Another assertion has become commonplace in discussions of abortion. Pro-lifers who own firearms, or support military actions abroad are misled at best, and at worst, hypocrites. The critic assumes that any inconsistently held pro-life beliefs are evidence pro-lifers aren't actually motivated by a desire to protect human life, but rather a desire to control women's [...]
There are two problems to address with this argument: A moral one, and an empirical one. The moral problem is obvious. It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings to benefit others.
Does recognizing such an obligation in the context of pregnancy involve treating women as incubators or ‘fetal containers’? Surely not: If I am a pregnant woman, it is no more treating me as an incubator to expect me to respect my baby’s body and allow it to remain within my own than it is treating the baby’s father as a cradle to expect him to avoid violent, reckless or negligent treatment of the baby after birth. At least until such time as other carers can take over, it is reasonable to expect those supporting a child to continue to do so, and in any case, to avoid deliberate harm and/or harmful bodily incursions on the child.
In part one, I addressed the claim that pro-lifers aren’t truly “pro-life” unless they care for children and adults after birth. The claim is irrelevant and simply excuses not interacting with the pro-lifer’s arguments. It is also demonstrably false.
Over the past several years as political tensions and sloganeering have escalated in the culture and on social media, a revived version of the “seamless garment” argument for abortion has been leveled at pro-life advocates. Critics will assert that pro-life advocates are hypocrites at best and deceivers at worst because of their exclusive focus on [...]
