More pro-abort nonsense & my response
.
Got up early this morning. Read the paper. More nonsense from Ina Hughs. It’s the same old stuff she normally writes. But I did post a response you might find interesting.
Comment responding to Ina Hughs op-ed piece in Knoxville News Sentinel:
Ms. Hughs raises a good point. In fact, I’m going to agree with many of the points she made.
First of all, perhaps we should include fathers in these sessions. The Elliot Institute reports that as many as 64% of abortions are coerced, many of them by irresponsible men, family members, employers, etc. Anything that will reduce the pressure on women to abort would be a step in the right direction. More people need to know about the development of the baby inside, the physical and emotional hazards of abortion, etc. But as Ms. Hughs noted, finding some of the more corrupt miscreants who impregnate women would be difficult. And, according to existing law, it is the mother only who has the final say whether the baby lives or dies, so that might explain some of the limitations of the North Carolina law.
Ms. Hughs is also correct when she says that compared to men, women do bear the greater burden for the consequences of sexual “freedom.” By any measure (pregnancy, the health effects of STDs, and abortion, just to name a few), women pay a heavy, heavy price so that irresponsible and predatory men can have whatever they want. People who buy into the lie of “sexual freedom” find out later it ain’t quite so “free.” That’s why we work so hard to keep the sex merchants like Planned Parenthood out of the schools our children attend.
Ms Hughs says, “no woman should be told by her government that she must have a child anymore than she should ever be told she cannot have a child.” No disagreement here. I don’t think anybody favors forced sex nor forced birth control. But in a civilized society, every human being deserves respect. No person should have the right to unjustly kill another.
Ms. Hughs says that pro-lifers should help women in crisis. Right again! That’s why the overwhelming majority of pro-life resources (money, volunteer time, etc.) go to support pregnancy resource centers like the one across the street from one of the abortion clinics here in Knoxville. The Hope Resource Center (www.hoperesourcecenterknoxville.com) arranges for medical care, housing, adoption, help with parenting, and more. In addition to that, we pay federal, state, and local taxes to create a safety net for people who need it. It’s unfortunate that so much of the money we pay goes to bureaucrats and people who don’t need it, but we still pay.
I’ll grant you that we should have more pregnancy centers, maybe one for each abortion clinic. But is it productive, Ms. Hughs, to ignore most of what we do and belittle the rest?
And the failure of pro-lifers to do enough (in Ms. Hughs’ estimation) for moms and babies in crisis does not make it OK to kill a baby … any more than our failure to do enough for battered women makes it OK to beat your wife.
Ms. Hughs falls victim to one of the most common logical fallacies when she implies that our only two choices are to either (a) provide cradle-to-grave welfare or (b) keep it legal to kill children before they are born. It’s called a “false dilemma.” In a civilized society, we protect the weak from the strong. That’s why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, etc. That does not obligate us to create Ms. Hughs’ version of a utopian welfare state.
Ms. Hughs wants to know what are the pro-lifers going to do about all these children if they are allowed to live and not be killed. It’s the same silly argument used to justify the continuation of slavery 150 years ago, “If we turn all these slaves loose, who is going to take care of them?”
Ms. Hughs says she is not pro-abortion, she is pro-choice. That’s essentially what Stephen Douglas said about slavery. He said that he was not in favor of slavery, but he believed that the Southern states should have the right to choose whether to be slave states or free states. I would argue that by the same token we say Mr. Douglas was pro-slavery, we can assert that Ms Hughs is pro-abortion.
And finally, Ms. Hughs engages in the most glaring ad hominem attack when she asserts that because some pro-lifers happen to be men, it is OK to kill a preborn child. How silly. Either (a) the preborn child is a living human being whose life must be respected, or (b) the preborn child may be killed at will. My gender has nothing to do with it. But if you have some kind of hangup about that, there are many, many women who will make the same arguments I make. Would Ms. Hughs listen to them? No. It’s just a cheap way of changing the subject and avoiding the issue, “Who is the unborn child and may we kill her?”
Tags: Ina Hughs, informed consent, Knoxville News Sentinel, North Carolina, pro-choice, pro-life arguments
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 at 9:07 am and is filed under Pro Life Apologetics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses to “More pro-abort nonsense & my response”
Leave a Reply
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:49 am
Wow, what flawed insight Ina! So many holes in your justification of killing the one who is currently living in the world: the child in utero!
Let’s take your wording of “scare tactics” and “moral high ground” The proper and loving thing for one person to do for another person is to let them know what it is they are headed for: Abortion will kill your baby, it will leave a scar(emotionally, physically, spritually, etc) and will forever change your relationship with whom you created this child with. Many men do care what is going to happen to their child (through abortion) yet they have been forced out of the decision by the crowd that says: My body, My Choice! Ms Hughs states,”For those who think ending a pregnancy is a crime.” Killing another is a crime and its not the solution-just because its legal does not make it so!
July 13th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
This is a complex issue with well-meaning, responsible and intelligent people on both sides. My opinions are just that, and that’s what I get paid to write.
But you are being very unprofessional and taking a cheap shot when you put words in my mouth, which you do in several instances. For example:
You write: “And finally, Ms. Hughs engages in the most glaring ad hominem attack when she asserts that because some pro-lifers happen to be men, it is OK to kill a preborn child.”
I never even remotely implied such silliness. I did make the point that it is the woman/mother who bears the most responsibility – legally and pragmatically – a fact which is so very substantiated it is a no-brainer.
Disagree with me, challenge me – but do not put words in my mouth. It only suggests a desperate and weak counter-position.
Ina Hughs
July 13th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Ms. Hughs,
Thank you for your comment. I will agree with you that well-meaning, reasonable, and intelligent people on both sides can disagree. But the tone of your column—indeed, the tone of every one of your columns—leaves little room for the suggestion that pro-lifers can be either well-meaning, reasonable, or intelligent.
Well-meaning, reasonable, and intelligent people can also disagree as to whether (1) you implied that the abortion status quo may be maintained because the arguments against it are, in your estimation, more often advanced by men, and (2) whether this amounts to an ad hominem attack.
You said, “It is interesting to me that – at least in my experience of watching and listening and paying attention – men are the most adamant advocates to ban reproduction rights for women. I have mail to prove it each time I write about this issue.”
According to Wikipedia, An ad hominem is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.
In my judgement—and I hope that it is a reasonable jugdement—you linked the truth of arguments against abortion to the male gender of those making the arguments, as if the arguments could be rendered invalid on that basis. How else can I interpret your statement?
I could also point out that you put words in our mouths when you claimed that pro-lifers are part of the “family values crowd” who want to cut services to women and don’t care so much about born children. I would further argue that this, too, was an ad hominem attack on pro-lifers.
It is clear that you are correct about one thing: “the woman/mother who bears the most responsibility – legally and pragmatically.” Here’s what I said: “Ms. Hughs is also correct when she says that compared to men, women do bear the greater burden for the consequences of sexual “freedom.” By any measure (pregnancy, the health effects of STDs, and abortion, just to name a few), women pay a heavy, heavy price so that irresponsible and predatory men can have whatever they want. People who buy into the lie of “sexual freedom” find out later it ain’t quite so “free.” That’s why we work so hard to keep the sex merchants like Planned Parenthood out of the schools our children attend.”
I will try never to put words in your mouth. I really don’t believe I have done that, but reasonable people can disagree. Of course, you are always free to point out any of my errors or any differences of opinion we might have.
Fletcher