How Ben Carson Inspires Anti-Choice Extremists

In light of the act of terrorism committed at a Planned Parenthood clinic last month in Colorado Springs, many have brought up the fact that mainstream anti-choice rhetoric often galvanizes the extremists. This rhetoric is frequently expressed by Republican political candidates, notably including Ben Carson. His stance is especially alarming when considering the fact that he’s lauded as the “reasonable” and “moderate” conservative option.

Carson is against same sex marriage, but enthusiastically supports the sanctity of marriage between church and state. He has also been consistently vocal about his anti-choice position. In an October interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he stated that he believes abortion should be illegal even in the cases of rape and incest. Carson presents himself as guided by even-handed logic and reason, but look at this quote from the interview: “I’m a reasonable person and if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen.”

The above quote is a prime example of begging the question (although it’s a statement, not a question). He frames it in a way that already assumes certain factors—that abortion is “killing a baby”, and that people seeking abortions are doing so because they “like” to terminate pregnancies. As if they derive joy and fun from the experience. This is the type of assumption that inflames anti-abortion fanatics to the point of wanting to murder doctors and patients, because they see it as a genuine battle between good and evil.

As a person who has worked many years in the field of medicine and science, Carson should be well aware that an early-stage embryo is not a baby. Before it has a brain, it has no consciousness or subjective experience. Before it has nerves, it cannot feel pain. It makes no sense to personify such a pre-developed life form and to talk about it as if it experiences suffering. Because doctors are aware of this, their only reasoning for defining an embryo as a baby can be religious. This applies in Ben Carson’s case.

His religious ilk defends this rhetoric by citing Bible verses from Psalms saying “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.” Even purely within the context of that belief system, it can be argued that this isn't defining embryos as babies. It's King David talking about himself, not about all people. Additionally, Numbers 5:26-28 advises its readers to carry out a procedure that will cause their wives to miscarry if they suspect them of being pregnant with another man's offspring (“...If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.”) This is from a recipe to deliberately induce abortion. There are Old Testament passages in which “God” threatens to slice open the bellies of pregnant women (Hosea 13:16). Thus people can't accurately argue that the Bible forbids or even frowns upon ending the life of fetuses. Some might respond to the passages about cutting open pregnant women with, “Well, that's only under specific circumstances and only if ordered by God,” but that sounds like obvious straw-grasping. Going on to say “thou shalt not kill” is just talking in circles because no passage defines abortion as murder. Also, how many Christians take that to its absolute literal and all-encompassing conclusion? How many are vegetarians, for example? How many refuse to kill animals under any circumstance (if “all life is sacred”)?

The above argument aside, there is no reason a President or hypothetical President should be invoking religious rationale for laws in a country that is supposed to operate on separation of church and state. Ben Carson himself has acknowledged this in his explanation of why a theocratic Muslim is not fit to be president. For this issue, though, he doesn't seem to apply it to Christians.

The “Christian nation” he envisions may not include zealots opening fire at Planned Parenthood clinics, but his rationale packs the weight of their bullets. It’s time we start acknowledging the role that such viewpoints play in these acts of violence.

The 3 least honest pro-life arguments

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.”

-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.