No, it isn’t even remotely hypocritical.
Unless you agree that the Innocence Project is a bunch of hypocrites, since more people die of cancer than are executed in the US.
Regards,
Shodan
Kinda like saying that astro was the H_St_C of Dopers?
Completely off-point analogy, because the Innocence Project is specifically about exonerating people wrongfully convicted by the legal system. Not about avoiding or reducing deaths in general.
The self-described “pro-life” movement, however, explicitly describes its mission and justification as affirming the status of embryos and fetuses as fully human persons from the very moment of conception, and defending their lives as equally important/sacred as those of born persons.
To make that case convincingly, so-called “pro-lifers” need to demonstrate that they do take the lives of the “pre-born” as seriously as those of born persons.
When the movement as a whole can’t spare any non-negligible amount of attention for a devastating threat to “pre-born” lives that kills several times as many as induced abortion does, they’re telegraphing very clearly that they don’t really view fertilized ova as “fully human”, any more than abortion-rights supporters do.
If they were merely “anti-abortion” in the way that some activists are “anti-animal slaughter”, as in “well, we don’t consider these creatures quite the same as humans or entitled to fully human rights, but we still think it’s a bad thing for people to kill them”, they wouldn’t be hypocrites. (I still wouldn’t happen to agree with them, but they wouldn’t be hypocrites.)
But since their whole raison d’etre is supposed to be how even the tiniest Homo sapiens blastocyst is exactly as much a full human being as anybody else and its life is just as precious and important and sacred as any other human life, then the fact that its life is actually of no serious institutional concern to them in any context except the practice of abortion makes them hypocrites to the core.
Which, just like the Innocence Project, is not about avoiding or reducing deaths in general.
So the analogy is right on the money. The Innocence Project concerns itself with wrongfully condemned convicts, and cares nothing about the much larger number of deaths of the innocent from natural causes. Anti-abortion folks concern themselves with wrongfully killed fetuses, and care nothing about the much larger number of deaths of fetuses from natural causes. Either they are both hypocrites, or neither are.
And of course police are hypocrites for working to prevent murder instead of cancer, people who protest war are hypocrites for not protesting heart disease, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Kimstu? Shodan. Don’t bother.
Shut up, you fucking troll.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, while there may be no point trying to talk sense or facts to Shodan, it can be useful to other posters (or those they discuss the subject with in other contexts) to explain where he’s wrong.
Nope, because the “pro-lifers” aren’t operating from a generally accepted equivalence when it comes to “life”. Here’s a more succinct refutation of your argument:
The Innocence Project, the “pro-life” movement, and pretty much everybody else share the same basic presupposition that The lives of innocent human persons should not be taken away.
The obvious question to ask of any organization that claims to be fighting under the banner of that principle is, How is your cause about the lives of innocent human persons?
The Innocence Project answers that question straightforwardly with “Well, these prisoners are obviously human persons, duh, and here’s the evidence that they’re actually innocent of the crimes they were wrongly convicted of.”
The “pro-life” movement, on the other hand, responds with “Well, these pre-borns are obviously innocent, duh, and they count as human persons because…because…God says so, or it’s more humane, or they’re going to count indisputably as human persons at some point in their development so we should count them as such right from the get-go, or they just are because they are.”
That second response is clearly a much less objective and straightforward answer than the first. So if the “pro-life” movement wants to make a consistent and credible case for their position, they need to bear witness to the importance of treating “pre-born” lives as fully equivalent to other human lives in all circumstances. Not just when somebody’s trying to abort one.
Even shorter refutation:
The Innocence Project is trying to convince people that the prisoners it seeks to save from execution are innocent. If their behavior indicates that even they don’t really believe these prisoners are innocent, then they’re hypocrites.
The “pro-life” movement is trying to convince people that the “pre-borns” it seeks to save from abortion are fully human persons. If their behavior indicates that even they don’t really believe these “pre-borns” are fully human persons, then they’re hypocrites.
I have not read this thread so if I repeat someone’s post, please excuse. ‘You’ and ‘your’ are used in the impersonal sense.
I am both pro baby and pro choice.
But it really is none of my business as I am past the age of having babies. The only persons concerned as to whether or not an abortion should take place are the woman/mother, her doctor, and the man/father if applicable, and in that order.
Abortion is like so many other areas of concern. If we would all mind our own business, there would be fewer problems in the world. Who was it said that most of the problems in the world are caused by people wanting to feel important? To get involved in something that does not impact nor concern you is doing just that. Politicians included.
Telling someone she cannot have an abortion because of YOUR religion or beliefs, is like me telling you that you cannot have that donut because I am on a diet.
In fourteen years here, this is the first evidence I have that you actually read something I posted. Unless it was directed to Kimstu. I’m gonna assume that, being “ignore” by you is an honor I won’t give up lightly.
And no, I won’t.
Mind your own damned business.
Regards,
Those of us who actually have a uterus.
Now now. Shodan’s right not to be pestered on a message board is much more important than women’s rights to bodily autonomy.
(Actually, IIRC and I may not because I don’t read his posts, Shodan is pro-choice. He just carries water for the anti-abortion folks, which I find hilarious.)
Actually, I think it’s more that he just likes to post drive-by zingers and doesn’t care so much what the topic is.
To be fair, though, on reflection I think it’s worth modifying my use of the term “hypocritical”. While it’s certainly true that the pro-life movement as a whole is inconsistent and consequently somewhat dishonest in its attitude towards fetal personhood, I don’t think most of them have any kind of Tartuffian conscious insincerity going on with it.
They generally just don’t realize the illogicality implied in combining pro-life claims with prevailing societal concepts of embryos and fetuses. Witness gigi, who I’m quite willing to believe is perfectly sincere in her commitment to a “fetal personhood” stance in the abstract, obliviously passing over the existence of multiple millions of actual embryo deaths annually, because they happen before the woman realizes she’s pregnant. That’s not deliberate hypocrisy, that’s just an entrenched lapsus logicae that most “pro-lifers” simply haven’t thought about.
I agree with that quote. People don’t like being called pro-abortion because abortion is supposed to be a bad thing no one likes (“safe, legal, and rare”). But if you support people choosing abortion then you’ve made a mental calculation that it’s an acceptable tradeoff. It may be a rhetorical cheat to imply that’s your main focus (as if you seek to maximize total abortions), but it’s practically true that you’re in favor of them being allowed.
An analogy would be with pro-war people. Their favorite feel good term is “collateral damage.” In some fantasy world there’s no collateral damage. Since that’s impossible they must accept thousands of dead innocents as a trade off. But they really don’t like being confronted with the actual outcomes of their policy.
Maybe not a wise tactical decision in the past, but I wouldn’t run away from being called pro-abortion. They already think you kill babies. “N-no, I’m pro choice!” just sounds so weasely, like some slick PR tool cooked up to make squeamish soccer moms more comfortable.
When given my druthers, I call myself “pro abortion rights.”
The problem I have with being labeled “pro abortion” is it suggests that I’d be unhappy if the number of abortions were to go down because women didn’t want them. In actuality, I’d be delighted, not because I have an issue with abortion but because it’s expensive and more dangerous and more traumatic than not getting pregnant in the first place.
I think the people avoiding reality are those who want the kind of harsh laws proposed by the person being pitted. It is often those who call themselves pro-life who really do want to avoid thinking about what they’re really proposing. They want to avoid thinking that the fetus doesn’t exist in an featureless ether but in a real women. They like to pretend that nothing will happen if they make abortions illegal other than potentially reducing the number of abortions. It’s a lot of wishful thinking that avoids the known reality of what they propose.
How many birthers are anti-abortion? Do they only think of a fetal Obama as being a legal US citizen if he had been conceived in Kenya, or do they recognize that he could have been conceived in the US, and therefore was not a “person” until he was born in Kenya?
What is so sacred about human life, anyhow? The world population is increasing exponentially and people go hungry now.
Humans do dreadful things to other humans, to animals, and to the environment.
I repeat. What is so sacred about human life? Is it just a selfish fallacy because we need laws so we can deter people from killing us?
Superdude, 
I put this video into my Favorites!
We’ve all been brain washed as children. Sort of makes the whole abortion and capital punishment debates superfluous.