Pro-life: Ignorance or Inhuman

It raises an interesting question – Can knowledgeable, humane people disagree on the legality of abortion? Certainly ignorance rears its ugly head on both sides of this controversial issue and even more disturbingly extreme inhumanity (1). Yet is one side 100% wrong and 100% unthoughtful and evil? Is every pro-lifer who ever existed and thought and learned about the issue a nightmarish, psychopathic monster or are some just good people that happen to disagree with Pro. Now I could attack my opponent's scenarios, but these criticisms would be besides the point as what my opponent is really asserting is that pro-lifers don't actually think children in the womb are people deserving of the same protection as born people when it comes down to it. The underlying challenge is that we would all save the 9-year-old girl over the embryos, thus pro-lifers are ignorant. After all, wouldn't pro-lifers's resistance to the legalization of killing 9-year-olds be far greater? If they really believed that millions of people were being systematically murdered why would they denounce those who kill abortionists? Indeed this very point is brought up every time an abortionist is murdered (2). If pro-lifers really believed in the personhood and equal treatment of children in the womb why treat them differently? Because pro-lifers are irrational and hypocritical. At this point you may be wondering why I am debating Pro in the first place. I'm debating Pro because almost everyone is irrational and hypocritical. My Case: Most would tell you they believe in equality and equal legal-protection among born human beings. Yet almost invariably people display favoritism for some groups of people over others. Someone would be more likely to save their own friends over strangers not because they think of strangers as inherently less valuable or less worthy of legal protection but because they have a far greater emotional attachment to a certain group of people (their friends) then to another (strangers). Is this irrational, yes, but most people, especially in life and death situations use more emotion then rationality. Far from making them inhuman this is what makes them their flawed human selves. Prejudice is hardwired into us (3). Nor does it make them ignorant. A judge might be perfectly knowledgeable about the law and be a humane and honorable defender of equal treatment under the law; but he or she wouldn't be allowed to precede over a criminal trail involving his own family. “Why,” you ask. Once again people have a far greater emotional attachment to a certain group of people (their family) then to another (strangers). This doesn't invalidate the position that all born human beings are deserving of equal protection and basic human dignity nor does it make people who believe in these principles ignorant and/or inhuman. It just makes most of us emotional, irrational and prejudiced human beings instead of cold, logical machines that would save the maximum amount of lives regardless of emotions or societal conditioning (4). One's family is merely the strongest example of a favored group. Similar logic can used applied to other favored groups (fellow countrymen, friends, neighbors, followers of the same faith, women, the elderly, children, etc. ) For another example consider that most abolitionists in 19th century America were still racists and would have saved a little white girl over a couple of black slaves any day. It was the culture of the time, it valued white people above black people, and even abolitionists succumbed to these social pressures, making them inconsistent and hypocrites (5). Yet this didn't invalidate their anti-slavery position nor make them all either ignorant or inhuman. Pro's Pro-Choice Case: I would like to take this opportunity to remind the reader that this isn't a debate on whether abortion should be legal but rather if all people who think it should be illegal are ignorant and/or inhuman. As such Pro's generic arguments for legalized abortion are off-point. So are Pro's railing against my non-existent theological arguments and defense of abstinence-only education. This is made especially ironic by the fact I've clearly labeled myself an atheist on my profile. I would ask Pro to please stay on point. If Pro wants to debate whether abortion should be legal or not I'll gladly take the challenge, but that's not the point here. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, whether you think a child's personhood is determined from it being a human being, or from it being conscious, or from it being self-aware (6), is one side completely uneducated or barbaric? Pro certainly hasn't provided any evidence for this. Pro's Relevant Case: Pro's argument relies the on the fallacy Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to emotion). Pro automatically declares any knowledgeable person who disagrees on his definition of personhood as “inhuman” without providing any evidence to support his claim. No scientific study that demonstrates knowledgeable pro-lifers are all sociopaths and no philosophical evidence other then the current social prejudices against children in the womb to justify current social persecution of children in the womb. Thus he has also committed the fallacy of Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument) (7). That is because most feel, including Pro-lifers, that children in womb aren't full fledged people, they aren't people. Even going further Pro claims that anyone who disagrees with this dogma is either ignorant or inhuman, this commits the fallacy Dicto simpliciter (sweeping generalization). Pro also asserts that anyone who doesn't share our societal prejudices and values human beings equally is inhuman without saying why, this commits the fallacy Petitio principii (begging the question) (8). Wrapping Things Up: It's in our nature to value certain people above others on an emotional level, even whilst intellectually supporting equality. This is not something unique to pro-lifers. Despite this irrationality we shouldn't so arrogantly dismiss those who support equality in our laws despite any prejudices they might have on an emotional level. Now we can debate abortion, debate what makes a person a person and how much our humanity factors into this but declaring anyone who disagrees with your dogma as either ignorant or evil requires some extraordinary evidence. Firstly Pro will have to prove that anyone who disagrees with his definition of personhood is inhuman rather then some pro-lifers simply being compassionate; but for human beings outside of this particular society's favored groups. Furthermore Pro will have to prove that anyone who is uncertain about the personhood of children in the womb and would support laws erring on the cautious side is either ignorant or inhuman. Secondly he will have to prove that inconsistency due to prejudice equals ignorance, and that pro-lifers are unique, or at least in the minority, in being emotionally and logically inconsistent. My claim is: The lack of absolute logical consistancy doesn't equate to ignorance. Futhermore, emotional attachment doesn't equate to inherent value or worthiness of legal protection. My hat is off to Pro, it takes ambition to make such claims but I think such thinking is counterproductive to finding a solution to this controversial issue. I look forward to Pro's response to my criticisms. Works Cited: (1) . http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com... (2) . http://www.time.com... (3) . http://www.brookings.edu... (4). http://www.associatedcontent.com... (5) . http://www.pbs.org... (6) . http://www.princeton.edu... (7) . http://www.csun.edu... (8) . http://www.iep.utm.edu...