The response of the pro-choice audience to a pro-life argument appears to have gone down a little less than smoothly over at the New Statesman:
It slowly dawned on me, at about 5pm on Sunday evening, that no matter how politely, gently and sensitively the anti-abortion case is expressed in the future, people on the ‘pro-choice’ liberal-left will never want to hear it.
No, they won’t. The mainstay of their argument is there is no argument to be had. This is why debating abortion is so hard: Because so few people who are ardently in support of abortion will stand up and make any cogent arguments in favour of it that actually address the humanity angle.
by 
Agreed. It is hard to discuss, argue, debate, converse, talk or brainstorm with someone who’s only point is; ‘I’m right’.
Hussan rights: “I normally write quite polemical and provocative columns but, when writing this particular piece, I did try to be careful and restrained in my use of language and avoid gratuitous abuse of my opponents – clearly, I wasn’t careful or restrained enough.”
I don’t think there is any language that is careful or restrained enough because the crux of the pro-life argument is that the foetus is a human being and abortion is killing. That means you are arguing that a significant number of your opponents have killed or colluded with killing their own children. This isn’t an argument that anybody can make in any language that won’t be received as abuse.
I think this is one reason for the “making pro-life arguments is bullying” business. Because if you have had an abortion or colluded with an abortion and rationalised it as “not really being a baby” or “I had no choice” anyone who argues that it is a baby and you did have a choice is saying something that is literally unbearable.
But it is what it is. And my hunch is that if you didn’t know deep down in your soul that this is true you woudn’t hear it as abuse.
When you debate abortion, you’re not trying to convince your opponent. The number of people who think abortion is correct in every circumstance is small. You’re actually trying to convince an audience whose views on abortion are probably in the middle.
They can very well see that your opponents will not address the humanity angle. So you use it against them: the pro-abortion argument is: even *if an innocent human being has to die* it’s still okay.
I think the frenzied response to anyone trying to make a rational, pro-life argument shows that pro-choicers, deep down, know they are on very thin ice indeed so they respond with vitriol and an attempt to close down the conversation in any way they can.
Sometime I think this extreme touchiness is actually a good sign. These people are not at ease with themselves or the issue.
Yes, I agree. The defeat of motion 312 tells us that “pro-choice” folks know their position does not stand up under rational scrutiny, and they know they will lose the debate if they ever engage.