![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastI'm going to do a thing I like to do in my thinking that involves throwing some complexity into a discussion, but still coming out on the side you rather assumed I was going to come out on.
In that vein, I'm going to talk about Steve King's recent comments. FUN!
Steve King was not suggesting that rape and incest were necessary for the propagation of the human species. No, what he was doing was far more classic pro-life rhetoric.
You see, if you eliminate every bloodline that is, somewhere along the line, the result of rape or incest, we have no more humans left. Statistically, that much is inevitable of history.
So, he's saying, that the value of a human cannot be reduced by being the result of rape or incest.
And, that would almost be a good point... if it were at all on point.
When we, on the pro-life side of the debate, bring up rape and incest, we're not bringing up the lack of value of the fetus. We're bringing up the lack of choice of the victim of rape or incest. We're bringing up that the notion that she made her choice doesn't apply in this case. And, when those calling themselves "pro-life" accept an exception in such cases, they're making a concession to their own rhetoric.
But, when Steve King responds, he's not responding to that. He's shifting the boundaries of the conversation without informing his ideological opposition. By arguing against the devaluing of humans on the basis of their conception without actually openly stating that he's arguing against that, he puts us in the position of guessing.
What is he saying? Well, since nobody brought up the devaluing of human life based on conception, why would we assume that?
And so, he gets to claim that we're the bad guy when we guess wrong.
If it weren't for bad faith, Steve King and his ilk would have no faith at all.
In that vein, I'm going to talk about Steve King's recent comments. FUN!
Steve King was not suggesting that rape and incest were necessary for the propagation of the human species. No, what he was doing was far more classic pro-life rhetoric.
You see, if you eliminate every bloodline that is, somewhere along the line, the result of rape or incest, we have no more humans left. Statistically, that much is inevitable of history.
So, he's saying, that the value of a human cannot be reduced by being the result of rape or incest.
And, that would almost be a good point... if it were at all on point.
When we, on the pro-life side of the debate, bring up rape and incest, we're not bringing up the lack of value of the fetus. We're bringing up the lack of choice of the victim of rape or incest. We're bringing up that the notion that she made her choice doesn't apply in this case. And, when those calling themselves "pro-life" accept an exception in such cases, they're making a concession to their own rhetoric.
But, when Steve King responds, he's not responding to that. He's shifting the boundaries of the conversation without informing his ideological opposition. By arguing against the devaluing of humans on the basis of their conception without actually openly stating that he's arguing against that, he puts us in the position of guessing.
What is he saying? Well, since nobody brought up the devaluing of human life based on conception, why would we assume that?
And so, he gets to claim that we're the bad guy when we guess wrong.
If it weren't for bad faith, Steve King and his ilk would have no faith at all.
