Recycling Pro-Choice Arguments

With South Dakota passing a ban on abortion, a number of old pro-choice arguments seem to be coming back in style.

In a post yesterday, PZ Myers goes after a bad prolife argument and in doing so sets the world record for how many times someone has confused parts and wholes in a single blog post.

One would hope that as a biologist PZ recognizes that there is a biological difference between a whole organism and mere parts of an organism (like sperm or egg). PZ, through his various interactions with prolifers, should know that prolifers aren't concerned with the parts of human organisms (like sperm or skin cells) but we're concerned the lives of human organisms.

PZ also parrots Ronald Bailey's old "fire in the fertility clinic" hypothetical (I addressed the hypothetical in the comments section of pro-choice blog awhile ago). What's interesting here is in PZ's mind there is no good answer for the prolifer. If you'd save, or for that matter, even think of saving, the embryos then you're one of the "crazies." If you save the child then your position is illogical and you don't really think human embryos deserve protection.

The "fertility clinic fire" scenario and questions like, "Would you throw women in jail for having abortions" (which has been raised recently by a pro-choice blogger here (I discussed the video referenced here) are backdoor attempts to prove the prolife position is wrong instead of proving the pro-choice position is true. Instead of either proving that the unborn aren't biological human beings with biological facts or providing a good and non-arbitrary reason why some human beings should be allowed to legally and intentionally kill innocent human beings, pro-choicers are forced into creating questions where the only responses prolifers can offer leaves pro-choicers calling prolifers either illogical or crazy.