Starting Points Matter In The Life Issue

In the Life/Abortion issue, recognizing starting points is vitally important.  Starting points can also profoundly influence the way words are used - so in this way words are important too.  One thing I always see as a red flag is the way words are being used.  When you see something like: "This is what people trying trying to restrict a woman's right to choose actually think and say."  It's the "right to choose" verbiage that I find so insidious - because at face value it sounds so innocuous.  The object of the choice is many times left out.  I suspect it is because it would quickly become apparent that this is not the "right to choose" which gas station to fuel your car at, which ice cream to buy, which clothes to wear, or even which health plan to select - but rather something much more serious.  Many times some detail is added, but it will be something like "...what to do with her own body" or something using the words "reproductive rights" or "family planning."  The word "abortion" (i.e. "...right to have an abortion") is even sometimes used.  The pro-choice side, in order to be intellectually honest, needs to be very upfront.  It needs to say "...right to choose death without a trial and without any means of defense for the little human being inside her."  That's pretty long, so maybe it should be "...right to choose death for an innocent human being."

Starting points.  What I said about starting points earlier amounts to this: The Pro-Choice side either denies the humanity, the personhood, or the equal value (compared to post-utero human beings) of the unborn human in the womb.  The Pro-Life side vigorously AFFIRMS those three things.  Given the starting points of the Pro-Choice side, whether it be one or all three, its easy to see why it thinks it is utter madness and ridiculousness for the Pro Life side to want to legally restrict or ban abortion.  It's also easy to see why the Pro-Life side will seek to legally ban abortion at any stage including abortion in the case of rape.  Some pro-lifers will waver at the "any stage" or waver in cases of rape, but I think this severely weakens their case against abortion in general.  After all, if the little human life is an innocent human being, why is it OK to put it to death for the crime of the biological father? Or, if  the little human being is very very small and/or undeveloped (think first few weeks of pregnancy) and thereby more OK to put them to death, then why wouldn't it be more OK to give less legal protection (i.e. permit the killing of) the Down-Syndrome (or simply less-intelligent or disabled) person to death?  For that matter, why wouldn't it be OK to legally put a senile Grandpa to death over you or me...or put me to death over a super-genius or super-athlete.  The examples abound.  So, keep starting points in mind when you analyze the statements or Pro-Life people, including bumbling pro-life congressmen who should have more polished answers.

Does it matter if a pro-lifer stumbles at or doesn't know the answer to why a woman would seek an abortion?  No.  Why?  Because, given his starting point (see paragraph above) the answer to the question is irrelevant.  In other words, if it is the legal protection of innocent human life we're talking about, knowing the reasons someone would want to take those lives is of 2nd order importance, not first.  Take this example: You want to give legal protection to children against adult-child sex and sex acts.  Currently (in the alternate reality I'm inviting you to for this example...or it could be ancient Greece) adult-child sex and sex acts is legal.  Many will say it's even a "good" thing.  You however, know it's wrong.  You believe that a child should be legally protected against the power and control of a sexually -hungry adult.  You see the harm and the wrongness of popular practice, but you have not seriously investigated why an adult might want to seek out children for sex and have sex with them.  The interviewer asks you "What do you think makes an adult male want to have sex with a child?"  You give a stammering "I don't know" kind of answer.  Well, now you're disqualified from legislating against things you don't understand, right?  Wrong!  In the same way, the congressman doesn't need to understand the motivations of the woman seeking an abortion.  He just needs to understand the status of the object he is trying to protect (i.e. why it should be protected.)   Granted, the congressman would do well to polish-up his interview skills and be ready for all types of questions likely to be asked, but a  bumbling answer to the question regarding a woman's situation or a woman's motivation does not disqualify the congressmen (or anyone) from the argument.

About "Reproductive Rights" language:  Legal rights should not include the right to kill an innocent human being who has committed no crime.  All the pregnancy hardship and other womens' hardship cases in the world don't change the fact that the Pro-Choice side favors taking away legal protection of life from the most innocent of human beings.  I shudder to think that this is supposed to be subsumed under the umbrellas of "Reproductive Health."  Health?  Seriously?  Whose health?  Abortions "safe" and "rare"?  Whose safety?  Even if the mother is kept safe 100% of the time (which won't happen - even with the best technology), a 'successful' abortion results in the death of an innocent human being 100% of the time.  Again, starting points are important.