Stanek wkend Q: Is it wrong to compare abortion to other mass deaths?
Good friend Josh Brahm has posted a piece, “4 reasons pro-lifers need to stop doing this.” ”This” is:
One of my colleagues at Students for Life of America recently asked me for an example of pro-lifers doing things that appear weird to our society. The first thing that came to mind was something that my brother Timothy and I call FTV: “Fetus Tunnel Vision.”
fetus tunnel vision
noun
1. the inability to see and/or acknowledge human rights injustices without equating or comparing them to abortion.
Josh listed four reasons, in short:
#1: You won’t persuade a lot of people to become pro-life while comparing every single instance of multiple people dying to abortion.
#2: Other human rights injustices matter too.
#3: Comparing every instance of mass killing to abortion is rude.
#4: Thoughtful pro-choice people will see that you’re begging the question.
Read Josh’s post for detailed explanations for the above four reasons. His bottom line:
What I’m arguing here is that we need to be able to see how horrible non-abortion injustices are, and respond appropriately. Doing this publicly will also have a side benefit of helping pro-choice people see that we’re normal human beings who oppose injustice. Then we can gain the opportunity to show abortion to be the injustice it is.
So, do you agree or disagree with Josh’s thesis?
[Photo by Richard Drew for the Associated Press via JoshBrahm.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Was Dr. King wrong not to focus as much energy on other human rights issues as he did on civil rights? No. He understood that racism has an impact on humanity that is bigger than the key components of the civil rights legislation he eventually supported. He was a preacher, not a lawmaker. Racism did not end with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. That he was murdered proves that. A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Abortion, the Holocaust, the attacks on 9/11, and racism, all have a common theme: Man’s inhumanity to man.
In answer to the question, I think the author needs to stop ignoring abortion. He needs to stop telling himself that he can ignore one injustice and be righteous in arguing against others. To be against racism, the Holocaust, and the attacks on 9/11, and not be against abortion is simply hypocrisy.
All I can think about is “why would I care what society thinks is ‘weird’?” Are we really going to start basing our beliefs and actions on the approval of disapproval of “society”?
Also, I don’t think I know any pro-lifers with fetus tunnel vision. Straw man?
Agree with the thesis 100%
I think there are better ways to further pro-life cause than comparing abortion with mass murder. We, pro-lifers might think that and agree that abortion IS a mass murder, but I don’t think it would make a convincing argument when talking to pro-choice people, who look at life and the world from a different perspective. Saying that, movie 180 did seem to get through to some people using this logic, so maybe it needs to be judged on case-to-case basis. And I AM against all other injustices in the world and involved in trying to end them, of course.
Really? Let’s appease the pro-choicers more ’cause that’s really been working for the past 40 years..
What we need for example: more visual comparison between positive ultrasound images and real abortion images. Let them connect their own dots.
Nuts to this! Enough of us allowing the pro-aborts to determine the tone and language we use. They think we’re weird? What of it? Who gives a rat’s rump? They thought Jesus was off the reservation, too. That’s why they crucified Him. As far as “other mass deaths” go, which one has a number of deaths that exceeds the 50+ million babies murdered in the name of “choice”?
I am not arguing that pro-life people should avoid every single thing that could be interpreted as “weird.” You’re right. We live in an age where apathy is cool, at least to some people. So if someone thinks I’m weird, the question is, why do they think that?
If they think I’m weird because I’m working full-time to educate on a civil rights issue, then I’m fine with that.
But if they think I’m weird because whenever I talk about the issue, I’m really off-putting and make them not want to talk to pro-lifers anymore, I should at least question my communication techniques.
Sometimes we have a debate where we ask zero questions, we don’t really listen to what they have to say, (since we’re right and everything,) we fail to state any points of genuine common ground, and sometimes use language that distracts the person, making it more harmful than helpful to a good dialogue where people change.
Can we agree that there are some things that make us seem weird that we should avoid?
Oh, and Lisa is officially the first pro-lifer to accuse me of “ignoring abortion.”
I’d say I agree. Simply because we ought to be thoughtful enough and personal enough at all times to be in-the-moment with whomever we are talking to, regardless of the issue. If we happen to be talking to someone to whom comparing slavery and abortion will set them into a rage, we need to be tuned in enough so as to not burn the bridge before we get to it. It doesn’t mean that comparing abortion to slavery is inaccurate or universally inappropriate – simply that communication isn’t all about us making our point for points. Offense is going to happen no matter how we tailor our message, but the more often we can exhibit a willingness to avoid making offense, the more often our listener might listen. It all boils down to the saying “people don’t care what you know until they know that you care”.
Is it wrong to compare abortion to other mass deaths? No. But I read Josh’s entire article and I get what he’s talking about. Here was a key sentence for me:
“But what they say comes across to many people as devaluing one tragedy to elevate the one issue they care most about.”
I have FTV. I can’t help it. The sheer enormity of abortion, the hundreds of millions of lives it has taken worldwide, the millions and millions of women and families that have been negatively impacted…I can scarcely wrap my head around it. And when someone I know comments compassionately on a human tragedy involving loss of life and I know they couldn’t give a fig about the millions and millions that have died from abortion, I naturally go right to FTV. I feel compassion for all victims of injustice and actively work to help in ways that I can, but when it comes to loss of life I have FTV. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to stop my thoughts from going immediately to abortion, but I can stop my mouth from following suit. I appreciate the message. Thanks Josh.
I love that comment. What’s interesting is that some people have “Sex Slavery Tunnel Vision” and think it’s insane that so many pro-lifers never talk about it. We talk about abortion but they have SSTV. Both sides could probably communicate better to each other.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Lrning. :)
I am not persuaded by Josh’s thesis… or perhaps I don’t understand the problem.
It seems to me that slavery and the Nazi Holocaust and abortion all have the same error in common: Innocent masses of people were deemed to be “less than human” by those in power, then inhuman injustice and murder were inflicted upon the innocent.
It does not take any particular sort of tunnel vision to see the obvious connections. We need to help our culture overcome its blindness. If people recoil at how the Nazi’s treated Jews, then we should be repulsed by the way Planned Parenthood hurts women and kills children.
Del, do you think we should make comparisons to abortion on the anniversary of 9/11? If so, can you help me understand how you’re getting to that conclusion, based on your premise that all of these mass killings “have the same error in common?” I’m not sure how you’re getting from point A to point B.
I didn’t say “all mass killings have the same error in common.” I said that slavery, the Holocaust, and abortion have the same error — one based in first dehumanizing the victim.
9/11 was very different. Bin Laden hoped to goad America into a war by copying the attack on Pearl Harbor. His fantasy was that all Islam then would rise up and conquer the West. In his own twisted way, he honored us for being the enemy most worthy of his anger. He never called us animals or vermin or parasites.
All the same, when I am speaking with someone who feels the loss of over 3000 innocent people on that day, I am not ashamed to mention that over 3000 children also died that day. I hope an am sensitive enough to choose my time and my words so that my listener can hear the message.
I am pro-life every day. I’m not going to stop being pro-life, just because it is the anniversary of 9/11 or Columbine or Sandy Hook or Oklahoma City or Fort Hood. The best way for me to honor those who died is to go pray on the sidewalk for those innocents who are still dying.
Got it. I understand why you’re seperating 9/11 from the Holocaust. And I’m glad you try to choose your words carefully.
I don’t think I stop becoming pro-life simply because I occasionally choose times to not bring up abortion. Similarly, there are certain conversations I have with non-theists that don’t seem like the right time to talk about the Gospel, so I try to get them thinking about something more but I may not give a full Gospel presentation. Yet, I don’t think I stop becoming a Christian on that day.
I usually roll my eyes when pro-choicers say stupid things like “fetus porn” and accuse pro-lifers of only caring about the unborn. But now I’ve got to admit that there may have been times I helped contribute to those inaccurate perceptions. I certainly don’t think every comparison of abortion to other mass murders is wrong, but it actually hurts me to think that I may have devalued some lives by getting caught up in the numbers. You’ve really given me something to think about, Josh.
N/P, Josh! I think we are both sensitive to the same problem: How do we talk to world effectively about the evil of abortion? You have shined some light on one of the less effective ways to share our message.
I can understand Josh’s point. I think we need to choose our words carefully or the occasions in which we use the comparisons carefully. I don’t think it is wrong to sometimes draw a parallel when appropriate. I’ve watched the wool fall from people’s eyes when they realize they’re decrying the slaughter of millions of people while fighting for the legalized slaughter of millions of other people.
I think there’s a point to be made in choosing timings of comparisons.
If the numbers of dead human beings from abortion didn’t dramatically dwarf other mass killings, there would be more of a point. But ideas like FTV are usually made by people wanting to minimize the reality of so many million murdered.
The problem with comparing abortion to other atrocities is that people are understandably uncomfortable with thinking of the scope of abortion, since we all are in the midst of it, and many of us know good people who are or were directly involved. We are the bad guys, not some dictator or some terrorist or some horrible natural disaster. It’s a terrible thing we have to face.
So while I think we have to be careful how we use comparisons, and we have to have hearts big enough to love and fight for all victims, I’m also wary of anything that might be perceived as downplaying abortion. And I think Brahm’s argument comes very close to that.
“What I’m arguing here is that we need to be able to see how horrible non-abortion injustices are, and respond appropriately. Doing this publicly will also have a side benefit of helping pro-choice people see that we’re normal human beings who oppose injustice. Then we can gain the opportunity to show abortion to be the injustice it is.”
Fwiw, I feel that, as a Catholic, Christians with eyes to see have been doing just that in any number of important ways from helping people in crisis, to fighting poverty and ransoming slaves to providing healthcare and low cost or free education for about 2,000 years. The love of Christ urges us on.
The pc group is always complaining. Enough already! Abortion is mass murder and its been going on far too long. As we remain silent they are gaining on us. Ive been to other sites where they want you to gloss over the word murder. I refuse…DEAL WITH IT!
PETA has done the same thing for years -
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/05/05/petas-holocaust-on-your-plate-campaign/
I was offended when PETA did this…I guess I’m just part of that PC group.
All I can think about is “why would I care what society thinks is ‘weird’?” – good. People tend to listen less to those they find weird.
but I don’t think it would make a convincing argument when talking to pro-choice people – you’ve got that right.
movie 180 did seem to get through to some people using this logic, – ‘movie 180’ and ‘logic’ don’t belong in the same sentence. It was a sham.
“But what they say comes across to many people as devaluing one tragedy to elevate the one issue they care most about.” – well observed Lrning. The way abortion takes place and the way the holocaust took place for instance have no equivilence.
Could care less about PETA people eating tasty animals!
I do think that PL-argumentation has a difficulty with this analogy because the people killed in these atrocities were ‘human’, and the reason they were killed is because it ‘was injustice to humans’. But for preborn, they are recognized as ‘human’ but the reason-for-killing is that they are vulnerable … and even worse vulnerable-humans. Vulnerability is blatantly against being top-dog/#1/machismo .. opposed to pride.
It’s not wrong. It may not always be effective.
Two different things. It depends on your purposes.
Framing the pro-life movement in terms of human rights will be a effective approach in some circles.
* an * effective
typo error only
One similarity between abortion and 9/11 is that both were attacks targeting certain groups of people. The abortion industry targets the poor and 9/11 targeted the rich Americans.
Ex is offended by PETA using a promotional strategy that is utilized on many levels by the democrats but he is not offended by Hillary dismissing lives lost in the Benghazi tragedy and he is not offended by Obama supporting PP on our dime. I guess the four “likes” missed that about Ex. :)
The PC movement is such a ridiculous thing but what disgusts me more is how pro-aborts hold Pro-life to so much scrutiny but when we do it its suddenly so “offensive.” Can’t stand the heat, get out of the fire I would say….
I agree with LifeJoy that it is not wrong. An effective prolifer must read the situation at hand and respond accordingly. When you are dealing with some proaborts, though, there is nothing you can say to change their minds so there is no harm done by bringing up other atrocities.
I also say Amen to Mary Ann where she states: Christians with eyes to see have been doing just that in any number of important ways from helping people in crisis, to fighting poverty and ransoming slaves to providing healthcare and low cost or free education for about 2,000 years. The love of Christ urges us on.
There are some people that think I am weird. Oh bother.
In the end it will only matter what Christ thinks.
People should try to avoid occasion tie-ins. It comes across really bad when PP attempts to repeat their regular fund-raising pitch with a Mother’s Day tie-in.
It might be clever to say that as many preventable deaths occur each day, by abortion, as died in the Sept 11 attacks, but I would not put that message out there on or around Sept 11.
That is insensitivity. You do not show that the Sept 11 attacks, and deaths, mean something to you by changing the topic. If you lack sensitivity, people are not interested in your message.
The problem is that sensitivity can be defined differently by every single person one is trying to reach. There are always going to be recipients who will have a negative reaction to your message no matter how “sensitive” it is. You can satisfy some people sometimes but not all the people every time. This focus on sensitivity may actually turn itself into censorship of free speech (as in how am I going to say this as not to “offend”).
Thomas, I’m not saying that we should never say anything that somebody could call insensitive. Clearly some pro-life statements are more sensitive than others. Maybe sometimes it’s hard to tell. I’m arguing that comparing abortion to 9/11 on the anniversary of 9/11 is clearly insensitive.
It’s not that there isn’t a valid comparison between it and other mass killings. It’s that some people who call themselves “pro-life” insist upon bringing up abortion every time someone else is decrying anything else. The phrase is, “These people are actually against fur coats/bullfighting/corporal punishment/circumcision? These are the same people who are in favor of abortion!!!!” Well, a.) no, not necessarily, and b.) someone can be wrong about one thing and right about something else.
“I’m arguing that comparing abortion to 9/11 on the anniversary of 9/11 is clearly insensitive.”
Mr. Brahm – I with you one hundred percent on this. Would you consider making such comparisons on any other day?
Fantastic question, Thomas. There are certainly scenarios where it seems less inappropriate.
For example, sometimes in a presentation where I’m training a largely pro-life audience how to defend the view that the unborn are valuable human beings worthy of protection, I may briefly talk about abortion stats and compare the daily number of abortions, 3,300, with the number killed on 9/11. I don’t think that’s inappropriate, although I waited several months after September, 2001 to do it.
Here’s another statement I’ve said in front of audiences, that involve comparing abortion to another injustice:
“Abortion is worse than almost every other social/moral issue of today when you consider the sheer numbers of those being killed, how young and vulnerable the victims are, and who is participating in their death: one or both of their parents. Only the issue of sex slavery seems to come close to the evil of abortion when you factor those things.”
I don’t think that comes across as devaluing sex slavery. I’m stating that both are incredible evil, and why. And it’s not begging the question if I’ve made a case in front of that audience that the unborn are valuable human beings.
I think there’s a few common comparisons to abortion that I won’t be making anymore, at least for pragmatic reasons, but I’m not ready to write about that publicly yet.
Does that help?
Your clarifications are very helpful. I get it. I think that this type of approach certainly may appeal to logic and reasoning but that is debatable? I do think that appealing to a personal core by referencing parents as the participants in their preborn child’s death may, perhaps, be more expedient in shaking the pro-abortion belief system. Makes it more immediate?
Could it be that presenting abortion as topic devoid of personal impact and on abstract level (by that I mean numbers numbers and numbers) may make this approach less effective? Just thinking out loud :)
Very interesting Thomas. I just happened upon this perspective: we often see this as a mini-debate – manno-a-manno; PL vs PC ; adult vs adult coming to ‘common-ground – ask to be a fly-on-the-wall when any PC attempts to explain their stance to THEIR OWN child. [I would personally love to hear REALITY EXPLAINING his stance to his-kid/grandkid … say up-to 9 years old.>>> ‘I know they are human, they just don’t have sentience’ and ‘Besides, what I say doesn’t count because pregnant moms are the only people who matter, etc.’ ]
I think the main thing we need to be careful of when referencing the parents is qualifying it. Lots of women are coerced into their abortion, so I usually say, “…one or both of their parents.” That covers most situations except a case like where the mother’s dad is forcing her to have the abortion and the boyfriend doesn’t know.
We should avoid making this issue completely abstract. That’s a danger for philosopher-types like me, who can sometimes sound like we’re solving a complex puzzle. Abortion is much more than that.
We should also be wary of how we use statistics. My friend Trent Horn at Catholic Answers makes this point well here: http://trenthorn.com/2013/01/22/stop-saying-55-million-babies-have-been-killed/
However, there’s also a danger of making this too much about the stories. Pro-life people sometimes tend to resort to grounding their case against abortion in sad stories from post-abortive women. The problem here is that abortion is not wrong because it hurts women. Abortion is wrong because it kills a valuable human being without proper justification. The fact that many women suffer from negative physical and emotional effects of the abortion is worth talking about, as long as we are careful to avoid arguing that that is the reason abortion should be illegal. As my friend Jay Watts at Life Training Institute says, “There’s a difference between what’s wrong with abortion with why abortion is wrong.”
Josh,
I’m very happy right now because you have put into precise words the dilemma here. You say abortion is about killing ‘valuable human beings’ … sorry that’s a judgement call on par with ‘Every child a wanted child’. If instead you view abortion as killing a vulnerable human being, there is no false categorizing between wanted/unwanted ; young/elderly ; non-sentient/genius ; feeble/strong ; etc, all-members of an inclusive human living family, where I dance with-you rather-than-to-your-tune. Children ARE killed. But the reasons why is not because they are ‘human’ but because they are vulnerable-beings, open to be attacked by others. I doubt grown members of any species at-all would kill unborn children as easily as adult-humans … myth about Romulus and Remus (founders of Rome) being raised by wolves (enemies of all humans).
We are sick!
John, I don’t think the reason people have abortions is because they want to kill human beings who they believe are valuable.
I think abortion is wrong because the human beings killed are valuable.
I agree that the unborn are the most vulnerable human beings, but I don’t think that’s the reason they are killed. I think they are killed because women are coerced into abortions, or they believe that abortion is the only way out of their circumstance: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
The unborn’s vulnerability simply makes them…vulnerable.
Is it possible that I’m misreading what you’re trying to say, John?
Josh,
What gives a human being value?
To me … vulnerability is the-hidden-key … because it points out many things about us & our lack-of-action. …. we are concerned with intruding in a hopeless situation … why bother? The aborting of a very young fetus is proposed as-a-good precisely because the babe is at the most-vulnerable … least cared-about stage … so few even know the woman-is-pregnant. Its as if the babe’s presence must be noticed-for-a-right-to-be-operable. Does a Right-to-Life grow?
Originally I too thought this was a rights-issue, but after so many years talking and talking, I began to understand that this fight concerns elimination of human vulnerability … human weakness. We either exist as weak isolates or bound-twisted=together(as one) -strong-rope.
Well put John.
Well put John.
Totally agree.
TruthSeeker, there are several different ways to ground human value. I won’t give a full defense for either of them here, but a thumbnail sketch that I hope you will find helpful.
1: Imago Dei. As a Christian, I believe that God did something special with human beings that He didn’t do with animals. He gave them intrinsic value, meaning that they are valuable because of the kind of thing they are, not what they can do functionally.
2: Natural inherent capacity for rational nature. Human beings have the inherent capacity to make moral decisions and have rational self-identity. I can think to myself, “when my wife said that thing to me last week, I had X emotional reaction. Was that an appropriate reaction or did I overreact?”
I’m not sure that there are any non-human animals that can do that, although a friend mine thinks that some recent research may suggest that chimps can do both of those things. I won’t weigh in on that until I see the research.
This argument is probably more philosophically rigorous and helpful to an atheist philosopher who hears the Imago Dei response and wants to ask about angels and certain kinds of fictional aliens, like those in Men in Black and District 9, who clearly seem to be valuable persons with a prima facie right to life, even though they are not humans made in God’s image.
3: Future Like Ours. This is atheist pro-life philosopher Don Marquis’ argument. He argues that killing is primarily wrong because it deprives someone from a future like ours, a future with valuable experiences. (Friendship, love, good food, great sex, etc.) I highly recommend his paper on the topic here: http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf
Hi Josh,
This may seem simple but many of your points are questionable, even the Christian one. If one looks at Jesus, His life was a flop – dying on a cross; had a bunch of losers for followers … fishermen and tax-collectors too; His teachings are still argued about today (after 2000 years). Still we are impertinent to claim importance (worth) only because of Who Jesus is. If we are made-in God’s image should we not embrace weakness instead of triumphalism? The other two ‘methods-for-gleaning-value) just are no where in the ball-park.
I studied chemistry about 40 years-ago. At that time a person could purchase the equivalent chemicals the comprise a human for @8 cents (inflation may have tripled that price to 24 CENTS). A family of 3 is 24 cents + 24 cents + 12 cents (for a smaller human body). More value than this is mere sentiment = no value.
If by “embrace weakness” you mean protect the vulnerable, I absolutely think we should do that.
I don’t think the fact that Jesus was killed, had questionable followers and his teachings are argued about today leads to the conclusion that “Jesus’ life was a flop.”
On the chemical thing, I think you’re confusing biology with philosophy. I think it takes more than mere chemicals to “comprise a human life.” A naturalist may believe that, but it seems to me that either human beings have intrinsic value or they are merely a collection of parts absent a soul. My view is the former, which makes me want to defend the valuable human beings who are vulnerable.
And forgive me, but I don’t think it’s sufficient to read a couple paragraphs that summarize arguments from intelligent philosophers and flippantly respond, “that’s just no where in the ball park.” It’s not obvious to me that you understand either argument enough to justify dismissing them yet.
Fishermen are losers? Your starting to get personal here, John. :)
Seriously though, another great post.
Josh,
I guess you do not understand just how revolutionary and radical Christianity is. Fr. Barron says that people of Jesus’-day were quite familiar with the saying: ‘Caesar is Lord’. To have any other say; ‘Jesus is Lord’, was … .
The things you express about valuing are quantifies … especially how much joy. The ancient philosophers would perceive value as beauty, nobility and courage Joy can come as relief-from-banging-your-head-against-a-wall. I doubt very much that classical scholars would find any solid footing in such a transient feeling as joy, even if joy is a peak experience, it is fraught with dependence-on memory/history.
The value that you perceive human-life is immense. That is not wrong, but it bestows no merit only because (life)such cannot be positively proven to exist – so it doesn’t. After playing with my numbers some-here(who do not ‘believe’-souls-exist) are forced to understand that human life is filled completely with value at all stages … we choose value for things/time/energy … health.
I absolutely concur with the argument that human beings from the day of conception are destined to be more that the sum of their biological parts. This “biochemical reactor” comparison that many in the field of Psychology make is just what feeds the pro-abort apparatus and gives it justification to dismiss the value of a developing preborn life.
If the pro-abortion movement can continue to dehumanize a life and call it a blob of cells based on this biological determinism (see feminist literature as replete with this justification for human life), than life remains just that. Reading up on the humanist perspective informs that each and every single being has intrinsic value and thus abortion effectively robs a preborn from achieving this existential (driven by the soul) potential.
There is no question in my mind as to NOT allow the “pro-choice” movement in their strife to redefine this God-given gift of life and purpose.
Sorry for the late post here.
#1. Josh: Don’t miss this point: I’ve (almost) never heard a pro-life person actually say that we shouldn’t mourn those other tragedies. But what they say comes across to many people as devaluing one tragedy to elevate the one issue they care most about.
I’m pro-choice, and don’t see much in the way of one side convincing the other. Unless one’s position is based on an erroneous assumption about matters of provable fact, what “reversal of the switch” can occur?
If one is saying, ”I’d be pro-choice except that with the unborn, brainwaves are present at 6 weeks gestation,” then it could be pointed out that it’s a ludicrous stretch to call it “brainwaves” at that stage. It’s not brainwaves, then.
If one is saying, ”I’d be pro-life except that the unborn are not human until X weeks gestation,” then it could be pointed out that human DNA is there all along, and that for the unborn it’s unique DNA from conception, different than both mother and father. The unborn are human, then.
It’s a rare thing where something can be proven, so easily, that would theoretically convince somebody to switch sides. I don’t think there really is much “persuading” going on.
I also don’t think most pro-lifers are “weird.” Hey – both sides have some nutjobs, but it’s not weird for people to state their beliefs and desires. Saying that tragedies where born people are killed result in the same loss of “human life” as does abortion is simply true, and as Josh said – you really don’t see pro-lifers trying to “reduce” the status of incidents where born people lose their lives.
#2. Other human rights injustices matter too.
Again, don’t see many pro-lifers denying that. I don’t see this as a substantial deal in the abortion debate.
#3. Comparing every instance of mass killing to abortion is rude.
How many times does this really come up? If a news article is about the mass killing and people comment on it, you’ll often have one or more people making the comparisons, but it’s already a given that some people believe that way, and I don’t see it as any real problem for pro-lifers as a whole.
#4. Thoughtful pro-choice people will see that you’re begging the question.
Well, you do beg the question, almost always. Saying, “I believe so-and-so” is not that, and cannot really be argued with. But most times, pro-lifers do assume propositions without proof.