Neil doesn't like it when people point out that pro-life arguments aren't really about the Holy Fetus. In fact, Neil doesn't like it when he loses control of the terms of any debate; he can't apply "logic" and point out phalluses, er, fallacies, and somehow "win" the argument.
I would be amused, or concerned, if I cared. The simple reality is this - the right managed to hold itself together through the Civil Rights movement (except for the racist fringe who will always be there, of course). It was the one-two punch of the pill (1964) and legalized abortion on demand (1973) that set the stage for the culture wars and the politicization of the Christian right. Except for the Christian Identity folks, conservatives Christians could accept social, political, and legal equality for African-Americans, because they tended to be Christian, and the terms of the debate were, for the most part, "conservative" (adhering to constitutional principles, equality before God, etc.). The sexual emancipation of women, formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of maleness, drove them batty.
Resurrecting certain ugly facts from the early conception-control movement (Margaret Sanger's indelicate support of eugenics and racism) allows anti-choice folks to paint the pro-choice movement with the brush of supporting the slow death of minorities through abortion. This isn't helped by the too-often-used arguments of some in the pro-choice movement of the poor, minority woman who needs abortion more than middle-class white women (I've never liked this particular argument, and cringe when I read or hear it).
The creation of the human embryo/fetus suddenly being a creature imbued with full Constitutional rights and an equal claim upon our moral feeling is actually a clever move. As a parent, I recognize the power inherent in pictures of a developing fetus - especially when it's my own. The problem, of course, is this is a distraction, a non-sequitur, and just plain wrong. The issue isn't the sacred pre-born. The issue is full human agency for women, a threat to small-penised men everywhere. As long as women are objects of male sexuality, they are no threat. Once free to make the full spectrum of choices that were formerly the sole provenance of men, they become not objects, but fully-realized subjects. As objects, women cannot - and would not - turn down a man. As subjects, they are perfectly free to agree to a tryst or not. They can decide when, where, and with whom to have sexual relations without any input from men (especially from their husbands).
The facts are ugly, and the reality is that Neil is just plain wrong. The issue isn't the fetus. The issue is women's freedom. I realize he thinks he has the market cornered on arguments. Sad to say, he's wrong there, as well.
With the recent shift toward an uneasy consensus on abortion, the anti-choice movement has shifted toward a more vociferous voice on conception-control, as I noted yesterday. The long and short of it is this - these folks don't want women having sex, except with them. When they do, they should be publicly humiliated, regarded as the sluts and whores they are, dismissed from our care and consideration. Anything else is just a bunch of babble and burble.
