Frame of Reference

What happens to your feelings about "pro-life" advocates if we start calling them "forced birth" advocates?

Digby posted this and makes this comment:

The "great moral issue" of when life begins is fascinating I'm sure. Much more fascinating than whether the state can compel people to bear children against their will.

He's writing on this op-ed by Dean Barnett. Irony of the day:

Unlike the often erroneous stereotype of the pro-life citizen, I didn't arrive at my position as a matter of religious faith. Rather, my conclusions flow strictly from logical inquiry.

The big moral question regarding abortion is, "When does life begin?" While most people agree that life begins at some point between conception and birth, pro-choice absolutists argue that life doesn't begin until the fetus is fully delivered. Thus, they can enthusiastically defend a procedure like "partial birth abortion" where the fetus is partially delivered and then brutally "terminated" before it is fully delivered. At the other end of the spectrum, pro-life absolutists, reflecting John Kerry's stated view, argue that life begins at the moment of conception.

Query: How can you claim to arrive at conclusions by logical inquiry if you never bother to define your terms? As in, what exactly do you mean by "life"? Is the mere fact of cellular activity occurring sufficient? Or must it be something that can be sustained without what is, in effect, total life-support? He may be satisfied with the results of his logical inquiry, but I'm not -- I have no idea where he's starting from, and he doesn't bother to explain it.

Of course, without that small detail, the whole piece falls apart.

You can get copies of The Handmaid's Tale online, cheap.