How anti-choicers talked themselves out of the humanity of actual people
Thoughts? Do you think the author of this has a point? Or is this an inappropriate comparison?
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/how-anti-choicers-talked-themselves-out-of-recognizing-the-humanity-of-actual-people/
I would like to take a moment to note that a side effect, which is probably a side benefit for right wingers, of this line of argumentation is that it also happens to reduce the moral responsibility for those that support fascism. As the clamor of nativist rhetoric grows louder, I can definitely see why conservatives might want more people believing that hard right, racist ideologies like Nazism weren’t that bad, because the people who supported them walked dogs.
This has always been a part of the “abortion is genocide!” argument, which is why it’s a popular one amongst more hardline conservatives. It isn’t just about trying to make abortion seem evil. It also happens to make genocide seem less bad, by hinting that the people who are exterminated have no more value than an embryo, that the loss of millions of people to the gas chambers and the loss of fertilized eggs to the normal churn of reproduction are the same thing. That this is a favored line of argument by people who, say, can’t recognize the humanity of the Syrian refugees is not a coincidence.
But that’s just a side benefit of this Efferson’s argument here. This is obviously just an extension of the general move in anti-choice circles to paint women who get abortions as braindead bimbos who don’t know any better and need to be forced into the “right” choice to show them the error of their sex-having ways. We’re supposed to be grateful she doesn’t think we’re monsters because we see through the obviously hyperbolic language that equates the loss of Ann Frank with the loss of a 12 week pregnancy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
