It’s interesting to ponder the fact that abortion-rights groups can be so adamant about their unwillingness to publicly discuss what it is they support. We hear things like this all the time:
“Support a woman’s right to choose!”
“Defend reproductive freedom!”
“Be a voice for choice!”
They ought to add an asterisk though… * “But whatever you do, makes sure you never, ever under any circumstances engage in a debate about abortion with anyone about it publicly. EVER!!”
Here is the ultimate word of wisdom from the Pro-Choice Action Network of Canada in regards to debating abortion: DON’T!
Their site reads:
“Why we don’t debate anti-choice spokespersons: The Pro-Choice Action Network (PCAN) sometimes gets requests from anti-choice groups or from the media to have a debate with anti-choice spokespersons. Along with most other pro-choice groups, we do not engage in debates with the anti-choice — by which we mean public debates before an audience, or on radio or TV. Here’s why:
- The right to abortion is not debatable, because access to legal, safe abortion is a fundamental human right, one that is protected by law and supported by the majority of citizens. The provision of basic human rights is not open to debate.
The right to abortion is not debatable? I think the word they’re looking for is “defendable.” It’s pretty difficult to justify deliberately and violently ending the life of a human being at his or her most vulnerable stage of life and try to pass it off as a mere “choice” women can make. Abortion is not a human right because killing someone isn’t a human right. The right to life, on the other hand, is the most fundamental of all human rights and therefore should be the most protected.
2. Likewise, the right to choose abortion should not be subject to a vote, because access to safe abortion is a fundamental health issue for women. Abortion cannot be legally restricted without substantial harm to women.
Abortion has virtually nothing to do with healthcare. It’s about as medically necessary as breast augmentation surgery is.
The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist, director of the world’s once-largest abortion facility, and a founding member of NARAL Pro-Choice America, explained that the number of illegal abortions performed in America pre-Roe vs. Wade was “approaching 100,000” annually and 200-250 women died from these procedures each year in Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist. This is a tragic way for any woman to die, but it should be noted that pro-lifers don’t actually do abortions. Any woman that was ever injured or killed during an abortion, regardless of its legality, was injured or killed by a person that was in favor of abortion “rights.” You can’t logically blame pro-lifers for that, PCAN.
3. Debating the anti-choice would be an abdication of our responsibility to help women and support abortion providers because the anti-choice position is harmful to women and to providers. Debating the anti-choice would lend legitimacy to this harmful position.
Wait, debating with a person or group you “know” is in the absolute wrong is a relinquishing of responsibility? If you know you’re right about a vital issue, isn’t it your responsibility to enlighten a misinformed person as to why they’re wrong?
If someone suggested a public debate should be held on whether it’s acceptable to beat a child, rape a woman, or kill an innocent person, I’d happily take up the invitation to a debate because the right position is so painfully obvious. Not for one second would any sane person think to turn down an opportunity to explain that rape and child abuse are wrong because it would “lend legitimacy” to a pro-rape or pro-child abuse stance. That’s ludicrous.
If these abortion-rights organizations are so steadfast in their beliefs, why not stand up and proclaim so to everyone? Come on, Pro-Choice Action Network! Say it loud, say it proud! Further they advise:
4. Debates imply that the participants could be led to a compromise. We will never compromise a woman’s right to choose. And we suspect the anti-choice will never compromise their stance against legal abortion. This leaves little justification for a debate.
If we so-called “anti-choicers” are wrong, why not seize the grand opportunity to publicly rip us to shreds, blow our pitiful arguments out of the water, expose the error of our misguided attempts to end abortion to the world, put us in our places and shame us all?
If these abortion-rights advocate groups thought they had a shot at denouncing the truth about abortion to the public, they’d happily debate with us. But like I said, it’s pretty difficult to justify killing an innocent human being in the name of choice.
5. Debates imply opposing sides, but anti-choice and pro-choice are not the opposite of each other. The opposite of forced pregnancy is forced abortion. We oppose both.
Hold up, PCAN, you literally just told us that you “will never compromise a woman’s right to choose” abortion, and you “suspect the anti-choice will never compromise their stance against legal abortion.” Pro-life and pro-choice positions are opposed on this one pivotal issue: whether abortion should be legal or not. You can’t get much more blatant polar opposites than that.
If these abortion-rights networks and organizations in Canada are at all like those in America, they’re deafeningly silent on the issue of forced abortion, especially when it comes to China’s gruesomely upheld one-child policy.
6. Debates are public relations events, usually staged by the anti-choice. Such debates are not designed to change peoples’ minds or provide useful information. Truth often becomes a casualty in such debates, because the “winner” is the side with the slickest presentation and fanciest rhetoric.
Public debates are usually encouraged by pro-lifers because we’re the ones that want the world to face the reality of abortion and what it does to the unborn and their mothers, and abortion-rights groups work tirelessly to hide the facts. If “truth often becomes casualty” by our fault as oh-so-misinformed anti-choicers, why not show us all up with your proof that abortion doesn’t actually end the life of a living, growing, developing unborn human being? You show me that, and boom, I’ll become pro-choice.
My guess is that this group would find a demonstration on fetal development to be a “slick presentation” full of “fancy rhetoric.” Factual information seems to get them pretty uneasy since it usually contradicts everything they stand for.
If abortion-rights groups thought they had even a slight chance of winning a debate with logic, reason, and science, they would be the ones trying to organize public discussions with pro-lifers. I guess that’s kind of hard to do when science and reasoning aren’t on your side, though.