I'm tired of losing ground.
Yeah, on the whole abortion debate for sure. But also on stem cell research. The HPV vaccine.
For too long, we have decided that our strategy should be to play defense. To attempt to describe each case by its own merits. And every single time, it seems like the fundamentalists keep on winning.
They don't win because logic is on their side. They win because they couch everything in terms of "respecting life." "Innocent life." "Protecting life."
Well, you and I know that's bullshit--and yes, it's hard to protect life at home when you're systematically destroying it abroad--but that's not even my point.
The point is, they're lying through their teeth about protecting life. They're all about controlling sexuality.
The problem we have is that controlling sexuality--especially when it comes to minors--has a lot of appeal. And if you couch it in those terms, you're going to lose.
Below the fold, I'm going to give you a couple of new strategies for these "moral issues." HINT: paint them as extremists each time, every time.
You want to know my solution to the abortion debate? Here it is.
You see, lots of people don't like abortion not because they believe that fetuses are people just like 2-year-olds are. They don't like abortion because they think women should be punished for engaging in the immoral activity that got them pregnant in the first place.
However, unlike Focus on the Family's position (thank you, occams hatchet!) on the HPV vaccine, most people are completely unwilling to come out and say that they're interested in using pregnancy to control sexuality. So their solution was to invent the cult of the fetus to justify outlawing abortion.
Well, that creates another problem, because YOU CAN'T LATCH ONTO THE "THE FETUS IS SACRED" POSITION, AND STILL BELIEVE IN EXEMPTIONS FOR RAPE OR INCEST. Now, I'm sure many of you had thought that through, but there are some other logical extensions of this that you might not have thought through, so I'll give you a nice summary of exactly how to paint an anti-abortion activist into a corner. It's a great soundbite. I've thought it all through. Here you go.
If you believe in the "pro-life" position that the fetus deserves the same protection as a born human being, then you are compelled to take the position:
1. That there cannot be exceptions for rape or incest. You can't murder a child born of rape after they're born, can you?
2. Women who get abortions, as well as the doctors that provide them, and everyone in the doctors' offices, should be subject to the death penalty. After all--if I conspire a month in advance to kill a 2-year-old, I know exactly what's coming to me.
3. All in-vitro fertilization clinics should be immediately outlawed.
If you do not believe in all of these positions, then you're obviously not "pro-life" and you're simply interested in restricting abortion to enforce sexual morality. And if that's what you're all about, then you should just come out and say so.
I haven't failed with that one yet.
Now, let's take the HPV vaccine. Here we go again. The Focus on the Family people speak of this with their concern about teenage girls being encouraged by the idea that sex is less risky. And we talk about it in terms of the public health benefits, and denounce them for being more interested in maintaining virginity than they are in curing cancer.
Well, that's all well and good, and our response has been effective. But I want it to be more bloody. I have no respect or sympathy for these people, and I think they should be dressed up as the extremists they are.
You see, they can take their position on HPV if they think it's viable. But I want to know what their position on an AIDS vaccine is. After all, AIDS is a much more well-known concern than HPV when it comes to the risks of sex. So the question is, will Focus on the Family stand up and vehemently oppose an AIDS vaccine?
You see, putting it that way forces them to either oppose an AIDS vaccine and be viewed as extremists, or thrash about wildly trying to explain why AIDS and HPV aren't the same type of deal--which they most certainly are, especially if you keep repeating the point.
I'll leave you with one final thought, and you may not like it.
I know that pro-choice women are fond of saying "it's my body and my right to control my own body" or something to that effect. But let me tell you: you're fighting a losing war with that if the other side has already convinced everyone that it's not just your body.
Let me show you what you're up against. This is a cartoon from Christofascist syndicated cartoonist Gary Varvel:
Gary Varvel isn't stupid. He knows that a 100-cell blastocyst potentially being used for stem cell research is as small as a period in this diary. He knows that it has no umbilical cord. He knows that it has no humanoid shape.
But he doesn't care. To tell you the truth, the fact that we are even debating the merits of "blastocyst's rights" is horrible news for your access to abortion.
Think of things in terms of the Overton Window. If we're now having public debates about the relative merits of the "innocent human life" of 100-cell blastocysts, where does that put abortion in the Overton Window range of acceptability?
Think about it. If you don't start attacking now, it could be too late.
[Cross-posted from MyLeftWing]