more reflections on the politics of abortion

comments on the article from previous post
The term pro-abortion doesn't seem to me that big an offense, but some people get very upset when they encounter it. In my opinion, the term pro-choice is a euphemism that tries to avoid the meaning of the position it defines: one who advocates for the legality and availability of abortions. I would reasonably rephrase this to say that an abortion advocate is pro-abortion. Why is the use of this term tantamount to slander? How can that be? Isn't that just the simple meaning of the words? I know they come to have other meanings imposed and implied, but the normative meaning is unambiguous. Unfortunately, in a politically correct environment, this tension establishes the tone of political discourse.

But for me, that isn't the real point of the article. The author's goal is to shatter the notion that a pro-life adherent can support Obama's candidacy and be consistent. So then, if a person supports Obama's candidacy, he or she must not be a supporter of pro-life policy. Again, pretty straightforward. Clearly stated in the précis:

Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Did the rest of the article substantiate the claim? I think it did, and not to the candidate's embarrassment. On the contrary, the candidate's own answers to the questions posed by the abortion advocacy group Reproductive Health Reality Check are emphatic. Ironically, it is the careful avoidance of the term abortion by this group, and others like it, on their "About Us" pages that leads conversations in topic-changing directions rather than addressing the real issue. If they're not pro-abortion, why do they react with such ferocity when those of us who oppose it (on whatever grounds one might wish to base such opposition) suggest the repeal of laws that became possible with the Roe v. Wade ruling? I believe that the pro-abortion label fits when they respond with intensity and hostility at the threat to the existence of abortion laws as they're on the books today....very much like a momma bear reacts to a perceived threat to her cubs: if the cubs are in danger, she's very pro-cub.

A member of my family says, "There is no definition of life, period." How can anyone say that? The problem is that there are several definitions. I've seen worse ones than the one at this legal website>> (although it doesn't conform to my view). To take another topic and use the same method: There is no definition of art, period. Yet you know what is art and what isn't, and would argue the point, I would guess; and so you should. So that assertion is not true--for you, at least. In the same way, I know what is alive (has life) and what is dead--at least from my point of view.

But art is not life. Art is one of the evidences or byproducts of human life. So a dispute over the definition of art doesn't mean that a living being will die like the dispute over the definition of life has meant the death of millions through abortion.

Others say, "Let's not go after any moral high ground." Why not? Are we afraid of exposing the moral poverty of other's positions? Shouldn't that be the point of philosophical discussion?

I'm going to leave it here for the night. The next two weeks--and four years!--should be very interesting.