Leftist Lies

Article adapted from episode content.

Public discourse is frequently shaped by powerful narratives, sometimes propagated with assurances that later prove to be unfounded. A prominent example involves discussions surrounding the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For over a decade, those raising concerns that the ACA could be used to fund abortions were often dismissed as employing scare tactics. However, recent developments confirm that such concerns were, in fact, well-founded. Several states, including Maryland and other jurisdictions often characterized as “blue states,” are now allocating funds from the Affordable Care Act to cover travel expenses for women seeking abortions. This practice directly contradicts repeated assurances that the ACA would never be used to finance abortion services.

Reports from various media outlets, including NPR, Politico, The Hill, The New York Times, and The Baltimore Sun, have confirmed that the Affordable Care Act is indeed contributing to abortion care costs. This demonstrates a critical need for skepticism regarding legislative assurances and highlights how foundational concerns about the use of public funds can materialize despite initial denials.

The Rhetoric of Compassion: A Potential Trojan Horse

A common argumentative tactic in public debate involves leveraging the concept of compassion as a tool to counter moral objections. Opponents of certain policies are frequently accused of being un-Christian, uncompassionate, or uncaring towards the poor if they raise ethical concerns about proposed behaviors or legislation. This “compassion angle” can serve as a Trojan horse, designed to conceal the true implications or provisions embedded within legislation.

Consider the argument often put forth regarding socialized medicine: “Why oppose something that helps poor people? European socialized medicine works well for the poor; why are you against it?”. Such claims frequently carry hidden and undefended premises. One such premise is the unproven assumption that government charity or handouts are equivalent to biblical charity, or that government entities can more effectively care for the poor than private charity or market economies. Another implicit claim suggests that genuine care for the disadvantaged is demonstrated only through support for large government programs.

It is crucial to differentiate between merely having “a heart for the poor” and possessing “a mind for the poor”. The latter implies a commitment to identifying and implementing solutions that genuinely alleviate suffering for the disadvantaged, rather than simply endorsing programs based on their perceived compassionate intent. Conservative Christians and pro-life advocates, in particular, are often subjected to intense scrutiny, portrayed as extremists when they articulate moral objections. Overcoming this challenge requires adopting a strategic approach to argumentation and asking incisive questions.

Strategic Engagement: Three Essential Questions

To effectively navigate contentious debates and expose unsupported claims, three crucial questions can be employed. These questions empower individuals to control the discussion, clarify ambiguities, and reveal the underlying assumptions and implications of opposing viewpoints.

Clarifying Terms: “What Do You Mean By That?”

The first question involves requesting a definition for ambiguous or emotionally charged terms. For instance, if an individual is labeled an “extremist,” a direct inquiry like, “What do you mean by that?” can expose the vacuous nature of the claim. If being “right” makes one an extremist, then the critic attempting to correct a viewpoint implicitly refutes their own stance by claiming to be right themselves. This immediate clarification highlights the logical inconsistency of the accusation.

This question is particularly effective when dealing with complex concepts such as “self-awareness” in the context of human value and the right to life. Different interpretations of self-awareness can lead to vastly different conclusions:

• Actual Self-Awareness: If this is the criterion, individuals would lose their right to life every time they sleep, as they are not actually self-aware in that state.
• Immediately Exercisable Capacity for Self-Awareness: This interpretation implies a loss of the right to life during conditions like anesthesia, where the capacity cannot be immediately exercised.
• Presence of Mental Hardware for Self-Awareness: This poses challenges for individuals with temporary brain damage who may recover, raising questions about their personhood status during recovery.

A lack of a clear answer to such definitional questions often indicates a weakness in the underlying premise.

Demanding Justification: “How Did You Come to That Conclusion?”

Once terms are clarified, the second vital question challenges the basis of the opponent’s conclusion: “How did you come to that conclusion?”. This prompts the individual to provide evidence or reasoning for their claims, forcing them to defend what might otherwise be an undefended premise. For example, if someone asserts that self-awareness is what confers value and a right to life, this question demands an explanation for why self-awareness, specifically, is value-giving.

It is crucial for advocates not to inadvertently validate the opponent’s premise by attempting to counter it using evidence that implicitly accepts their framework. For instance, citing the presence of brain waves in an embryo as early as 11 weeks, or the possibility of dreaming around 14 weeks, while factual, can be a strategic blunder. Such a response implicitly agrees with the premise that brain function or self-awareness is the determinant of value. Instead, the focus should remain on making the opponent defend their own claim regarding the chosen trait and its connection to value. This can be highlighted by asking, “Why is self-awareness the thing that gives us value and not, for example, having a belly button that points out rather than in?”.

Exploring Consequences: “Have You Considered the Implications of Your View?”

The third and often most impactful question delves into the logical and real-world consequences of an opponent’s view: “Have you considered the implications of your view?”. This helps expose the broader ramifications of a principle, which may be unpalatable even to the person advancing it.

If a right to life is predicated on a trait like self-awareness, significant problems arise:

• Human Equality Becomes Impossible: Self-awareness is not uniformly distributed among individuals; it fluctuates based on factors like alertness, cognitive traits, and even daily routines. Basing human value and a right to life on a property that varies among individuals and within a single lifetime inherently undermines the concept of human equality. It suggests that those with higher levels of self-awareness would possess a greater right to life than those with less, leading to a “savage definition of human equality” that effectively ceases to exist.
• Disqualification Beyond the Unborn: Applying the self-awareness criterion consistently extends beyond fetuses. Research, including secular studies, suggests that full self-awareness may not develop until a child is almost three years old. This logically implies that if self-awareness is the sole determinant of value and the right to life, then newborns and toddlers could also be considered expendable. While this conclusion is widely rejected in current culture, it is a direct and logical outcome of the proposed principle. The fundamental principle that the right to life is not intrinsic to a human being, but rather based on fluctuating traits not equally shared, inevitably leads to the dehumanization of more than just the unborn.

Beyond Performance: The Problem of Body-Self Dualism

Underlying many “performance arguments” for abortion – those that tie a right to life to abilities like self-awareness, environmental interaction, problem-solving, or pain perception – is a pervasive philosophical worldview known as body-self dualism. This view, regrettably prevalent in modern culture, proposes a dangerous assumption: that the “real me” is entirely separate from the biological body. According to body-self dualism, the body is merely physical matter, devoid of intrinsic purposes, which can be manipulated freely to fulfill the desires of the “cognitive self” – the true “you” defined by thoughts, desires, aims, wishes, and the ability to value one’s existence. It posits that the body provides no information about one’s identity.

This dualistic perspective is a foundational premise for arguments that distinguish between “human” and “person,” claiming, for instance, that the unborn are human but not persons. This arbitrary distinction is often employed to justify the killing of one class of human beings while prohibiting the killing of others. Advocates of this view, such as Peter Singer and Michael Tooley, argue that “you” (the subject of consciousness or person with an identity) were not present in the fetal or newborn stages, thus rendering abortion and infanticide inconsequential. They differentiate between “biological life” and “biographical life,” with the latter commencing only when cognitive functions like self-awareness, valuing existence, and desires are present.

Body-self dualism also underpins many contemporary debates, including those surrounding transgenderism. The argument that one is “a woman trapped in a man’s body” directly reflects the belief that the physical body conveys nothing about identity, and that gender is solely a mental construct divorced from biological reality. In the context of abortion, this translates to the claim that no “real you” exists as a subject until specific cognitive traits develop.

Challenging Body-Self Dualism: Counterintuitive Consequences

Body-self dualism is deeply problematic and counterintuitive, leading to absurd conclusions that contradict everyday experience.

• The “No Hugs” Paradox: If identity resides solely in thoughts, desires, and feelings, distinct from the physical body, then physical interactions like hugging become nonsensical. One hugs bodies, not abstract desires. Thus, under this view, one could never truly “hug” their mother because her body is deemed irrelevant to her identity.
• The “Mass Murder” Paradox for Psychologists: Consider a psychologist treating a multi-personality disorder. If each distinct personality is considered a separate “subject of being” with its own desires and cognitive functions (as implied by body-self dualism), then successfully integrating or eliminating these personalities would logically constitute “mass murder”. This conclusion is universally rejected and highlights the absurdity of the premise.
• Contradiction with Human Experience: Our lived experience demonstrates a dynamic union of body and soul. When observing something, the eye (physical) takes in images, while the mind (immaterial) interprets and makes sense of them. This seamless integration supports a worldview where human beings are not merely disembodied minds but rather integrated wholes. Furthermore, the assumption that the mind is the “central me” is often made without sufficient justification.

Conclusion: Empowering Informed Advocacy

In an era of rapid information dissemination and sophisticated rhetorical tactics, it is critically important for individuals, particularly those advocating for the pro-life position, to be both well-informed and skeptical. Assurances made about legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act’s alleged inability to fund abortions, must be met with careful scrutiny and a willingness to investigate whether actual outcomes align with initial promises.

To effectively participate in these vital conversations, it is essential to be equipped with tools for persuasive argumentation and to discern hidden assumptions. The ability to pose strategic questions—“What do you mean by that?”, “How did you come to that conclusion?”, and “Have you considered the implications of your view?”—allows for intellectual engagement that clarifies terms, demands justification, and reveals the logical consequences of underlying worldviews. By consistently applying these principles, one can maintain focus on the central issue at hand: understanding the fundamental nature of the unborn. Developing these skills enables advocates to navigate complex debates confidently and persuasively, ensuring that truth and coherent reasoning prevail over misleading rhetoric and undefended premises.