Monday, December 19, 2011

The Pro-Life Abortion Trap

For those of you who follow the day to day drama that's been playing out in the comments section [and boy has it been busy since William's come to town - 46 comments in one thread, which is more than I've had in any of the 10 previous MONTHS this year!] you might have seen that I laid out a trap for William over in the abortion thread that he walked right into. I'm sure it's not original, but I like to call it the "Pro-Life Trap."  And what I intend to teach him (and any other like-minded folks) is that a principled pro-Life LEGAL position either (1) does not exist or (2) is not defensible.

The Pro-Life trap is simple: DO YOU SUPPORT AN EXCEPTION FOR CASES OF RAPE.

And remember - we're talking about the law and our legal opinions, not out moral ones.  Like almost every one of my readers that I've heard from, I am morally opposed to Abortion. And yes, that includes cases of Rape.  The DIFFERENCE between Conservatives and Intelligent People Liberals on this issue is that we don't labor under the delusion that our opinion ought to be legally jammed down everyone else's throat.  Abortion is only an issue of Life vs. Death when discussing it on a MORAL level.  On a LEGAL level it is an issue of CHOICE vs. NO CHOICE.

What's more, if Williams (or anyone else) wants to argue with Pro-Choice folks that DO have insane opinions about abortion, he/they should go over to Jezebel or Feministing. Though, if he does, he should be warned: They will eat him alive

ANYWAY... William chose the easier answer saying in not so few words, "Yes."

What followed was a combination of Conchobhar stealing my thunder and William falling back on that old RightWing tripe trope of claiming to have been taken out of context.  Well, whether he is aware of it or not: he wasn't. And Conch had it 100% correct.

See...

Consider the idea that "Human Life is sacred," and thus therefore never be unnaturally terminated.  Next, consider LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TEST they apply to the fetus in an effort to PROVE that it is, in fact, HUMAN LIFE, and thus worth protecting. Well, partially out of laziness and partly out of a desire to not limit the discussion to only those tests that I might come up with off the top of my head, I'm not going to start listing them out.  Just PICK A FEW. Whichever ones you want to.  Can you think of a SINGLE TEST for "Human Life, thus worth protecting" that a Fetus will pass, if it was conceived consensually, but somehow suddenly and magically fails if it was conceived forcibly?

Well, I can't.  DNA, living cells, exothermic, grows, replicates, heals, responds to stimulus, develops into a human (OK I lied: I named a few after all) ALL of these apply to the children of the most loving and happily married parents and to the spawned offspring of the most deprave serial rapists EQUALLY.  As one fails, the other fails. And as one passes? So does the other.

So you see, William, while you may THINK that you don't "support abortion as a means of birth control?" On the contrary: YOU DO. You absolutely do. What else do you think is going on here? What... do you think that when a rape victim gets an abortion SOMEONE ELSE delivers the baby? Um... NO. It is, in fact, the very DEFINITION of "birth control" regardless of how you choose to characterize or rationalize it.

In fact, while your position is the already the same as mine MORALLY SPEAKING, (and yes, I say that having read your entire commentary on the matter) the fact is that there is also very little difference in our positions, LEGALLY speaking. You ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances. (Just like me and EVERYONE ELSE HERE!) And the ONLY DIFFERENCE between your position and mine/ours? Is that you choose to draw the line in a slightly different place.  That's it. It is absolutely not one iota more profound a "Pro-Life" position than mine. It is just a slickly stricter Pro-Choice position - one in which you merely delineate the acceptable circumstantial criteria a little differently. The fact remains that YOU HAVE DECIDED that it is LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE to kill a fetus REGARDLESS OF IT'S LIFE AND HUMANITY and all you done is chosen a different set of criterion for it.  The only difference between you and me? Is that you think a woman needs to get YOUR PERMISSION and satisfy YOUR CRITERIA BEFORE you'll support her legal rights!  (And actually... OMG! So do I! Look at that! The principles of our respective positions are, in fact, ABSOLUTELY THE SAME: We simply draw the line in a different place.) (So either your pro-choice or I'm pro-life. Take your pick.)

So calling yourself "pro-life" if it helps you sleep better at night, but your political and legal position is NOT "pro-life" in any principled way. And there is no need for me to debate you any further on this matter, because anyone and everyone is free to read your comments in the previous abortion post.  Unless you have something REALLY FUCKING GOOD to add to the conversation, I'm inclined to let my work, yours and Conchobhar's speak for itself.

 Now, of course there's another side of the Pro-Life Trap. It's arguably more principled, and attempting to defend it requires both more courage and more stupidity that Williams likely possesses.  It is the position that would, for the sake of not in fact merely being a Pro-Choice-lite position, answer my question, "NO."

No exception for Rape.

And hey, you got to admit: It's principled.

The problem is? It also ABSOLUTELY FUCKING PSYCHOTIC.

It is referred to, very accurately, in Liberal circles as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights."  And it truly and undeniably defines the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, once again, as not being so much about LIFE as they are about CHOICE.  Not allowing Rape victims access to abortion? Completely denies women the right to decide if, and with whom, they will bear children. It says, on no uncertain terms, that it is completely up to ANY AND ALL MEN which women will bear children, how many and when.  It says, on no uncertain terms, that I could go out and RAPE THE SHIT out of every woman I choose to, and while I will be punished fro my action, my progeny - all 257 of them, if I've gotten enough rest - will be protected, and MY GENES shall LIVE ON.  And as for those women?

"FUCK 'EM!" says this position, regarding their rights to control what happens to their bodies.  Reproductive Rights are no longer a matter of legal protection, but rather one of BRUTE PHYSICAL STRENGTH.

Now... This was not William's position, and I do not, for a moment, suggest that it is. (After all - I've already proven that he's almost as 'Pro-Choice' as I am! *wink*) But the morons in good people of South Dakota DID, in fact pass a law that did exactly this in 2006. Unfortunately for rapists the world over, the law was repealed by the end of that same year.  (And for fuck's sake READ THAT before you tell me that 'no one' is in fact trying to pass those kinds of laws!)

--------------------------------

BTW... I refuse to add "or incest" to "Rape" when talking about the exception issue. If the incest in question was not consensual (or statutory) then it can simply be called 'rape' and no further information is necessary. Done. And if it was consensual (*ew!*) then why should it require an exception under a pro-life framework? "Incest" is simply an unnecessary and superfluous addition to "Rape."

3 comments:

  1. Ok, Eddie, school me in the difference between "moral" and "legal". I thought I answered it the way you wanted. "Legally" I think there should be exceptions for rape and incest. "Morally" there is no difference, a purposeful death of a human being is being made. As a Christian, there should be no murder allowed. As an American, I understand there are some who want to use law as a way out of a pregnancy. Help me out understanding where I fell into your trap.

    ReplyDelete
  2. REALLY, dude? I realy have to explain the differenc ebetween "moral" and "legal" to you?

    OK, tell you what... Before I do, I'd like to let some other people comment first. I'd like to know if anyone else found this to be unclear or if its just you. Hey: It could be me. It's been me before, so rather than be any more pedantic than I need to be, let me check...

    Guys? Did I miss the mark? Is anyone else confused? Did anyone else miss this?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances. "

    Only under "legal" standards. There is a law in California where, if a criminal kills a pregnant woman (term makes no difference), the criminal can be held liable for 2 murders (Scott Peterson). Now, he is on death row for 2 murders. That is a "legal" choice. If a criminal comes up and whops a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the baby, it would be murder also..."legally". However, in the same state, a doctor can murder the same aged baby and get reimbursed by the state government and be held in high esteem by an entire political party. I guess in either case the taxes pay for each murder. Scott will be on death row for another 10 years and the doctor gets our money to pay for his services. Scott is held responsible for a death, while the woman seeking an abortion is responsibility-free because she has a "legal" right to choose to murder that baby.

    You asked me not to put people in a box when discussing, yet you do it to me by claiming my Christian values should automatically fall in line with wacko views and I fell for a trap that shows I don't hold my strict Christian values consistently. You insinuate I am being dishonest by having a legal and moral decision making process. Well, that's your right. You go ahead and do what you tell others not to do.

    ReplyDelete