Now, back to April, 2012:
In the comments here, Ruaidhr said:
I've never been able to figure out why people can't understand how irrelevant "when life begins" is to the discussion.Which, of course, is a variant on Ye Olde 'What If [insert esteemed person's name]'s Mother Had Aborted Him' schtick. (It's almost invariably a 'Him', BTW.) Ruaidhr is original though. I've never seen Gandhi implanted before, only aborted.
You could implant Mahatma Ghandi in me, and it wouldn't take away my right to say "get him out of there!"
Commenter Godel Noodle gives one of the standard rejoinders to that one. HIs specific is 'horrible abortion doctor', but Hitler, Stalin,
Sensing we had a newbie to the Abortion Debate®, I sent GN to the Lame Abortion Analogies Hall of Fame.
But, gotcha! It isn't actually LAAHF. GN thought such a thing would be a grande idée.
I got googling. But to give GN a taste of the wished-for hell a-coming', I linked to JJ's Way Back Machine for Justice for Unborn TV Sets.
Here we have cars and eagle's nests. (And to answer any newbie's question at this point: No. There is nowhere they won't go.)
Unwanted automobile passengers is a standard. Another fave is body functions or body parts.
This one involves a party, unconsciousness, and surprise at being connected to someone who is using your kidney for nine months.
There are many variants on that one, Thomson's Violinist being the classic.
More on kidneys, specifically selling them, from deBeauxOs and JJ.
Slavery is often conjured up but as Ms Magazine observes, it works better for pro-choice.
The problem here is that the slavery analogy only makes sense if you believe having an abortion is somehow equivalent to owning a human being. (It isn’t.)Then there's the Hitler-holocaust SHRIEEEEEK and its associated genocide SHRIEEEEEK.
. . .
The slavery analogy makes much more sense as an argument for choice, not against it. Slavery is about losing one’s freedom and personal autonomy over one’s body and life. As Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, so eloquently put it: “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.”
Big Nurse Stanek magicks population control, China's one-child policy, eco-Nazis, death panels, and what-not.
And then there's the ever-popular unpopular house guest analogy.
They all rely on migraine-inducing pretzel logic and wildly absurd 'what-ifs'. They all FAIL.
Now here's someone who knows a thing or two about both analogies and pregnancy.
Having sat through too many evangelical sermons in my younger life, I’ve developed a strong resistance to arguments that draw on analogy. Most of the sermons I endured as a teenager and young adult were heavy-laden with analogies; now I can’t help seeing them as a recourse for lazy-mindedness (not always deliberate) and tendentiousness (usually deliberate). They’re useful for when you want others to believe something for which you don’t have concrete evidence, or which may contain many different truths that are unendingly complex, and the analogy helps you to focus on a single one.
. . .
Pregnancy is not much like organ donation; and it is certainly nothing even potentially akin to being a slave-owner or a (female supremacist) Nazi. (Seriously: those two last ones are central arguments of the anti-abortion movement’s desire to enshrine fetal rights. Anti-abortion advocates imagine that pro-choice women see fetuses as “subhuman”; therefore, much like Nazis and slave owners, they allow them to be eliminated at will. That leap of (ana)logic leads directly into the abyss of manipulativeness and dishonesty.) I’ve always seen the abortion-is-murder analogy as a shocking distortion of the reality of an unwanted pregnancy and the maternal-fetal relationship.
Actually in my googles, I found one that does work. Oddly, it's pro-choice.
Let's return to the tendentiousness that Woody rolled out in
M312, Fixed-Wing Technology and Ballooning. (See? There really is nowhere they won't go.)
Here's the last patronizing sentence:
Now do you understand the relationship between Motion 312 and abortion?Indeed, we do, Woody. And did right from the start, despite your relentless duplicitousness.
BONUS! I found the elusive parrot-in-a-cage analogy. It was in the comments, now sadly memory-holed, at SUZYALLCAPSLOCK's place, but preserved for eternity by Canadian Cynic.
EXTRA BONUS: JJ explains the fetus = polaroid picture analogy I mention in the comments. Definitely one for the Hall of Fame!