“Check out the latest in fashionable toddler-wear for the children of ‘pro-choice’ parents”. But the hyperlink takes you to the store (specializing in tasteless T-shirts) that is selling the item. What evidence do you have that any (let alone the many implied by “fashionable”) pro-choice parents actually buy that T-shirt? The more obvious market would be pro-life activists. Look how proud you are to display the picture!

“That’s why they fight for it with such venom and hatred”. As I hope you’re not too myopic to realise, this is exactly how those who are pro-choice view many anti-abortion activists. It says nothing whatsoever about the strength of the arguments on either side.

I don’t believe that most pro-choice advocates believe abortion is murder; what on earth makes you think they do? I know I don’t think abortion is murder, and I’m pro-choice.

If anything, I think there’s more evidence that many of those who claim to oppose abortion don’t really believe it to be murder. First, many seem to think abortion is morally acceptable in the case of rape victims, but it seems difficult to reconcile this view with the idea that abortion is murder. Second, even among those who oppose all abortion, only a few seem to be willing to treat women who have had abortions as murderers. (I’m particularly thinking of all the post-abortion counselling made available by pro-life groups (e.g. Pro-Life America). Can you imagine the same people setting up post-murder counselling for armed robbers?) Third, as is notorious, many ‘pro-life’ activists seem to show more “venom” towards abortion than war and the death penalty. Fourth, few anti-abortionist activists (let alone ordinary people opposed to abortion) seem to treat miscarriages or spontaneous abortions as accidental deaths of fellow human beings. Where are the rites?

In the end, I suspect most anti-abortion activists do believe abortion is murder. But I think their moral reasoning is incoherent.

Having said all that, even if one did personally suspect abortion is murder, I think one could still oppose its criminalization because there is such widespread dissent from that position, as I argued over at my Web of Contradictions.
 

Contradictory ben: The more obvious market would be pro-life activists. Look how proud you are to display the picture!

Honestly, that's just stupid. If you really believe that anyone who opposes abortion on demand would actually dress their child in this item, you obviously don't know anyone who opposes abortion. I first saw this particular item when someone directed my attention to it, noting that it was posted by an adamantly pro-choice blogger, and I think it accurately reflects the kind of humor that many on that side find appropriate. Go read that blog item and the comments, about how the onesie is "hilarious" and "awesome" and "in-your-face."

It says nothing whatsoever about the strength of the arguments on either side.

It wasn't intended to. A comment on the tone and tactics of the other side is just that.

many seem to think abortion is morally acceptable in the case of rape victims,

Again, you don't know any pro-lifers, do you? Even in the case of rape, abortion is not "morally acceptable." There is, however, a sympathetic willingness to accept the argument that a woman who conceives through rape would, in effect, experience the rape as an ongoing nine-month affront if she had to carry the baby to term.

Second, even among those who oppose all abortion, only a few seem to be willing to treat women who have had abortions as murderers.

And how should someone who opposes murder treat someone who's committed it? Again, you're making assumptions about how pro-lifers treat murderers, or how they ought to treat them. I am pro-life. That means PRO-LIFE. I oppose the death penalty as well. Clearly, the positions held by people like me are too simple for you, so you're convoluting them in your own mind.

few anti-abortionist activists (let alone ordinary people opposed to abortion) seem to treat miscarriages or spontaneous abortions as accidental deaths of fellow human beings.

Ben, have you ever known a pro-life family who'd experience the death of a child through misscarriage? The assumption you made in the quote above is baseless, self-content, arrogant, presumptuous, and just flat-out ignorant.

Abortion is murder. You can argue all you want, but you'll never change two things: One, the simple fact... and, two, my willingness to acknowledge it as the fact that it is.
 

Thanks for your response, Darrell.

“If you really believe that anyone who opposes abortion on demand would actually dress their child in this item, you obviously don't know anyone who opposes abortion.”

The way I read it, the T-shirt is saying something along the lines of: “Pro-choicers are selfish for wanting life for themselves but denying it to aborted foetuses”. What exactly do you think its message is?

“I first saw this particular item when someone directed my attention to it, noting that it was posted by an adamantly pro-choice blogger, and I think it accurately reflects the kind of humor that many on that side find appropriate. Go read that blog item and the comments, about how the onesie is "hilarious" and "awesome" and "in-your-face."”

It’s a shame you didn’t include that link as evidence in your original post. Unfortunately, Slade, the blogger in question, is certainly not “adamantly pro-choice”, as you’d know if you read her blog.

There are four commenters on Slade’s post: kitkat, Miranda, benito, and Robin. benito doesn't have a link, but then he or she was posting off-topic anyhow. Let’s deal with the remaining three in turn.

(1) kitkat blogs at Penguins R Cool, but I haven’t found anything there that clearly indicates her position on abortion. How you read kitkat’s comment (“That was great”) is therefore dependent on how you read Slade and the T-shirt.

(2) Miranda is clearly not pro-choice. She writes at Vintage Grass Stains. She disagrees with a recent decision not to exempt private hospitals from a new law requiring hospitals to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims, which doesn’t exactly mark her out as an “adamant” pro-choicer. More clearly, in August, she defended voting for Bush on the basis of a Christian agenda that includes action against abortion and described her delight at discovering that her ex, despite being a “liberal atheist, psychobabbler”, also “loved kids and family and … could come up with anti-abortion arguments I’d never thought of”.

(3) Robin writes at three blogs: The Wisdom of Funky Blogs, meme, and Adventures in Cyberia Unfortunately, as with kitkat, I haven't found anything on these blogs to suggest her position on abortion. Robin commented: ‘I wish I knew a little toddler I could buy that shirt for. That is awesome -- in your face. Love it!’ To assume that this comment must come from a pro-choicer is pure prejudice.

In sum, I think you’ve misinterpreted the T-shirt (though I’d like to know exactly how) and I’ve demonstrated that you’ve misjudged the other blogger (Slade) and at least one of her commenters. Perhaps you could let your source know that he or she misread Slade’s blogpost?

Now let’s turn to the remainder of your response.

“It wasn't intended to. A comment on the tone and tactics of the other side is just that.”

When you said “That's why” in your post, I thought you were establishing some sort of causal connection between the nature of pro-choicers’ arguments (so weak even they don’t believe them) and the behaviour of pro-choicers (venomous and filled with hatred). Maybe you meant to say something else?

“I am pro-life. That means PRO-LIFE. I oppose the death penalty as well. Clearly, the positions held by people like me are too simple for you, so you're convoluting them in your own mind.”

My generalization was not supposed to necessarily include you and, contrary to your implication, I’m entirely aware that some pro-life positions are more self-consistent than others. Given that you are converting to Catholicism, it’s particularly unsurprising in your case, given the official Church position. Hence, while you in your post were content to brand pro-choicers as a whole, I qualified my accusation (“many ‘pro-life’ activists seem to show more ‘venom’ towards abortion than war and the death penalty)”. I’d be happy to see any evidence that your strident opposition to the death penalty is typical of American pro-lifers. Some support for my claim is provided by the May 2003 Gallup poll of 1,005 American adults, which found that while 28 per cent of people opposed both abortion and the death penalty, 31 per cent only opposed abortion (the margin of error being plus or minus 3 percentage points). In any case, please note that merely being opposed to something is not the same as showing “venom” towards it.

“you're making assumptions about how pro-lifers treat murderers, or how they ought to treat them”

Fine then, educate me. Exactly how many committed pro-lifers do you know who are involved in providing post-‘murder’ counselling to both women who have had an induced abortion and to armed robbers who have murdered? I’d be very interested to hear about such groups. And how typical of the pro-life movement do you think they are?

“The assumption you made in the quote above is baseless, self-content, arrogant, presumptuous, and just flat-out ignorant.”

Sorry if that came across as offensive. I wasn’t attempting to imply that such pro-life parents don’t grieve over miscarriages, if that’s what you think. What I was saying (and please do put me right on this) is that miscarriages seem to be treated very differently from other sorts of death. And what I was asking was, where are the equivalents of the funereal rites? Note, moreover, that many spontaneous abortions occur naturally before the mother even realizes she is pregnant. Do pro-lifers generally regard these as tragic losses of human life?

“Abortion is murder. You can argue all you want, but you'll never change two things: One, the simple fact... and, two, my willingness to acknowledge it as the fact that it is.”

As the point of my comment was to discuss your mischaracterization of pro-choicers, I didn’t actually dispute your claim that abortion is murder. On the contrary, I linked to a blog post of my own in which I discuss a liberal political position that could be embraced even by those with strong beliefs such as yours. Judging by your words, you might have problems with such a position because it would require you to acknowledge that there might be legitimate disagreements about the “fact” that abortion is murder. Do you believe that “abortion is murder” is such a “simple fact” that it is impossible to not know that abortion is murder? If you do not believe this, would you like to retract your claim that “the ‘Pro-Choice’ side knows that abortion is murder”? Alternatively, if you do believe this, would you mind providing some evidence for the implied claim that I, as someone who is pro-choice, know that abortion is murder?

(Apologies for the lengthy reply.)
 

Thanks for your response, Darrell.

Alright, right off the bat, this is not the kind of discourse I'm used to with pro-choicers. You've started your reply politely and disarmingly. Good show.



What exactly do you think its message is?

I think that the message boils down to "I'm pro-choice and I enjoy mocking pro-lifers, and I'm willing to use my baby as a format to do that."

Slade, the blogger in question, is certainly not “adamantly pro-choice”, as you’d know if you read her blog.

I hadn't seen that post at her blog. My frame of reference for her was her participation in an ugly argument at this blog.. Nonetheless, having read the item you linked to, I'll concede that "adamant" is not the right word for her views.

How you read kitkat’s comment (“That was great”) is therefore dependent on how you read Slade and the T-shirt.

Agreed. I insist that anyone who finds the t-shirt amusing must be pro-choice, or else simply apathetic about the issue. I can't imagine anyone who opposes abortion finding any humor in that t-shirt. I think I can say that with some authority, given my experiences and background.

Miranda is clearly not pro-choice.

I'll accept your evidence.

Robin commented: ‘I wish I knew a little toddler I could buy that shirt for. That is awesome -- in your face. Love it!’ To assume that this comment must come from a pro-choicer is pure prejudice.

Again, I can't imagine a pro-lifer making this comment. Anyone who likes that onesie because of it's "in-your-face" message simply must be pro-choice... or else, someone who is apathetic about the issue and simply enjoys mocking pro-lifers. To like the onesie because it's "in your face," however, one would have to be pro-choice. From my point of view, it's a matter of common sense. Feel free to contact Robin and ask her if she's pro-life. I'll accept your report on the matter, and gladly concede if I'm wrong.


When you said “That's why” in your post, I thought you were establishing some sort of causal connection between the nature of pro-choicers’ arguments (so weak even they don’t believe them) and the behaviour of pro-choicers (venomous and filled with hatred). Maybe you meant to say something else?

My comment here was in response to your having written that "It says nothing whatsoever about the strength of the arguments on either side." I'll try to elaborate, qualifying my opinions with the assertion that, like most bloggers, what I'm posting is my opinion. My opinion is that most of the pro-choicers I've encountered have been hostile and hateful because they know, on a moral level, that abortion amounts to the taking of human life. That an unborn baby is a human being is self-evident. Everyone knows that. Scientific data and technical issues of sentience not withstanding, I believe that it's basic, primal, and inherently human to realize that an unborn baby is a human being. That goes for pro-"choice" people, too. They're arguing for a political position that is counter to basic human conditioning. That's why they're hateful.

I'll concede, though, that not all pro-choicers are hateful. You've proven that. I insist, though, that you're the rare exception... at least among the ones who initiate conversations with me about my publicly pronounced views on abortion. Of course, since I'm so openly, adamantly pro-life, it does stand to reason that those who disagree with me and want to challenge me are going to be hostile. I'll concede that my views on abortion have had an effect on how I see those who disagree with me, in that I've largely attracted the attention of the radical extreme of the pro-life position. I insist, though, that they are "radical" and "extreme" in tone only. Anyone who approves of abortion on demand is philosophically in the same boat.

Given that you are converting to Catholicism, it’s particularly unsurprising in your case, given the official Church position.

FYI, it was the other way around. My pro-life (including opposition to the death penalty) views are part of what lead me to the Church. I didn't simply adopt the Church's position on the death penalty.

I’d be happy to see any evidence that your strident opposition to the death penalty is typical of American pro-lifers.

I don't see how you can be pro-life and be in favor of the death penalty. It's self contradictory. Granted, there are those who oppose abortion without being pro-life. Eric Rudolph is an extreme but perfect example. He opposed abortion. He certainly wasn't pro-life.

In any case, please note that merely being opposed to something is not the same as showing “venom” towards it.

I could provide here a long list of links to pro-choice opinions that any reasonable person would consider venomous. I suppose that evidence would merely be anecdotal, though. Nonetheless, I'll provide examples if you like, but I'm sure you'd argue that the people I site don't represent the "mainstream" of the pro-choice position, and neither of us would be swayed much by the evidence. I will concede again that the pro-choicers I've had experience with are probably outside the "mainstream" of pro-choice partisans, and that my opinion of pro-choicers in general is probably skewed because of that. I will also concede that I should have couched my original remarks in a phrase like "some pro-choicers are..." instead of simply "Pro-choicers are..."

Exactly how many committed pro-lifers do you know who are involved in providing post-‘murder’ counselling to both women who have had an induced abortion and to armed robbers who have murdered?

Would you accept a list of Catholic clerical groups and outreach programs?

And how typical of the pro-life movement do you think they are?

Very. Again, I assert that you probably don't really know any pro-lifers.

What I was saying (and please do put me right on this) is that miscarriages seem to be treated very differently from other sorts of death.

In the past two years, among the women I know (friends, family, and co-workers) there have been six miscarriages. In the instance of one co-worker, the miscarried child was given a funeral and a cemetery burial. Again, anecdotal evidence, but my experiences are what they are.

Do pro-lifers generally regard these as tragic losses of human life?

Is it really impossible for you to believe that there are those of us with a mindset predisposed to do so?

(Apologies for the lengthy reply.)

No need to apologize. I appreciate the polite but.. ahem, "adamant"... response. I think that on the larger issue of abortion (murder or not?) you and I are simply going to disagree forever. I think that human life in the womb is inherently self-evident, and I think that even you realize that on a level deeper than your political beliefs. You'd insist that I'm wrong, prejudiced, presumptuous, etc. That wouldn't change my beliefs, nor would it convince me to stop insisting that what I believe is true.

You have, however, caused me to consider the tone that I adopt when I post about this issue at the blog. Honestly, though, given the nature of this national debate and given the passion I feel about the topic, I don't know that I'll ever be able to approach it cerebrally.
 

I'm Pro Life or more to the point Anti Choice but I don't believe abortion is murder. Murder is a legal term.
The question boils down to right to life of the fetus. I believe the fetus has a right to life from conception forward and that right should be protected by society.
Addressing some of the points made. About miscarriages. Really does the question about why no funeral rites really need an answer? A miscarriage is a tragedy but funeral rights celebrate a life witnessed by others even if it was only a day. You could make an intellectual argument for funeral rights for miscarriages but its not a slight to the deceased human fetus that its brief life not be memorialized with a full funeral.Some might do it but most wouldn't. They don't really need to explain why any more than they might not explain bothering with a funeral for someone that lived 80 years which happens.
 

We live in the age of ultrasound, 3-D imaging, more powerful forms of stethoscopes - we know more about fetal development than we did 30 years ago. The fact is that not only is abortion murder, many forms of abortion are more sadistic and brutal than any form of torture imagined in our brutal past. We used to believe that the developing child had an "immature" nervous system and, as such, it would not "feel" the pain of an abortion. WRONG!!! Although it takes time for all of the nerves to be fully formed, as each nerve forms and is connected to the developing brain, there is an "all or nothing" response - once the nerve is activated, there is no "shut-off" or "dampening" mechanism in place to reduce or minimize the pain felt. Unlike us, mature adults, the developing child, and even the new born child, feels pain much more intensely than we do and cannot stop the pain. In-utero surgery used be done without anesthetic, and many pre-born children died of shock from the intense pain - doctors didn't know that they needed to deal with the pain first. Now many procedures are performed with suitable pain relief measures in place and the outcomes are much more successful. Circumcisions used to be performed without any pain relief measures, due to ignorance. Some still do, but many now recognise (due to actual studies on this matter) that baby boys do feel pain VERY intensely and need a superior pain relief measure than an older child or adult would.

Sadly, a wanted child will recieve all the care and attention during these difficult situations. But, for the unwanted (or inconventient) child - the method of execution is often worse than anything we would inflict upon our worst serial killers.

If a pro-lifer views abortion more seriously than war or famine or any other social or international problem - it is because there is no greater problem. Abortions kill more than wars, more than famines, more than disease - and its done intentionally and legally. So long as we are capable of so brutally destroying a young human life, how can we expect anyone on this planet to seriously reject wars, stop famines, deal effectively with disease, poverty, violence.
 

Murder is a legal term and it applies to abortion until a law is passed that says otherwise. That courts do not charge abortionists with murder has to do with the fact that it is legal, not that it isn't murder. For murder to apply, one human being kills another human being. The pre-born child is a living human being from conception, this is a biological fact - ducks come from ducks, frogs from frogs and humans from humans - FACT. Also, the fact that pre-born have limited rights is a legal choice, after all, in Canada, women were not "persons" under the law until into the 20th century and had very limited rights (just like pre-born children today), yet if someone killed a woman, they could still be charged with murder, unless a law was passed to legalise the murder of women (thankfully this did not happen). In the US, blacks did not always have the legal status of "personhood", yet a person could be charged with their murder; however, depending on when and/or where this occurred, the penalty might not be the same as for murdering a "white" person. Even an illegal alien can be "murdered" - citizenship is not a prerequisite. It was decided that certain persons were less equal than others and, therefore, treated differently. Blacks, Jews, Women were not and are not subhuman and do not deserve to be treated like animals or worse; the same is true for babies that are still in the womb -they are not sub-human, inferior, or alien - we all started as a zygote, we all developed in basically the same way and will continue growing through many stages of development until we die, either of old age or cut short by accident, disease or someone else's choice.