In her article from the online version of the “American Spectator”, conservative columnist Lisa Fabrizio reports on this year’s March for life that took place in Wahington on Martin Luther King Day and uses this event to debate against abortion more generally and in particularly express her strong concern about Barack Obama’s proposed abortion policies. A fervent pro-life activist, Mrs Fabrizio most fervently rejects Obama’s Freedom of choice act, but her column serves to do just that: pointlessly reject it. Instead of defending her own opinions in a real debate, the author prefers rhetoric (and quite cheap one at that) to prove hr point. She first uses the pretext of Martin Luther King Day to legitimize her claim by using a quote from one of his relatives, while also claiming that abortions by African American women are more frequent then amongst white ones, pointing at abortion as an unfair and racist process. While the pro-life supporters from the march are made into heroes fighting for a difficult cause against a majority that seems to reject them, the very process of abortion is equated to murder, which allows the author to use all sorts of improbable analogies, like a comparison between Gitmo terrorists and aborted babies. More generally, this article does not seem to provide the reader any informed (or even uninformed) debate. Instead, Mrs Fabrizio prefers unconvincing analogies and other rhetoric in a pathetic attempt to arouse indignation in her readers by appealing to their emotions rather then to their reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I'll acknowledge that the article is certainly emotional, certainly over the top. I think it's important to recognize, however, that (in the author's eyes at least) the attempt to inject emotion into the debate over abortion isn't frivolous or dishonest. Honestly, the abortion issue seems to come down to a gut emotional response one way or the other. The "pro-life" faction chooses to assume that the fetus counts as a human being; as such they genuinely see abortion as murder. The "pro-choice" side, meanwhile, chooses to assume that the fetus does not count as a full human being; instead, abortion is purely a rights issue. Objectively, it's impossible to "rationally" prove the ontological status of the fetus, one way or another. We just have to make an assumption, on either side. When the pro-life faction starts tossing around "murder," it's not to evoke a disingenuous emotional response; it's because that's what they actually believe. That's why they're opposed to abortion in the first place.
I have to disagree with the statement that the issue of abortion “seems to come down to a gut emotional response one way or the other” made by Andrew. I think the emotional gut response only applies to those who choose to be pro-life, and that many times these emotional gut responses are influenced by religious beliefs (Ms. Fabrizio herself ends the article with “Let us pray that...”). Being pro-choice is not an emotional response, it is a rational response. NOBODY is pro-abortion. A person who is pro-choice simply believes that it is a person’s right to have all options available rather than just one, one that somebody else judges to be ‘morally’ right. Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. So although you cannot “rationally prove the ontological status of the fetus” you can at least rationally prove that not having abortion as a legal option will only lead to women putting themselves in danger by having illegal abortions.
Honestly, I would be more receptive to the idea of making abortion illegal if sex education would actually be taught in schools rather than the abstinence-only programs that President Bush funded. It is hypocritical to expect to make abortions illegal when girls and women in the US are not being educated on the subject of contraceptives, for example. Even then, I would still be doubtful. Think about the cases of rape and incest. I strongly disagree with anybody who claims that abortion should be illegal in those cases because of other options, like therapy and counseling for the mother. Nobody has the right to judge a girl or woman for not wanting to have the child of her rapist.
In the case of abortion, it is obvious that religion can play a part in politics. Why would Bush fund abstinence-only sex education instead of comprehensive sex ed.? Probably because a big percentage of those who voted for him are religious and disagree with the idea of sex before marriage, saying that sex ed will only give kids ‘ideas;’ and probably because he disagrees with it himself (he has a gut emotional feeling it’s ‘wrong’). However, countless studies have shown that abstinence-only sex ed. does not work. That’s the reality.
Another problem with pro-life extremists such as is Ms. Fabrizio is that, instead of putting all their energy into organizing and funding programs that will help women to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place, they spend all their time pointing fingers and calling women criminals. If Ms. Fabrizio doesn’t want an abortion, then she doesn’t ever have to have one. Nobody has been “brainwashed into thinking that abortion is somehow beneficial to this country or to American motherhood” as she puts it. Perhaps she was just brainwashed into thinking it’s right to judge others and yell out “murder” instead of taking a stance against inefficient public policy.
Post a Comment