Fern hill at Dammit Janet accuses me of goalpost moving in discussing accusations of hypocrisy against Sarah Palin.
But she fails to understand what hypocrisy is.
Hypocrisy is advocating one standard of behaviour for others, while believing that another standard applies to oneself.
In other words, what determines hypocrisy is not what the accuser thinks, but what the intended target of the accusation thinks.
But she does not want to adhere to that definition of hypocrisy.
She is moving the goalposts.
While accusing me of moving the goalposts.
That is hypocrisy. She advocates not moving goalposts, when she herself uses a false definition of hypocrisy in order to make her accusation.
She frames the issue in terms of Sarah Palin contradicting pro-choice philosophy.
When Sarah Palin never espoused pro-choice philosophy.
Sarah Palin opposes abortion.
Pro-lifers oppose abortion. Not choice.
"Choice" is the word used by supporters of legal abortion to frame the issue of abortion's legality.
Whether abortion is a choice or not a choice is irrelevant to pro-lifers. They oppose abortion.
Someone who contemplates abortion but rejects it is living up to the pro-life philosophy. The importance is not whether you chose or didn't choose to forego an abortion.
The important thing is that the abortion never happened.
Sarah Palin respected her principles.
Therefore, she is not advocating that she can have an abortion, but others cannot.
She decided that abortion would be wrong in her situation based on her pro-life beliefs.
Then Fern pulls out Joyce Arthur's Old "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" article, Which is essentially a string of anecdotes about alleged hypocrisy of pro-lifers.
I do not doubt that there are hypocrites in the pro-life movement. There are hypocrites everywhere. I have the honesty to admit it. Those who put forward that article do not have the guts to admit that there are hypocrites in the abortion rights movement.
Here's another example of "moving goalposts".
In the mind of the feminists being "anti-choice" means being against ANY abortion.
Any person who opposes abortion, but may allow for it in some circumstances is tarred as "anti-choice".
Thus, people who do not live up to the pro-life standard of upholding fetal rights are conflated with people who do support equality of the unborn child.
Thus, someone who may oppose abortion as "birth control" is tarred as "anti-choice" but they're not really pro-life.
How very convenient to move those goal posts.
To add to the sophism of this whole article, we are presented with undocumented anecdotes submitted by unnamed abortionists and other abortion clinic staff.
We have no means to verify what exactly was the patient's belief about abortion. There are people who picket in front of abortion clinics who may not be fully pro-life. Especially if they are younger.
Perhaps they were anti-choice. But perhaps they allowed for their exception for everyone not just themselves, all the while generally opposing abortion.
We have no way to verify if what is said in the article is true. It is thus slapdash propaganda, which the writer expects people to accept on her word alone.
But this is all rhetoric to take away from the real issue at heart.
That all human beings, including unborn children, should have the right to life.
I could just as easily say that feminists who support human rights but oppose the rights of unborn children are hypocrites. They are for human rights but oppose rights for a certain class of humans, i.e. unborn children.
But that is not what they believe.
That's the kind of semantic games Fern Hill and her ilk are playing. They do not go to the core of the issue, but use sophistries to promote their agenda.
They can't use facts. It has been shown time and again that the movement to keep abortion legal does not care for them. That's the only way they know how to con people into keeping abortion legal.
