Sometimes, poor-choicers make arguments so stupid, you just know they are either being purposely obtuse or that they do not get the debate.
Take for instance, this op-ed:
The hypocrisy of the “pro-lifers” is extensive, but especially so for the shrill libertarian right-wingers. They want lower taxes, smaller government, and freedom from state “intrusion.” Take, for instance, that bowtie wearing right-wing mouthpiece, Tucker Carleson, who hates and opposes what he refers to as “nanny legislation,” things like seat-belt laws and smoking bans. You know, those “communist” laws that are put into place to keep people alive.
It's really quite simple.
Libertarians and many other right-wingers believe that no person has the right to deliberately take the life of another person.
Protecting an innocent person's right to life is not "intrusion". But see, poor-choicers want to spin the issue their way, so they accuse the other side of hypocrisy (as they are wont to do) without stepping back and trying to think: "How do right-wingers reconcile rejecting government intrusion with banning abortion?"
It does not require a lot of thought to arrive at the answer: Right-wingers believe in protecting the right to life of innocent people.
Now, if someone wants to take a potentially life-threatening risk, such as not wearing seatbelts, libertarians believe that this should be allowed (mind you, the risk is fairly low, on a day-to-day basis).
It only takes a moment of reason to figure out there's a huge difference between wanting to protect another person's right to life, but being favourable to allow for oneself the option of taking a life-threatening risk.
The poor-choicers only "half" understand that the pro-life side want the right to life for unborn children. You can tell they only half understand by the kinds of arguments they make against the pro-life stance.
For instance, they constantly accuse pro-lifers of hypocrisy (as is the case here) without stopping to think what, in the pro-life mindset, differentiates one situation from another. For example, poor-choicers accuse pro-lifers of favouring war (although not all do, as is the case with Pope Benedict, but never mind that). What could possibly be different about the two?
Well, for one thing, soldiers do not seek to kill the innocent, just as in the theory of double effect, a doctors do not seek to kill an embryo from an ectopic pregnancy. He is permitted to remove an embryo and let him die if there is no way to save the mother's life.
Do poor-choicers research their views before making dumb accusations? Apparently not.
The charge of hypocrisy is such an easy charge to make, if you use it in the broad socialist way. All you have to do is look for an apparent inconsistency between a principle and a policy position, without examining the means or the rationale of that policy position,and voila! The charge sticks in the media, whether there is an actual inconsistency or not.
Take for instance the notion that people should help the poor. All genuine Christians think you should help the poor. But many right-wingers will not vote for increased spending for social programs for the underprivileged.
"Hypocrisy!"
The left thinks that the fact that you disagree with the means to helping the poor signifies that you do not want to help the poor. They are so keen on pushing their agenda, that they do not have time for intellectual honesty, especially when the liberal media buys into their assumptions.
They do not needexamine the other side's position and the possibility there might be averse results from increased spending. It's assumed that if you don't want socialism, you don't want what Christ wants, ergo, you're a hypocrite. Very easy to make the charge stick!
In a way, poor-choicers do not need intellectual honesty at this stage in the game, because their assumptions go largely unexamined by the MSM. Why should they bother trying to study what pro-lifers really say if they don't have to? They have complete legal abortion on demand-- there's no need to make the case any more.
The silver lining in all this is that poor-choicers are so used to being intellectually lazy about the fetal rights debate, that as pro-lifers progress in making their views known, they will be left behind in the discussion. In the US, more and more people are acknowledging the humanity of the unborn child. It is this acknowledgement of his humanity that is leading to greater and greater protection.
The poor-choice side is struggling with this concept in the US, because they know they cannot dehumanize the unborn child as a blob of tissue as they once did. The pro-life movement has done a great job in educating the public about the true nature of the unborn child. So, in order to keep abortion legal, poor-choicers have to find a way to acknowledge his humanity while justifying killing him. In fact, what I see more and more is that they are considering him some kind of "sub-human"-- human, for sure-- but not a "real" human.
The general public, when presented the facts side by side repetitively will come to see the logical inconsistencies of the poor-choice side. They cannot favour equal rights for all human beings, all the while allowing for some human beings to be killed.
Just as communism imploded because of its own internal contradictions, the poor-choice infrastructure will also implode, because it cannot be intellectually sustained. The timeline for this implosion depends on the efforts pro-lifers are willing to make to speed this up. It could take fifty years, it could take 500, but eventually it will come to an end. If pro-lifers make greater strides in educating the public about the unborn child, the general public will come to see that abortion is unacceptable and that unborn children should be accord legal rights just like anyone else.
It's really all up to you.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
