The numbers are provocative. But there's something odd about the billboards. The child who appears beside the text is fully born. Abortion doesn't kill such children. What kills them, all too often, is shooting. If you wanted to save living, breathing, fully born children from a tool of extermination that is literally targeting blacks, the first problem you would focus on is guns. They are killing the present, not just the future. But the sponsors of the "endangered species" ads don't support gun control. They oppose it.First, I really doubt that Georgia Right to Life has a position on gun control. If they did, I’m guessing Saletan would link to it. Claiming the organization has a position because some leaders in the organization do is fallacious.
Second, are guns walking around and targeting black children or are they an instrument which makes it easier to kill people.? This is a little like saying prolifers shouldn’t focus on stopping abortionists but should try to stop the production and distribution of curettes, vacuum aspirators, syringes and forceps.
He concludes by writing,
Yes, there are too many aborted. But there are also too many shot. And when you read what the people behind the billboards have said about gun control, it's hard to take seriously what they say about abortion.
What a lazy ad-hom. Saletan doesn’t like that some leading prolifers are opposed to gun control. Therefore, he won’t take what they argue about abortion seriously.
Too bad arguments don’t have a position on gun control, eh?
Posts
Re: "This is a little like saying prolifers shouldn’t focus on stopping abortionists but should try to stop the production and distribution of curettes, vacuum aspirators, syringes and forceps." ....
ReplyDeleteActually, it's a lot like saying instead of trying to stop abortionists, "prolifers" should be trying to stop unwanted pregnancies in the first place through comprehensive, national sex education, and making free or low-cost contraceptives available to everyone (even -- especially -- teenagers). As well as making sure women who decide to keep their babies get ample assistance if they can't afford diapers or formula, can complete their education (putting day cares in high schools and colleges), and can have a career when they graduate (putting day cares in offices and subsidizing day care for women who don't make enough to afford it).
That's a much better analogy.
Why is that a much better analogy?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how it is at all. It seems more like a list of grievances against prolifers.
Random, we keep hearing that
ReplyDelete1.) X% (some high number) of people use contraceptives, and
2.) the best way to reduce the abortion rate is via promoting contraceptive use.
Pick one. It's possible that neither one is true, but they certainly BOTH can't be true.