I’m wondering, however, what your objective was, for this week’s column?
I thought well of the parts where you called out the hypocrisy of a “Pro-life” stance held alongside a rejection of climate science and the anti-life aspects of our consumptive economy and culture.
I’m afraid that I heard the rest of the piece as an (atypical for you) example of echo chamber content for the perceived progressive tilt of your audience.
The issue of abortion raises complex moral and ethical questions for everyone.
There may be facts available relating to fetus viability, but anyone who claims to know when human life begins is delusional, or is just trying to manipulate the emotions of their audience.
You, of course, did not make such a claim, but my point is, there are many other factors besides viability that one may consider when one is developing a position on abortion.
Not everyone who is pro-life is a self-serving, power-hungry, nature-hating ideologue.
My solid pro-choice position is accompanied by deep conflicts and moral questions.
I've considered the facts, checked in with my conscience, and made the best decision that I can make under the circumstances.
Others who do the same may arrive at a different conclusion.
I place a high value on your weekly posts, because I always learn something about climate change.
They are reasonable, well-researched, fact-and-science-based, and informative.
They help motivate me to action in the face of huge swaths of bad news that tend to paralyze me.
I hope that you’ll return to that formula going forward.
Hi Bob: Always good to hear from you. Thanks for your thoughtful question here. My objective was to explore the hypocrisy around the "pro-life" label in an environmental context. To do so I felt I had to dig a bit into the gap between anti-abortion rhetoric and the medical science, in part to highlight the overlap with anti-science rhetoric in the climate context and in part to comment on the difficulty of moving forward politically. It's not an essay on abortion, which is why nearly all of the usual talking points (from whatever philosophy) aren't included, but I thought it best to be honest about my point of view. I hope I was clear in not condemning a reader for their pro-life stance and in not suggesting that everyone who is pro-choice is anti-environmental. But given the tension around the topic I knew I was taking a risk in writing about evangelical politics (which have been extraordinarily detrimental to democratic norms and science-based policy) and fetal viability (which is medically and emotionally complex). There's no easy path when talking (to an American audience, especially) about abortion.
Again, thank you for your question, Bob. Hope this helps.
Well said, Jason.
Hi Jason:
Well-written and researched, thank you.
Just for the record, I’m solidly pro-choice.
I’m wondering, however, what your objective was, for this week’s column?
I thought well of the parts where you called out the hypocrisy of a “Pro-life” stance held alongside a rejection of climate science and the anti-life aspects of our consumptive economy and culture.
I’m afraid that I heard the rest of the piece as an (atypical for you) example of echo chamber content for the perceived progressive tilt of your audience.
The issue of abortion raises complex moral and ethical questions for everyone.
There may be facts available relating to fetus viability, but anyone who claims to know when human life begins is delusional, or is just trying to manipulate the emotions of their audience.
You, of course, did not make such a claim, but my point is, there are many other factors besides viability that one may consider when one is developing a position on abortion.
Not everyone who is pro-life is a self-serving, power-hungry, nature-hating ideologue.
My solid pro-choice position is accompanied by deep conflicts and moral questions.
I've considered the facts, checked in with my conscience, and made the best decision that I can make under the circumstances.
Others who do the same may arrive at a different conclusion.
I place a high value on your weekly posts, because I always learn something about climate change.
They are reasonable, well-researched, fact-and-science-based, and informative.
They help motivate me to action in the face of huge swaths of bad news that tend to paralyze me.
I hope that you’ll return to that formula going forward.
Respectfully and in good faith,
Bob McKillop
Hi Bob: Always good to hear from you. Thanks for your thoughtful question here. My objective was to explore the hypocrisy around the "pro-life" label in an environmental context. To do so I felt I had to dig a bit into the gap between anti-abortion rhetoric and the medical science, in part to highlight the overlap with anti-science rhetoric in the climate context and in part to comment on the difficulty of moving forward politically. It's not an essay on abortion, which is why nearly all of the usual talking points (from whatever philosophy) aren't included, but I thought it best to be honest about my point of view. I hope I was clear in not condemning a reader for their pro-life stance and in not suggesting that everyone who is pro-choice is anti-environmental. But given the tension around the topic I knew I was taking a risk in writing about evangelical politics (which have been extraordinarily detrimental to democratic norms and science-based policy) and fetal viability (which is medically and emotionally complex). There's no easy path when talking (to an American audience, especially) about abortion.
Again, thank you for your question, Bob. Hope this helps.