I understand the position of those who are “pro-choice” on the issue of abortion. Human beings naturally seek freedom and Americans, even more so, recoil at the thought of depriving someone of any perceived “rights.” A recent post on Momaroo revisited the abortion argument with the position that being “pro-choice”, here defined as meaning one who does not believe in making abortion illegal, does not necessarily mean that one is “pro-abortion.”
I disagree. Furthermore, I believe that the argument inherent to this position is a logical fallacy that ignores reason and displays a lack of intellectual curiosity. The basic argument behind the pro-choice/not pro-abortion argument is that one can accept another person making a choice while not condoning that choice. This isn’t problematic on its face, but when it becomes a shibboleth, it ignores the ability of people to look at situations on a case-by-case basis and make decisions (or form beliefs) on the merits of each individual case. Those who justify this position seem to equate the taking of a life to any other choice.
“I prefer Coke over Pepsi but I don’t oppose those who prefer Pepsi.”
It’s not that you support choices, it’s that you lack the intellectual willpower needed to explore the differences between human lives and soft drinks. The converse argument–also a logical fallacy–is that those who are “pro-life” (“anti-abortion” is a welcome label) are “anti-choice”. But I am not anti-choice, I am anti-holding-onto-a-position-for-no-other-reason-than-discomfort-with-exploring-all-the-aspects-of-an-issue. Perhaps you strongly favor Democrats in elections, but you don’t favor making voting for Republicans illegal. Great! You can even honestly claim to not be “pro-Republican-imprisonment”. Are you unable to see that an issue that involves the fundamental matter of human life is quite different than political parties, religious beliefs, or carbonated beverages? If not, what cognitive dissonance is preventing you from doing so?