Stupid Pro-Life Dumbnuts

Yeah that's right. I said it. Though I have to now qualify that title: stupid prolife dorktards trying to have public "discussion" at UCSB today. Let me give you a run down.

You're walking to class. You're listening to Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now" because you're having a good time. Because you're like a shooting star leaping through the sky like a tiger defying the laws of gravity. Because you are like a racing car passing by like Lady Godiva and burning through the sky at hundred degrees (and that's why they call you Mr. Farenheit). You look around at the beautiful weather and the sun and (pretend you're a guy), the oodles of young nubile female skin on display. You're thinking life is good. You see a lot of happy faces around. You see a picture of a bloody foetus. Yay! Happy happy joy joy!

Now of course, these were posters on a big pro-life display with various activists in front of them telling you what a terrible person you are for not stopping genocide and the murder of innocent children. Shouldn't a man take responsiblity if he rapes a woman?

Whooooaaaaaaaaaaa. Let's go through that slowly.

First of all, media used for shock value very rarely stands up to scrutiny. They rarely convey the true meaning of whatever cause they supposedly bring attention to and at their worst, which is often, they throw the rhetoric of "the cause" into suspicion. If pro-life activist believe that "the truth" is that every abortion leads us one step closer to desecration of all that is holy and apocalypse, then why can't they argue that point? Why must they throw a dead foetus in your face?

Second of all, there's no such thing as pro-abortion. If pro-life means that all foetuses must be allowed to live than it follows that pro-abortion means that all foetuses must be aborted. Short of those who would like the complete extinction of the human race, I don't think there are many pro-abortion supporters. It's a matter of semantics but when dealing with pro-life activists such as those I encountered today, it seems to be just that.

For example: genocide. How is abortion genocide? Even if you somehow take away the known associations of the word with the massacre of an entire race of people and equate "race" with the category of "foetus", you still have to kill all foetuses to warrant the word "genocide". If one inststs further that no, it's not genoicde of all foetuses but it IS genocide since all aborted foetuses die, then what is the inherent difference between a foetus that is about to be aborted and one that is not? Calling abortion "genocide" is not only inaccurate, it's manipulative. There is no other possible explanation for using such a word when the users know full well the horrific but non sequitur implications. No, I take it back, there is one other explanation. Whoever came up with those signs calling abortion "genocide" is clinically mentally retarded. Yeah right, I wish.

Then there's the matter of what the activists talked about: in a 30minute discussion, not once did I ever hear the issue of a woman's right to choose come up. The inherent difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that one gives every woman the right to choose while the other says to every woman "no, we know better. It is NEVER better to have an abortion." Now, I concede that there are situations where it IS better not to have an abortion but I can't imagine that it would be the case for EVERY situation for EVERY woman EVERYWHERE. So why aren't the pro-life activists spending time trying to prove me wrong? Why aren't they trying to prove that their choice is the right choice for EVERY woman in EVERY case for ALL time EVERYWHERE?

Instead, I heard talk about rape. About how women should have the child and that the man responsible should take responsiblity. How does this have anything to do with the core issue of choice or no choice? If anything, the case of rape is a better point for pro-choice people. It's easy to construct a situation where the rapist is unable to be found and where the woman is not financially or emotionally stable to have a child. What does the pro-life activists say about this case? From what I heard, they offer an idealistic candy-coated story. The man should be found and made to pay they say. Even if the man can't be found, a support network should be established for these women, they say. Where is that support network then? What happens if abortion is made illegal?

And why are we talking about rape anyway? Because the pro-life activists are somehow trying to establish rape as a case where abortion is not good at all and therefore abortion should be banned. What? That's like arguing that since there is one student at a college who got an F, all students at said colleges shouldn't be allowed to take classes because they're retards anyway. There is absolute no collection between the minority case and a blanket statement about all cases. That's a synechdochal convenience that should never be made.

In essence, the concept of pro-life is NOT equal and opposite to pro-choice and it is fighting an uphill battle. The concept of pro-choice is like a mathematical theorem. It says being pregnant = you should have the child in every case with no exceptions. A theorem can be disproved by finding a flaw in its internal logic or by finding a counterexample. In this case, the pro-choice camp have lots and lots of counterexamples they are throwing at the pro-life people and I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the pro-lifers that covers EVERY CONCEIVABLE CASE of a woman being pregnant and the situations surrounding that case. Why don't the pro-choice people have to go through this rigorous defense? Because they do not aspire to an absolute in the first place.

What about exceptions I can hear pro-lifers say. Maybe exceptions can be made for women with extenuating circumstances. Sure. But then you are admitting that an abortion is SOMETIMES a better option and that opens up a whole can of pro-choice worms. Why those exceptions? Who decides what is an exceptional case and what isn't? Why do those people get to decide? Etc.

In the end though, the main problem with the pro-life activists and display I saw today wasn't their pro-life argument. Sadly, I didn't hear much of that at all. What was problematic was the manipulative and empty way in which the activists tried to recruit people to their camp. It wasn't about the babies, it wasn't about abortion, and it wasn't about rape. It was about being pro-life and only about "being pro-life". There was no content behind it, no real philosophical or moral agenda. When a campaign comes of this empty, this lifeless, what is the point? Perhaps it's time to abort some of these events and think them over...