Amp, you have clearly been bested. When dealt such a sound rhetorical drubbing, I think it’s best to just concede graciously.

Well done, Linda. Well done indeed.

—Myca

While the definition of the pro-life position could indeed be boiled down to a question of “Should the government force childbirth on pregnant women?”, many pro-lifers would feel that that wording of the question is designed to make pro-lifers look cold-hearted.

“Does a fetus have a right to life that the government should defend, even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s desires?” Same question, different focus.

Of course, everyone has a right to frame the question whichever way they feel it.

Some people have posted about the possibility of future technologies that would allow a fetus to be removed from the mother’s uterus and gestated elsewhere. If anything like that ever became a reality, these two questions would no longer have identical meanings. But right now they do.

And again, for anyone who doesn’t know me by now, I’ll mention that I don’t believe pursuing legislation is the best way to prevent abortions. I’ve talked about that in other forums.

Joan wrote: While the definition of the pro-life position could indeed be boiled down to a question of “Should the government force childbirth on pregnant women?”, many pro-lifers would feel that that wording of the question is designed to make pro-lifers look cold-hearted.

Well, you’ve got a point.

On the other hand, one thing that bothers me about pro-lifers is that they seem to rely on euphanism to deny the ugly reality of what they’re proposing (something many pro-lifers have accused pro-choicers of too, of course!). My question isn’t designed to make pro-lifers look cold-hearted; it’s designed to take away the euphanism and describe the reality of pro-life policy.

However, a more fair-minded, neutral question wouldn’t be designed to take away the euphanism. So you’re right, my wording was, while literally accurate, nonetheless biased.

“Does a fetus have a right to life that the government should defend, even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s desires?” Same question, different focus.

But it’s not the same question. What about someone who thinks the government should defend fetal rights through income transfer programs to support single mothers and through free medical care, but who’s still pro-choice in the sense of thinking abortion should be legal?

Probably the best, simplist way to put it is “do you favor outlawing abortion in nearly all cases?” People who answer “yes” to that question are pro-life. That’s reasonably neutral-sounding but gets at the real policy distinction. What do you think?

I’d say if they still think abortion should be legal, then they think the government should defend the fetus’s right only to a certain point. I guess you would need to add an adjective: “Does a fetus have an inalienable right to life . . .”

But you’re right, the simplest question would be, “do you favor outlawing abortion in nearly all cases?”. People can answer that with a simple yes or no. If asked why they feel that way, then they can expain their beliefs about forced childbirth and fetal rights.

I think perhaps that modified statement removes a lot of the bias on both sides. “desires” is designed to make the pro-choicers look frivilous.

“Does a fetal US citizan have an inalienable right to life that the US government should defend, even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s”

I think perhaps that modified statement removes a lot of the bias on both sides. ‘desires’ is designed to make the pro-choicers look frivilous.”

Actually, I did fret about that word “desires” for that very reason. I was trying to think of a better one, but didn’t have any good ideas.

When you took off the word desires, do you then mean “even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s right to life?” I was using the phrase “right to life” to mean specifically the right to not die.

Maybe something like “even if it conflicts with the pregnant woman’s right to self-determination?”