There's a one-sidedness when it comes to abortion blogs. I see many pro-life bloggers who are using the science and philosophy well to support their position. And then when I look up pro-choice blogs, I usually see the following: "Hey, look at what this stupid anti-choicer just said [provides link]. This is bull!" Then they completely ignore all the evidence presented by said pro-lifer and high-five each other on how rational and logical they're being.
I'm serious. Go search out blogs about abortion and see the differences for yourself.
This makes it difficult for me to respond to pro-choice bloggers because I constantly feel like I'm going after the lowest hanging fruit of the pro-choice side. But I really don't have a choice, unless I want to respond to the academic writers (which I do, as well, but as a blogger I enjoy interacting with others in the blogosphere). I'm a big believer in the fact that if your position is the correct one, it can withstand the strongest objections of the other side.
So when I come across a reasonable pro-choice advocate, who talks about the need for information regarding the risks of abortion being needed, I feel it's worth pointing out. My friend Jonathon Van Maren, of Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, has interviewed a pro-choice columnist, Barbara Kay, who writes for the National Post, a Canadian publication. You can read the transcript here. You can also find the link to the interview there.
In general, most "pro-choice" arguments are pure emotion (typical feminism) but some bring up questions that I don't think we've fully addressed.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few:
http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/questions-for-pro-lifers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-filipovic/questions-for-prolifers_b_58563.html
Another interesting question I saw was this: When the government demands men serve in the military, they are eligible for veteran's benefits for life. In addition, even with eminent domain, if the government takes your property, one is entitled to just compensation. If the government can demand that pregnant woman gestate a child to term, should the woman also be entitled to government benefits for her services?
Pro-life people have addressed these questions. But I don't think many pro-choice people are satisfied with pro-life answers, no matter how sensible they are. And the embryo rescue case is a thought experiment that has been thoroughly responded to, myself included in the respondents. Someone who is asking these questions probably hasn't read any material on the pro-life position, which just reinforces the point of this article.
DeleteWhat I find difficult is that I can see that most pro-choicers have a set of rules about what choices can be made. If they don't allow me the choice to have an opinion that living things should not be killed, then I don't see them being an advocate of choice.
ReplyDeleteI had a really good talk with someone who identified as pro-choice. She actually gave me a list of 13 things society can do to reduce abortion. I got her permission to share them on my blog too.
http://chandlerklebs.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/advice-on-ending-abortion/
I would like to know what others think of her advice and what the right way is to work at them.
Yes, I've had many discussions with Marti and I've read this article. There are things that pro-choice and pro-life people can agree on as to reducing the number of pregnancies, but the common ground ends there on this topic. They believe we should leave abortion legal, but we believe that even if we work to reduce the number of abortions we need to make it illegal because human dignity, specifically of the unborn, demands that we make it illegal and mete out justice if someone kills them.
Delete