Three times now, fellow contributor to Vox Nova Sam Rocha has posted on the language surrounding the abortion debate, following my post, ‘Words Do Matter’. To recap, that post was an attempt to respond to the polemical assaults on the pro-life movement from certain elements in the pro-choice movement. Briefly, they argued that the words of our movement were as responsible for the death of late-term abortionist George Tiller as the bullets that actually ended his life.
Sam argues that we cannot assume that truth is inherent in the words we use. This may be true, but here on Vox Nova, I am unaware of any other way of conveying things that I believe and/or know to be true other than through the medium of written communication. I get the sense that Sam is uncomfortable with people such as myself making truth claims.
Sam says in his latest post,
If it were only a matter of using factual information, language, images, and so on, then, telling the truth would be quite simple and we would have very little to talk about.
Perhaps it was never clear before to Sam, and to others, that the fundamental values we hold often come prior to the facts; they are often subjective. When I make an argument against abortion, an argument based upon the true facts, I am appealing only to those who value human life in all stages of development – or those who have the potential to share that value. Graphic language and graphic images serve a useful purpose in that they hit those who are waffling, who are on the fence, rather hard. But do they transform fundamental values? I hope so, but I don’t count on it.
Here I must note, however, that even if it is not ‘only a matter’ – that is to say, even if it is not sufficient to use factual information – it is necessary to do so. It is a pre-requisite. Necessary, but not always sufficient. Why can’t this simply be acknowledged? Or are we to understand that facts and true depictions of abortion are just optional? I suppose we could say that if the sanctity of life is a fundamental value, the facts matter little. I myself am no abortion expert; I know as much as I think I need to know, but it is the value I place on life that guides my considerations.
But in this great journey of life, many are only somewhat clear, if at all, on their values, on where they stand on the fundamental issues of our day. A ‘brute’ presentation of the facts, a harsh reminder from outside of one’s own limited consciousness, is often necessary to help them come along. In the end, one may or may not value human life; but if one is ambivalent or even supportive of abortion on the assumption that the unborn child is not really a human being, then there is no doubt that the words and images we use can only serve to disrupt that position.
Sam then says,
if we desire to bring about beliefs that are rooted in the truth, then, we must do more than use words that we regard as having a single, absolute meaning
If anyone is unclear as to the meaning of a word I or anyone else is using, they need only ask for clarification. For instance, ‘murder’. It is an easy way of saying, ‘the deliberate killing of an innocent human being’. Is there some other word we ought to use to convey that?
The only possible objection to the use of this word is that the ‘thing’ being killed isn’t really a human being. It is some sort of pre-human, non-human, ‘clump of cells’ with no inherent right to live. Well naturally I expect that from someone who calls themselves pro-choice; but here, I thought I was dealing with people who are pro-life, who take as a given that the unborn human being is as human, and possesses the same rights, as anyone else.
Those who share that position should know that there is no point in opposing abortion at all if it isn’t murder. And anyone who did so in the past, that is, on the assumption that abortion really wasn’t murder, probably really was trying to preserve a ‘patriarchal’ society or whatever it is the feminists alleged are the ‘real’ anti-woman motives of the pro-life movement. Well, as I see it, that isn’t a legitimate reason to oppose abortion. Either the unborn human being has human rights or it does not. Either a violation of its right to life is murder, or it is not. And if it does not, and if it is not, then we ought to have free abortion on demand now, tomorrow, and forever.
Sam goes on to admit that “abortion is, as a matter of medical fact, murder” and that the argument establishing it is “sensible”. But still, we are missing something:
What is ignored by this sensible argument is that, to those who advocate for it, abortion is not murder. In fact, abortion advocates see it as an affirmation of the dignity of woman. Many of them volunteer and organize to preserve the right to abortion out of the belief that those who say that “Abortion is baby killing, period!” are in fact trying to subvert women.
I don’t know who ignores all of this, but it isn’t me. I was once in that movement, not exactly abortion advocacy, but far enough on the left to bump shoulders with enough people engaged in that sort of thing.
In the way they see it, we are trying to ‘subvert women’ by taking away a choice from them we don’t believe they have a right to make. It is more than likely true that without abortion, there are many young women who might not make it through college, or through a career track. There may be siblings in crowded poor families who lose their opportunity to do the same because meager resources are spread among greater numbers of children. Abortion certainly has made certain aspects of life easier for certain demographics, men and women alike, from one point of view.
What we believe is that the life of an innocent child is more important than the educational or career plans of its mother or its siblings (it is not strictly a female issue, as you can see, as male siblings and fathers also have a stake in the issue). We can only settle this question by settling the question of whether or not it is ok to kill the living being in the womb. One pro-life writer put it best, and I paraphrase Gregory Koukl: if abortion is not murder, then no reason is required for it. If abortion is murder, then no reason is adequate for it.
Sam tells us about his friend and his daughter:
“Do you have a daughter?” I admitted that I did not. He went on to say, “Until you have a daughter, you won’t understand.”
I have known many people who make this argument – “until you are such and such, you will never understand this issue”. It is complete nonsense, and no other complete breakdown of reason has the potential to annoy me as much as this.
What this man, and so many others, are essentially arguing, is that our concern as fathers would be so overriding that any of the objective moral and ethical considerations we are making here are practically useless. Why have laws about anything, then? And why isn’t this discussion just as valid:
“Are you an Aryan superman?”
“No, I’m not”.
“Then you can’t know what it is like to have to share a planet with all of these untermenschen, particularly the Jews.”
If only we could feel his pain!
Back to Sam:
But the greater point would be that his belief would stay the same, or become even more convinced that those people who think he is an advocate of murder, among other things, are crazy. And his belief, while wrong in many ways, would be rooted in truth, real truth.
You can’t satisfy everyone all of the time. If this man really believes that the love of his daughter is at stake in his position over abortion, why would you even try to argue with him in the first place? Such an irrational position cannot be reasoned with, anymore than that of my hypothetical Aryan superman, or a Southern plantation owner convinced, deeply, of the inferiority of the black man.
The truth of abortion does not appeal to everyone. If this man could look at the bloody, mangled corpses of human beings and not be moved an inch, but instead think that you were the crazy one for even caring about such things, then why would we want him as an ally anyway? Southerners could see for themselves that free black men who made it North could educate themselves, live and work as well as any white man; but did that matter, with all that was at stake for them? Of course not.
As far as I am concerned, we only need a majority, not unanimous consent. The solution to pro-abortion fanaticism is not to convert the pro-abortion fanatics, but to outnumber them and make them politically irrelevant. From that standpoint, our words and images are and will continue to be a success, though there is still a very long way to go – I am often dismayed by the false optimism of pro-lifers whenever a new poll comes out.
And please don’t read this as an argument that they are beyond salvation. I am speaking of the political level; I still believe that, having souls and free will and a conscience, they can change their hearts. What I am saying is that our strategy need not depend upon it, and that my priority is to stop the killing, not convince the killers that they are really killing.
To close this out:
You see, my friend can only begin to have a frank and direct conversation with me when he believes that I truly want the best for women, for his daughter.
Sam, I hate to say it, but your friend is morally stunted. To say exactly what you said here is the same as saying that your friend will only have a frank discussion with you when you believe what he believes. Why can’t the conditions for a discussion be him wanting what is best for fragile human life in the womb?
In the end, Sam, I think you and I have different objectives, and hence, different approaches. You want to get committed supporters of abortion to see that you don’t hate women and to listen to your point of view. I want to make those same people politically irrelevant.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In