Opinion

Why Rush Limbaugh is wrong about abortion & the Casey Anthony case

In one of his recent broadcasts, Rush Limbaugh, while talking about the tragic Casey Anthony story, said this:

 “You know, what I don’t understand about it is they’re [the media] all card-carrying liberals.
When does the death of a child bother them? I’ve never seen them get so upset
over the death of a child. If the child had died, what, two years earlier in the womb
this woman would be a star. She’d be a hero. “

I’ve listened to the audio from that excerpt several times now, and every time I hear it, I’m bothered a little more. Why? Because Rush is assuming something about pro-abortion-choice people that is very rarely true.

OF COURSE abortion advocates are bothered by the murder of two-year-old Caylee Anthony. Everyone is! Here is something pro-life people have common ground with virtually the entire planet on: it’s wrong to murder two-year-old girls.

What most abortion advocates disagree with pro-life people on is whether the preborn are valuable human beings in the same way that Caylee was.

To say that abortion advocates are inconsistent by feeling outrage over Caylee Anthony’s murder and not about abortion is the ultimate example of an informal logical fallacy called “begging the question,” or assuming what you’re trying to prove.

Yes, it’s inconsistent IF the preborn are valuable human beings like you and I, which is exactly what I believe and defend. But most abortion advocates currently disagree. They think the preborn is more comparable to a mole or a tumor that, if allowed to live, will eventually become a full human being, but not until that being has the present capacity to exhibit one or more functions, like consciousness, viability or breathing oxygen through the lungs. It makes perfect sense for them to feel outrage over Caylee’s murder and not about the killing of a bunch of pre-human moles, and if I thought that the preborn were merely pre-human moles, I would agree with them! There would be a HUGE difference between removing a pre-human mole and murdering a two-year-old girl!

On a side note, there’s a smaller segment of the pro-abortion-choice movement that believes the preborn ARE full human beings like you and me, but that they’re unique dependency on the mother’s body is what gives the mother the right to abort, to protect her bodily integrity. We need to be prepared to dialogue with these people too, but the Casey Anthony story doesn’t apply to them either. They would say that if Casey Anthony indeed did kill her daughter, it would have been morally wrong because her daughter (Caylee) was not dependent on Casey’s body in the same way she was as an embryo or fetus. Thus, I’m focusing on the larger segment of pro-abortion-choice people in this article, who also believe that the preborn is not like you and me, but more comparable to a tooth right before it’s pulled by a dentist.

I think there IS a way to use Caylee’s story while talking about abortion, without begging the question. I’ll demonstrate question begging first, and then what I believe is a more appropriate method.

Begging the Question:

Me: Did you hear about the Caylee Anthony story?
Abortion Advocate: Yeah, isn’t that horrible?
Me: Absolutely. It was really difficult to hear the details of that case.
Abortion Advocate: Yeah, it’s tragic how many stories are out there about parents going crazy and killing their kids.
Me: Totally. But you believe in a woman’s right to have an abortion, don’t you?
Abortion Advocate: Well, yes…
Me: Then it’s inconsistent for you to say that what happened to Caylee Anthony was horrible, because you’re for the killing of 3,300 pre-toddlers every day!
Abortion Advocate: Wait, what?
Me: Yeah, because obviously there’s no good difference between a born toddler and a preborn embryo, so you have to either be fine with killing both, or you’ll want to protect both. You can’t have it both ways.
Abortion Advocate: I don’t want to talk to you anymore.

Notice in that illustration that I assumed the preborn is a valuable human being, instead of making a case for the humanity of the preborn. Watch the difference in the next version:

Not Begging the Question:

Me: Did you hear about the Caylee Anthony story?
Abortion Advocate: Yeah, isn’t that horrible?
Me: Absolutely. It was really difficult to hear the details of that case.
Abortion Advocate: Yeah, it’s tragic how many stories are out there about parents going crazy and killing their kids.
Me: Yeah, as someone who is pro-life, I’m particularly concerned about that.
Abortion Advocate: What do you mean?
Me: Well, I think that children are being killed by their parents a lot more often than we hear about, because I believe that preborn humans are just as valuable as born humans.
Abortion Advocate: Why would you think that? Fetuses are nothing like toddlers.
Me: Yeah, it may sound weird at first if you haven’t thought about it before, but here’s my case. We know from the science of embryology that after the fertilization process is over, the result is a unique, individual, whole human being that is biologically alive. (For example, it’s growing, and dead things don’t grow.) We also know that being is a member of the human species because humans beget humans, but I believe a third thing too: I believe that this living human is valuable.
Abortion Advocate: What do you mean when you say “valuable?”
Me: I believe all humans are intrinsically valuable, and have basic rights, regardless of how much we benefit society. In fact, I’m not sure we can make sense of the idea of “equal human rights” unless you agree with that. Many pro-choice people think that all humans are equally valuable after they’re born, or once they’re conscious, or viable, or exhibits one of several other functions. But I think we’re valuable even before we can do things like live on our own, and have conscious awareness.
Abortion Advocate: You’re losing me. Why can’t consciousness be what makes you valuable? My own consciousness sure is valuable to me!
Me: Definitely! But think of the ramifications of basing the value of a human being on consciousness. It’s true that the preborn aren’t conscious, at least not in the way most people use the term. But neither are newborns. Nor are one-month old infants, for that matter. So if the present capacity to be consciously aware is really what gives humans the right to life, there would be nothing wrong with killing infants that are not yet conscious either.
Abortion Advocate: Well, I know I’m against that!
Me: Yeah, me too! So, because I believe the preborn qualify as full human beings like you and me, I’m deeply concerned that more than 3,000 children a day are being killed, and yet most people aren’t as outraged about that as they are about Caylee Anthony, because while everyone agrees that Caylee was fully human, many don’t agree that the preborn are fully human. But I believe all humans are equally valuable, and that we shouldn’t discriminate against humans based on race, ethnicity or gender, nor should we discriminate based on size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency.
Abortion Advocate: I’m not sure that I agree with your case, but let me chew on it a while.
Me: That would be fine. Maybe I could buy you a cup of coffee in a few weeks and we can chat some more. I’ve been doing a lot of the talking today, and I’d love to learn more about your views on this subject.
Abortion Advocate: That sounds great. Thanks!

Yes, that was longer, but I never begged the question either. I made a case for the humanity of the preborn, and then explained why I think Caylee Anthony is comparable to the preborn, even though she was older and able to do many more things functionally than the preborn can.

One final warning to pro-life advocates: If you do use Caylee’s story to talk about abortion right now, you’re in danger of appearing to some like you’re trying to hijack a horrific story about a dead toddler in an attempt to push an agenda. Imagine a pro-life organization that put out a press release on September 11, 2001 saying, “did you know that more unborn babies die from abortion every day than people that died in the twin towers this morning?” I make that point when talking about abortion statistics during presentations today, to give those numbers more meaning, but if I did that on the day those 3,000 people in the World Trade Center died, it would have been seen by many as a cheap, political bait-and-switch. Be mindful about the way you talk about this story, and to whom.

While I think it’s unfair to criticize abortion advocates for seeming inconsistent for being outraged about Caylee Anthony and not abortion, I DO think that the same criticism can be made of pro-life people that are more outraged about Caylee Anthony than abortion. I think many pro-life advocates hear horrific stories like this one or what happened to Laci and Connor Peterson, and understandably express outrage. But did you know that in 2008, the same year Caylee was killed, 94,360 unborn children also lost their lives in the state of Florida? Do you feel just as upset about their deaths? What about the thousands of preborn human beings that are being slaughtered today in abortion facilities across the country? How about tomorrow? Think of the young human beings that are alive today whose hearts will stop beating tomorrow because their heart got sucked down a tube and into a plastic cup along with the rest of their body parts. Are they deserving of the same outrage, even though their manner of death is currently legal?

They should be.

The days of being “pro-life in name only” are over. We need people to stand up and do something about this. We need people to educate themselves, at least enough to make a clear and concise defense of the pro-life position. We need those people to be talking to the pro-choice people around them. We need those people to be praying and counseling outside of abortion facilities, being the last hope for the preborn children at that clinic. We need those people to give money generously to groups that are putting on big projects to protect the preborn. We need those people to vote for life on Election Day.

Because no matter how outraged you are about Caylee Anthony’s murder today, 3,300 other human beings will be killed tomorrow.

 

Josh Brahm is the Director of Education at Right to Life of Central California’s Fresno/Madera office, and host of  “Life Report: Pro-Life Talk | Real World Answers.” Get more of Josh’s unique perspectives on pro-life topics at www.ProLifePodcast.net.

Live Action on Facebook
  • FB123

    Great post!!!

  • Paul Turner

    No one outside Florida should ever have heard the name Casey Anthony.  Hers wasn’t a national story.

    • Anonymous

      Why not? The disappearance and death of a child is a big deal. Do you think no one outside of San Diego should have heard about the disappearances and deaths of Amber Dubois and Chelsea King? How about Danielle Van Damm? How about the murder of Stephanie Crow? Even though I live in San Diego county, and know people who knew these girls, I also know other people who aren’t from here, but knew about these cases and were following them.

      The death of a child makes an impact on people, and, therefore, makes an impact on the law. People study murders and court cases. This was going to be a big case whether or not it was televised.

  • SuperLogic

    Not sure what you mean Paul?   What qualifies a local or state story from a National story?  This was an outrageous and heartbreaking story and is as worthy of national attention as any in my opinion.

  • Dominick7777

    Great article!

  • A sad Mama

    Murder is Murder regardless of the age of the child.We have a lot of Casey Anthonys walking around  free today.Abortion is really sad.

  • Rcfaulknerjr

    How do you figure Limbaugh is wrong? You crazy Liberals embrace abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, and anything else that promotes death and destruction.  Limbaugh is pointing out the fallacies of your crappy agenda, that’s all. 

    • Jurinne

      And it never takes long before the ad hominems start up. :(

  • http://twitter.com/bnotestine Robert Notestine

    Glorifying God is our first function; one should “plan parenthood” based on “Our Father”. The “procreative act” is designed to be pro-creation, pro Father.

  • http://twitter.com/Gator_Nole Alec Whispers

    This was a horrible article. Rush is right. If you think a mother killing her defenseless child is wrong in one instance it should be considered wrong in all of them.

    • scragsma

      Yes, Rush is right at base. On the other hand, Josh is advocating an approach that has more chance of success because it shows the fallacy of the thinking that allows people to separate the unborn from the born when considering rights.

    • scragsma

      Yes, Rush is right at base. On the other hand, Josh is advocating an approach that has more chance of success because it shows the fallacy of the thinking that allows people to separate the unborn from the born when considering rights.

  • Jurinne

    Excellent article and I would like to add that being pro-life means that all human life is sacred from conception through death.  Being pro-life means much more than being anti-abortion. It means that we fight to stop the abuse of children, spouses, the elderly, we are against the death penalty (unless it is absolutely the only way to protect the innocent), we fight against starvation, disease, forced female circumcision – anything that denies that all human beings are precious simply because they are human beings.

    • scragsma

      Correct. However, right now it’s the rights of the unborn that are under the greatest attack, so that’s one of the places where our focus is most needed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1704529530 Pamela Wilson Bartlett

    Not sure I agree with the author’s definition of ‘Concious’. Pre-borns and newborns dream (this has been scientifically proven). How can you say a newborn is not concious “as we understand the term”? The opposite of concious is UN-concious. Pre-born babies have wake/sleep patterns in utero (this has ALSO been scientifically proven), and any woman who has been pregnant can tell you that a pre-born baby has active/restful periods.

    • Nat

      I think by “consciously aware” the author means “self-conscious” or awareness of oneself and one’s existence.  Newborn babies don’t recognize themselves in mirrors, for example but as they get older, they gain that ability.

  • Racer X

    Rush is making the same point you are in your article, but using a different, more direct way of pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are pro abortion. Just because you don’t like the truth served up cold and in your face, with all the niceties taken out, doesn’t mean Rush is wrong. 
    “Begging the question” is only an invalid way of making a point when there is no evidence for the question to be asked in the first place. In this instance, the question is so large that it can’t be ignored. 

    All in all, a poorly written article that wasted time and just caused some more division in the pro-life camp that is not needed because the complaint is not even relevant.

  • Joanofarc1313

    Good article. I think Rush’s heart was in the right place and he was speaking put of anger (as so many of us do on this subject). I think maybe he would benefit from being properly educated on how to best address the pro-choice crowd. I am a sidewalk counselor and speak to women going into a planned parenthood. I know that you have to approach the topic in a certain way so people don’t shut you out. Pro-choicers tend to be a little hostile and are rarely willing to listen to you. Its very important to use the proper vocabulary and technique. I understand that there are passionate and caring pro-life people who feel we shouldn’t have to alter our approach but I personally make the decision to everytime I approach an abortion minded woman because I know it can mean the difference between life and death for her baby.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=609456996 Luke Stibbs

    Your headline is misleading.

    Rush isn’t wrong; but he’s arguing to the choir. Rush isn’t making a case to an army of abortion advocates, he’s talking to people he knows agree with him (at least the vast majority). He’s not begging the question, he’s using a point that he knows that the people he is talking to already agree with. And there is nothing wrong with that.
    If you go speak to the Cato Institute and you make a case for lowering taxes; you don’t have to explain the Laffer Curve. They get it. When talking to someone who doesn’t believe in the humanity of a fetus, yeah. Your approach is better. But Rush is still equally right.

  • Melissa

    I understand where you are coming from logically, but I do think Rush is right, just for the simple fact =  this is where we are heading as a nation.

    Think of Gosnell using scissors on the back of the baby’s spinal cord when it was born alive. Pretty soon the pro-abort’s will be saying it is ok as long as they were an unexpected pregnancy to begin with, or if the mother’s circumstance changes in such a way that she can’t handle having the child around, say up to the age of being able to defend themselves. I know it sounds far-fetched but I know there was a time when American’s would’ve been horrified to know that you could go in for any reason at any time of your pregnancy and have an abortion, yet here we are.

  • Seiftstream93

    I think Josh’s point with regards to Rush Limbaugh is simply that the statement about hypocrisy isn’t fair until we’ve first argued that that the unborn child IS essentially the same thing the two-year-old child. I really respect the way that LiveAction persists in behaving fairly and does not stoop to dirty tricks in the fight against abortion. When we stoop to the level of the enemy, we make ourselves as bad as they are. And this fight isn’t about bashing. It’s about loving: loving the pre-born children, and loving their killers (yes) and their uneducated mothers
    enough to teach them and help them out of the culture of death. The war against abortion is a war of the mind, and the only way that we are ever likely to change anybody’s mind is by presenting water-tight arguments fairly and respectfully.

    Abortion is the holocaust of our time. It is something so staggeringly horrible and so bloody that sometimes I think it’s perfectly OK for us to vent our frustration and our grief with statements like the one made by Limbaugh. What he said was true and right. But we can’t say those kinds of things to the opposition. We can only say those things to one another, to people who already agree and understand. The opposition doesn’t understand us and we can’t hope to make them understand us when we are not doing our utmost to be understood. This is something I feel kindof strongly about as I see this fight so often disintegrate into unintelligible ugliness on both sides. Mostly on their side, yes, but sometimes our anger gets the best of us. It does no good to simply spout. We must, must ARGUE coherently and respectfully.

    Kudos to you, Josh, for an excellent post!

  • Anonymous

    Good to know there’s someone in the pro-life movement worried about offending the sensibilities of abortion advocates. The tone of this column says, “Don’t talk about Casey Anthony in the context of abortion. because the people in favor of abortion will be disgusted by us.”

  • Kmacdoula

    No Alec. This article was SO RIGHT ON THE MARK! This needs to be done in this way so as to not shove it down their throats but ti be able to have a discussion, and the only way that will happen is if they will stop to listen in the 1st place.

  • JB

    The article makes some valid points, I’d say perhaps Rush got ahead of himself with that argument and didn’t make the case for personhood or maybe he was just implying that the unborn were human with what he said.  I’m sure he’s aware that pro-choices argue that the unborn are not human.  Often times, pro-choicers will say that but it’s really just an excuse because once you provide scientific evidence that the unborn are human they will still pull out all of the usual arguments about why abortion is necessary even if the unborn IS a person.

    Whether Rush is begging the question or not, it’s still a useful argument because when it comes down to it the unborn are fundamentally the same as a born child.  Once you look at that fact pro-choice arguments such as womens’s rights, bodily-autonomy, and mercy killing pale in comparison, imo. 

  • Pingback: In Defense of Rush Limbaugh

  • David

    Rush believes that Obama wants to run against Romney. With the Democrat votes cast in Michigan for Santorum we know the truth. Rush claims a 98% accuracy rate. I don’t see it.

  • Pingback: Why Rush Limbaugh is Wrong about Abortion & the Casey Anthony Case « Life Report