The Most Insidious Pro-Choicers

I go on Goodreads fairly often, and if I comment on a book review I get updates on the ongoing conversation there. One reviewer wrote a long review bashing “The Book Thief”, one of my favorite books. Of course, I had to defend it. I left the thread a while ago after making my case, but the updates still show up. Recently this chilling comment, by the creator of the original review, came up in my feed (this was a short section of a larger comment):

I’m pro-choice, but I understand and find myself agreeing with the pro-lifers. I agree that life begins at conception and that abortion seems pretty damn barbaric and I’ll never have one; but pro-lifers will never change my change my pro-choice stance because I don’t believe the government should tell you what you can and can’t do with your body.

This is the absolute worst type of pro-choicer: The one who knows you’re killing a human child and knows that abortion is barbaric (“Seems?”), but decides that their right to kill their own children, forced to depend on them for nourishment, is worth the life of an utterly defenseless, completely innocent human being.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Most Insidious Pro-Choicers

  1. rdmiksa says:

    Dear Malcolm,

    I would not be surprised if deep-down, this was not the case for most “pro-choice” individuals. Perhaps they don’t believe that life necessarily begins at conception, but I would happily wager that if they were being completely honest, most of them would admit that they believe that life begins relatively soon after conception, and thus they tacitly understand that in many instances, abortion is murder. This is why, in so many cases, they cannot stand looking at pictures of what abortion does to the unborn, because their rational faculties immediately and instinctively infer that what they are seeing is the gruesome murder of a human being, and they must then fight and rationalize away that immediate and obvious inference. Just like when you look at Mount Rushmore, you immediately infer that it was designed, so too when you look at the abortion of a second or third trimester baby, you immediately infer that a human being was just killed.

    Take care,

    RD Miksa

    • Res says:

      No, they like fornicating.

      This isn’t about their right to kill their own children, which is the point (obviously they don’t want it), it’s that they don’t want the government to legislate people’s bodies because they want them to ban minds instead. He’s a fairly average pro-choicer, though, which works to your benefit, because he’s obviously not a pro-lifer, except in the sense that Nietzsche was pro-life because he was female. Neither of them are very good at it, obviously, unlike Jesus.

  2. Jakeithus says:

    I think what you’re describing, far from being some insidious outlier, is actually pretty standard when it comes to pro-choicers. It’s why they jump so quickly to say “we’re not pro-abortion” and to position themselves as finding abortion personally distasteful.

    Following the reasoning to the logical conclusion, it becomes increasingly clear that human life, personhood, or whatever value one chooses to assign humanity is present far before birth. While some pro-choicers will deny this (unsuccessfully, and likely out of the desire to not look like a moral monster), in my experience more and more are accepting the reality, but just not caring. I think a growing segment realize it’s a losing battle for them to deny the humanity of children in the womb, so they’re doubling down on convincing people of the sacredness of “choice”, “independence”, “sexual freedom”, “women’s rights” and “bodily autonomy”.

    • Oh, I don’t think it’s an uncommon view, but it’s horribly evil.

      • Jakeithus says:

        My first thought was how insidious can they be if they are such a large segment of pro-choicers, but I suppose their insidiousness is not due to how noticeable they are, but in the fact that they try so hard to portray something evil as a moral good.

  3. Sy says:

    pro-lifers will never change my change my pro-choice stance because I don’t believe the government should tell you what you can and can’t do with your body.

    I don’t think this person really believes this, unless he or she also opposes prisons, court orders, policemen, etc. There are obviously (very limited) circumstances under which the state can mandate certain actions be taken or not be taken by its citizens. The question is what those circumstances are. For instance, the state can tell you that you’re not allowed to rape another person under threat of incarceration, and that’s clearly an instance of being told what you can and can’t do with your body. The question isn’t one of complete personal autonomy (unless you’re an absolute anarchist and don’t think that the state can mandate laws at all), it’s one of what are the situations in which the state has a large enough interest in the actions of its citizens that it can proscribe or forbid certain actions.

  4. Latias says:

    What do you think is more insidious, the Peter Singer or the Judith Thomson pro-abortionists?

  5. Josh Hallett says:

    The obvious irony in her position is that it is explicitly through a government mandate that she is able to obtain an abortion in the first place. All of the infrastructure, cogs and wheels that allow for a woman to obtain an abortion were made possible first by a legal apparatus. It is always strange that these people never tend to notice the ginormous bureaucratic monolith that crops up every time they score another victory for “personal liberty”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s