpetuates a lie about human nature at its earliest stage?
Anybody citing objective truth has committed a logical fallacy. Equating abortion with genocide is ridiculous and misleading.
What's good for the fetus is good for the adult, or at least it should be, or there is no such thing as "pro-life". Anti-choice zealotry has almost nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with limiting a woman's choice over what to do with her body.
Falling back on "the government perpetuating lies" is a sure sign of a weak argument, so i'm just going to let that weak pseudo-paranoia sit there on it's own.
"Anybody citing objective truth has committed a logical fallacy?" I don't think you understand the my argument. To speak of pro-lifers as not "liking" abortion totally misunderstands the argument itself--the nature of the unborn--and it completely fails to answer it. And exactly how is "citing objective truth" committing a logical fallacy? Which one? If the unborn are essentially human, as I contend, it is true for pro-choicers as much as pro-lifers, and as such cannot be meaningfully spoken of in language of preference.
You simply cannot like whether or not the unborn are human, and thus the subject of human rights. You cannot like them into, or dislike them out of, human nature.
Also, "zealotry has almost nothing to do with science?" Really? Why should I believe this bare assertion, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary? Why are so many pro-lifers appealing to so many embryologists' work? Examples can be provided. It directly refutes the narrative that pro-choicers are trying to prop up.
As for limiting choices, that's another category fallacy: abortion is simply not a moral choice. It is a choice between a moral act (life) and an immoral one (termination of life). That morality is rooted, not in what a person believes, but in the nature of the unborn itself. That's why the objective truth of the matter is so important.
As an aside, what about primary seat belt laws? Why is it okay for the government to tell us that we HAVE to wear seat belts in our own private vehicles? That takes away my "choice over what to do with" my own body, doesn't it?
As for Aristotle, he held to a view of animation and quickening (40 days for males, 90 for females) that is simply obsoleted by modern embryology. His science was simply pre-modern.