Once again I have found myself arguing against illogical pro-choice advocates. The most recent one is making the following arguments:

1) Pro-life people don’t really care about how many abortions are prevented because every single person who is pro-life is against contraception

2) Pro-life people don’t care about preventing abortions because they’re against Planned Parenthood (the argument is Planned Parenthood prevents abortions, thus pro-life people should be for Planned Parenthood)

3) Pro-life people only care about preventing women from having sex and they want to turn women into baby-making machines (O NOES!)

The saddest part about this whole debate I’ve been having is the person cannot name one book on the issue that she has read. Not one book for the pro-choice stance or one book against it. Yet, the person claims to be an expert on this issue because she’s written a lot of blog posts on pro-life issues.

The following response does use harsh rhetoric, calling the person “ignorant” and using a “stupid argument.” Such rhetoric is quite intentional on my part. I am attempting to point out to the person exactly where she stands on this issue and that she is, in fact, in ignorance on it. By admitting that she hasn’t studied the issue, she has admitted ignorance. Likewise, I don’t believe one should go after wolves with a whiffle bat and a Nerf gun.

My response to such drivel is as follows:

Ad hominem tu quoque means you’re attacking the person and their actions rather than looking to the merits of their arguments. For instance, if John says, “Smoking is bad for your health” but then turns around and smokes, someone who argues, “I guess smoking isn’t bad for your health” falls under the fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque.
Another example is if John says, “Smoking is bad” and then announces that he’s even against the Nicotine patch. You point out to John that the Nicotine patch helps prevent smoking and reduces the rate of smokers. You then form the opinion that John doesn’t really care about smoking because he doesn’t support the Nicotine patch. Of course, John may be against the Nicotine patch because he views any voluntary injection of nicotine into one’s system to be a moral wrong and therefore should not be done, even if it leads to desired ends.
And therein lies your problem – you’re a pragmatist. Most people who oppose abortion are virtue ethicists. Thus, in all your ramblings you’ve argued past them and completely ignored what they’re saying.
The reason that Catholic pro-life advocates are against birth control or pro-life advocates are against Planned Parenthood isn’t because we secretly don’t care about abortion. That’s a stupid claim that an intelligent person should not make. Rather, to the Catholic apologist, they see birth control as a moral evil and therefore to prevent one moral evil, they argue you should not engage in another moral evil. To the greater populace of pro-life proponents, we reject Planned Parenthood because in seeking to prevent a moral evil (abortion), they still advocate it as a viable solution for some women when the life of the mother is not at an immanent risk.
Imagine living in Stalin’s Russia. Imagine a group, “Planned Dissenters” existing to help hide and offer refuge to those who dissent to Stalin’s policies. Now, what if this group handed over 9 out of every 50 people who came to them for refuge over to Stalin? While 41 are rescued, 9 are sent to their immanent deaths. Pragmatically, yes, such a group is good because it achieves the ends of saving the most lives. But under a virtue ethic such a group is evil because they still allow for evil, just a lesser degree of it.
Likewise, with Planned Parenthood, I don’t care if they prevent 20 million abortions in one day; if they advocate one abortion for a woman who’s life is not in immanent danger, then they are advocating a moral evil and I must be against them.
In claiming there are plenty of pro-life advocates who are not against birth control, why must I offer you websites? The fact is, you took the broad-brush to the pro-life movement, so it is up to you to prove that every single person and every single pro-life group in existence is anti-birth control. All I have to do is show one person who is pro-life, but not against birth control, exists to invalidate your argument. I am pro-life and I’m pro-birth control, so your argument falls.
Regardless, even if you can prove that every single group that is pro-life is anti-birth control, you’ve ultimately proven nothing. Again, it goes back to the pragmatic point of view; to be pro-life isn’t to be pragmatic, it’s to support virtue ethics. Thus, they’re not going to endorse one moral evil to prevent another. This point seems to escape you and it’s because you’re not taking the time to think rationally on this subject.
As for the books….again, you just don’t get it. The point in providing a book list means you’ve looked at the SCIENTIFIC and PHILOSOPHICAL aspects of this debate. It shows you’ve actually studied this issue beyond, “Well I read news articles!” That’s not studying the issue, that’s studying the ramifications of the issue. You will find these books both in your local library and local university library (if they have a science and philosophy department that is). But the fact that you don’t know this screams of your ignorance on this issue. I don’t care if this is your only post or your one millionth post on this issue; the fact that you can’t name a single book for or against abortion that you’ve read indicates to me that you’re extremely ignorant on this issue (and your arguments bear fruit to that belief).
As it were, here’s some links to books and articles that deal with the scientific and philosophical arguments concerning abortion:
Books (a small sampling):
Articles (a small sampling; you’ll notice I’m linking from Dr. Francis Beckwith, a tenured professor at Baylor University…this is for the ease of posting since I can find his articles the quickest):
Now, I doubt you’ll read any of these. With a waive of your hand you’ll say, “I’ve never heard of these people, so they’re obviously crackpots” (which, btw, is a logical fallacy). But to do so again only betrays your own ignorance of this subject.
Don’t lecture me on how much you’ve written about this subject. Any fool can say a lot on any subject matter; only the wise can point to the sources of their knowledge. Since you cannot point to the sources of your knowledge, I guess that leaves you with one choice as to what you are…