Friday, June 03, 2011

Abortion advocate Robin Marty is clearly confused

Try to follow Robin Marty's logic here as she attempts to argue against Rebecca Kiessling, a prolife advocate who was conceived in rape. Here's Kiessling arguing against rape exceptions (my emphasis):
Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, "I think your mother should have been able to abort you."? It's like saying, "If I had my way, you'd be dead right now." And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life "except in cases of rape" because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most people don't put a face to this issue — for them abortion is just a concept — with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue.

In reply, some have said to me, "So does that mean you're pro-rape?" Though ludicrous, I'll address it because I understand that they aren't thinking things through. There is a huge moral difference because I did exist, and my life would have been ended because I would have been killed by a brutal abortion. You can only be killed and your life can only be devalued once you exist. Being thankful that my life was protected in no way makes me pro-rape.

And here's Marty's response:
But if her life can only be devalued once she exists, and she only exists because her life was protected from abortion, wouldn't that mean that if it was ended through abortion, she never would have existed? Isn't she essentially arguing against herself?

This is why personhood laws confuse so many, I guess.
No, it confuses you because you haven't thought about it for more than a second. If her life was ended by abortion it doesn't mean that she never existed, it would mean that her existence was ended.

Let's take Marty's reasoning and use it on infanticide.
But if her life can only be devalued once she exists, and she only exists because her life was protected from infanticide, wouldn't that mean that if it was ended through infanticide, she never would have existed? Isn't she essentially arguing against herself?
Robin - you are confused. This happens quite often when abortion advocates attempt to act like the unborn don't exist.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment