Selective outrage
As
I have written several times before, I am pro-choice, mostly in the
spirit of preventing dysgenic births, plus the fact that I don't see
why a blastocyst or a frozen embryo could be considered a human being
that has an inherent right to live.
When I was younger, I had a hazy impression that the abortion clinic bombings and shootings of abortion doctors are a serious problem so that several dozen such acts of terrorism take place every year in America. Or at least that's what I thought from the leftist discourse. Imagine my disappointment when it later turned out that in reality I could count the total number of these abortion clinic bombings and doctor shootings using the fingers of only one hand. Despite this, every pro-lifer has to constantly repent and explicitly denounce all anti-abortion extremism and violence, because otherwise he can automatically be considered a supporter of Paul Hill in the public discourse.
In this light, I have a simple question for my leftist readers (I know I have a few) that I would like to see them answer. Since you guys seem to have no problem with tarring all opponents of abortion with the anti-abortion terrorism, why do you consider it so very bad and extremely offensive when somebody similarly associates all Muslims with terrorism, and demands that all Muslims must always explicitly denounce and condemn the terrorists among their ranks? Surely the statistical connection between Muslims and terrorism is at least as strong as the statistical connection between Christianity and anti-abortion violence, making this rhetorical tactic at least equally valid.
Perhaps the right-wingers should take a page out of the pro-choice playbook, and start treating Muslims the exact same way that leftists treat the pro-life activists. For example, in any debate with a Muslim, start by demanding that he must first pay special penance for the victims of 9/11 and admits that this terrorist attack was unacceptable, and admit that there is a dangerous slippery slope from his demands to Osama bin Laden, which then somehow proves that even his moderate demands are wrong. Just a friendly hint.
At this point, I could also delve deeper into the inherent silliness of the Western leftist infatuation with Islam by asking how the women's "right to choose" typically works in those countries that are predominantly Muslim. But perhaps this would be shooting fish in a barrel. It would certainly be interesting to see some Muslim pro-life advocacy group get a foothold and publicity in the West, just to observe the leftist reaction to this, and laugh at the humour that would be abundant in their cognitive dissonance.
When I was younger, I had a hazy impression that the abortion clinic bombings and shootings of abortion doctors are a serious problem so that several dozen such acts of terrorism take place every year in America. Or at least that's what I thought from the leftist discourse. Imagine my disappointment when it later turned out that in reality I could count the total number of these abortion clinic bombings and doctor shootings using the fingers of only one hand. Despite this, every pro-lifer has to constantly repent and explicitly denounce all anti-abortion extremism and violence, because otherwise he can automatically be considered a supporter of Paul Hill in the public discourse.
In this light, I have a simple question for my leftist readers (I know I have a few) that I would like to see them answer. Since you guys seem to have no problem with tarring all opponents of abortion with the anti-abortion terrorism, why do you consider it so very bad and extremely offensive when somebody similarly associates all Muslims with terrorism, and demands that all Muslims must always explicitly denounce and condemn the terrorists among their ranks? Surely the statistical connection between Muslims and terrorism is at least as strong as the statistical connection between Christianity and anti-abortion violence, making this rhetorical tactic at least equally valid.
Perhaps the right-wingers should take a page out of the pro-choice playbook, and start treating Muslims the exact same way that leftists treat the pro-life activists. For example, in any debate with a Muslim, start by demanding that he must first pay special penance for the victims of 9/11 and admits that this terrorist attack was unacceptable, and admit that there is a dangerous slippery slope from his demands to Osama bin Laden, which then somehow proves that even his moderate demands are wrong. Just a friendly hint.
At this point, I could also delve deeper into the inherent silliness of the Western leftist infatuation with Islam by asking how the women's "right to choose" typically works in those countries that are predominantly Muslim. But perhaps this would be shooting fish in a barrel. It would certainly be interesting to see some Muslim pro-life advocacy group get a foothold and publicity in the West, just to observe the leftist reaction to this, and laugh at the humour that would be abundant in their cognitive dissonance.
Comments