A Case of Compassion
Why is it that in our culture, defending the rights of the unborn child automatically equates one with a heartless, evil monster? There are those on the left who simply can't see that stance for what it really is - one of compassion. Pro-choice advocates refuse to recognize the fact that for people who argue a pro-life position, their heart lies with defenseless infants. Instead, they choose to portray that belief as having some kind of hidden, probably sexist, agenda. Now, it's one thing to argue that such compassion is misplaced upon something unworthy of it, if that's your opinion. But can't opponents of the pro-life belief at least concede, and maybe even admire, the compassion behind it? Pro-lifers are not out to find out how many women they can control and oppress. So why misrepresent the argument and avoid the real issue?
I have my suspicions about that, of course. Common sense dictates that it's much easier to prove your side of a debate, and feel better about yourself, if you can paint your opponent in an immoral light. If you can convince people, and yourself, that your opponent has an ulterior motive of evil, it makes you look good. Whereas admitting that your point of conflict is with your opponent's compassion might reflect badly upon you. There's much to be gained by twisting the issue. But it's not very nice. Or fair. Such underhanded tactics, in turn, make a legitimate case for being suspicious of the motives of the pro-choice movement.
Is it possible for an advocate of abortion rights to ever begin a sentence with "I respect and admire your compassion, however...". What, does it go against the pro-choice handbook? |
