Everyone
has heard a virulent pro-lifer refer to those who disagree with them as “babykillers”, because
believing that abortion should be legal is the same as “killing a baby,” and
because pro-choice people must obviously
see a fertilized egg as a sentient being and gleefully celebrate the death of
it. Not all pro-life individuals believe this, but the most vocal and
aggressive ones do. In addition, many of the loudest tend to rely on a host of
bad faith arguments to make their points. To argue in bad faith is to make an
argument you don’t genuinely believe to be true.
So
far, these three talking points seem to be the most commonly used—and misused—by
those opposed to choice.
-Religious fundamentalists who believe
abortion should be illegal but support the death penalty will argue that those two views are not in
opposition because they care about protecting “innocent” life, and they don’t
see death row inmates as innocent. But the truth is that many of them don’t
believe innocent life exists at all. This is the view of many anti-choicers—and
I say anti-choice instead of pro-life because it’s possible to be personally
opposed to abortion but still want to keep it legal. However, these people want
to eliminate the choice altogether. The fundamentalist Catholics who are
anti-choice believe in original sin. They think everyone is born with an
inherently “sinful” nature, including infants. Many conservative Protestants
believe this, too. I have actually seen a really outlandish, disturbing blog
post by an extremist who claimed that crying babies are sinning by expressing “selfishness”!
(And no, this wasn’t satire.) So if these particular anti-choicers say it’s consistent for them to support the death penalty while calling for an end to
legal abortion because they care about innocent
life, they either lack the self-awareness to recognize their cognitive
dissonance or they are arguing in bad faith.
On
a related note, many of these same folks will claim to believe in an “age of
accountability” in which a child automatically goes to heaven if they die
before a certain age, usually before twelve years old or so. Following that
line of thinking, it seems counterintuitive that they don’t extol abortion, considering
their belief that all fetuses are “saved” from hell. If they really believe
this, then wouldn’t they do anything possible to salvage its soul? Horrifically,
some fundamentalists have even ended the lives of their fully sentient,
non-fetal children in the belief that they were securing them a place in
heaven. But for some reason, they still wouldn’t support abortion. (For a more
detailed argument from an ex-fundamentalist, I’d recommend reading this: http://tinyurl.com/n3adqzp ).
-Anti-choicers claim to regard a child as a “gift,” but their punitive attitude toward women who have any kind of sex they disapprove of is very telling. I’ve had countless discussions with such people who call pregnancy a gift and say that all women should be grateful for it, and then go on to say, “If you have [premarital/unprotected/“promiscuous”] sex, then this is your punishment.”
-Anti-choicers claim to regard a child as a “gift,” but their punitive attitude toward women who have any kind of sex they disapprove of is very telling. I’ve had countless discussions with such people who call pregnancy a gift and say that all women should be grateful for it, and then go on to say, “If you have [premarital/unprotected/“promiscuous”] sex, then this is your punishment.”
-And finally, there is a third
bad faith argument which pretends to be disinterested in the ethics of abortion
and instead focuses on demonizing the poor. This is what happens when
somebody says they think abortion should be legal, but only for those who can
afford to cover it themselves. The reasoning usually goes, “I don’t care what
you do with your body, but don’t ask me to pay for it.” Whatever the speaker
may say, they do care what others do
with their bodies if they decide there are certain expenses they don’t want to
help with via insurance or taxes because of their own disapproval. It’s
possible for someone to object to paying into any medical care of any kind, but
that is rarely the reason. Usually the one making this argument will say, “Well,
I’m fine with helping to cover something like cancer treatment, but I don’t
want to pay for anyone’s birth control coverage or abortion.” Picking and
choosing based on personal tastes is
a moral judgment, and they want to be in the position of limiting options for
those living in poverty. It gives them both a feeling of moral superiority and
a paternalistic sense of control, under the guise of “I’m the one who knows
what’s best for you.” This patronizing attitude is also seen in the way people want
to regulate what kinds of groceries others are allowed to buy with food stamps.
They accuse the poor of
being irresponsible and dependent, but they really seem to relish treating them
like helpless children who can’t make their own decisions. Then, when poor
women have children they can’t financially support, the same people will grumble
about it and say “I don’t want to pay for your child” or even “You should have
kept your legs shut.” They want to enforce celibacy on those who are living
below the poverty line, like parents who tell their fifteen-year-old daughter
to keep her bedroom door open when her boyfriend is over. And then they go on
about how the poor need to act more like adults.
There are other bad faith arguments
to mention, and you are welcome to contribute any you have heard. Once recognized,
you can call them out for what they are: dishonest attempts to look righteous
or discourage dissent.
