Intro, Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five
Hiding Behind False Positions
Pro-choicers often hide behind positions that don't prove their position correct even if their argument was correct. One common example is the hard cases of abortion like rape, incest, and fetal anomaly when dealing with the abortion debate. Pro-choicers attempt to act like prolifers are extremists by pretending to take a middle of road position when in reality they don't hold that position.
They appeal to emotion instead of truth. We all feel sorry for women who have been raped or children who are victims of incest or couples who just found out that their unborn child has some debilitating disease. But how do those circumstances justify killing innocent human beings? They don't.
Why should people that have been victimized by one human or nature be able to victimize another innocent human being? Can you think of one other circumstance in our society where someone who has been victimized can go out and legally and intentionally victimize someone else who wasn't their attacker.
That's like someone saying, "People who have had their car stolen should be allowed to legally beat up their neighbor" or "people whose houses have been destroyed by a tornado should be allowed to legally steal someone else's credit card."
Ardent abortion supporters usually either believe that abortion should be legal through six months of pregnancy or through all nine months of pregnancy and that abortion is a fundamental right. They don't believe that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape or incest. They need to defend the view that abortion should be legal up to the point they want with logical arguments and facts not solely appeals to emotion.
One way to show that hard cases are just an attempt to divert the debate from the true issue is to say, "For the sake of this debate I'll accept that abortion should be legal in cases of rape. Can you now join me in opposing legal abortion in cases where the woman hasn't been raped which comprise a large majority of abortions?"
They will, of course, say no. Then prolifers should say, "But then why did you bring it up except to mislead us into thinking you only support abortion because women who've been raped shouldn't have to bear an attacker's child?"
Another example of hiding behind a position that isn't their position is when they attack the development of the early embryo/zygote. These positions usually try to prove that the early embryo isn't human being but most of the time these efforts don't make any attempt at all to try to prove that a fetus or older embryo isn't a human being.
Example: "Embryos aren't human beings because they can survive being frozen."
Example 2: "Embryos aren't whole human beings because they have the ability to twin."
Now besides assuming the position pro-choicers need to prove, pro-choicers who assert these arguments are also hiding behind a position that they don't really believe. Why? Because only very young embryos can survive being frozen or have the ability to twin while older embryos and fetuses cannot. So even if the criteria of not being able to survive being frozen or twin is what makes one a human being was correct then that criteria would make fetuses and older embryos into human beings. This is something that pro-choicer arguers obviously don't believe.
Pro-choicers need to show us why abortion should be legal through all nine months or six months of pregnancy to win the debate. That is what they believe. They can't get away with just trying to prove that early embryos aren't human beings.
On to Part Seven