There are many different arguments against abortion, but most of them have a similar structure.

Generally, they start with the nature of the unborn. The claim is made that the unborn is a particular kind of thing (e.g. a living human being, or a living human being that can feel pain, or a living human being that could survive outside its mother).

Pro-life arguments then assert that things of this kind have a right to life. It is stated that it’s morally wrong to kill a living human being, or a living human being that can feel pain, or whatever kind of thing the unborn has just been claimed to be. An intermediate conclusion can now be drawn: The unborn has a right to life.

Abortion, of course, kills the unborn, so it’s a small step from there to another intermediate conclusion: Abortion involves the violation of a right to life.

That isn’t quite it though. To be complete, pro-life arguments have to weigh the unborn’s right to life against whatever women’s rights might be violated by prohibiting abortion (e.g. the right to decide what happens to one’s body, or the right to reproductive freedom), and assert that the right to life takes precedence.

If you have to choose between killing someone (on the one hand) and denying someone reproductive freedom (on the other), then the right thing to do is to deny someone reproductive freedom (or so goes the argument).

Only then can the conclusion be drawn: Abortion is immoral.

So a rough summary of the pro-life argument could go like this:

(R) The unborn is a being of type x.
(R) Everything that’s a being of type x has a right to life.
Therefore: (IC) The unborn has a right to life.
(R) Abortion kills the unborn.
Therefore: (IC) Abortion violates a right to life.
(R) The right to life takes precedence over any rights violated by prohibiting abortion.
Therefore: (C) Abortion is immoral.

There was a documentary about religious fundamentalists on Channel 4 last night. It included two clips of pro-choice protesters chanting. In both cases, the chants completely misrepresented the pro-life position.

I know that expecting tight logic from a demo chant is probably a bit optimistic, but it irritated me anyway.

The first chant, coming from pro-choice campaigners trying to disrupt the pro-life March for Life rally, was “March for life, that’s a lie. You don’t care if women die.”

This is, presumably, a condensed version of the argument that if abortion is prohibited then some women will go to illegal abortion providers, putting their safety at risk (and that abortion should therefore be legal so that we can make it as safe as possible).

Accusing those who believe that abortion should be prohibited of not caring if women die seems a bit strong, though.

A pro-life campaigner may well care if women die, but think that protecting the lives of unborn children is more important than protecting the lives of mothers trying to kill them. I strongly suspect that this point of view is far more common than the view that it doesn’t matter at all if a woman having a back-street abortion dies, that the chant misrepresents pro-lifers, that it’s attacking a straw man.

The second chant, “Women’s rights are human rights”, seems just as unfair to the pro-life point of view.

The accusation here is that the pro-life position doesn’t take women’s rights seriously, that it treats them as less than human.

The pro-choice argument doesn’t work by denying women rights, though; it works by attributing to the unborn a right even more fundamental than those women’s rights that are broken by prohibiting abortion. Again, then, the chant attacks a straw man.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the pro-life argument is sound, just that these chants are no good as responses to it.

So what should pro-choice protesters chant?

“It’s just a bunch of cells” (to the tune of the football chant “You don’t know what you’re doing”, presumably) would be to the point, denying that the unborn is the kind of thing that has rights that we ought to protect.

“Women’s rights come first” would also work, challenging the idea that it’s more important to protect the unborn’s life than it is to protect its mother’s freedom.

I’m sure that a pro-choice protester (who would have much more motivation to do this than me) could come up with something catchy that makes these kinds of point.

Logical chants are clearly possible; are they really too much to ask for?

In 2004, the Hunting Act was passed to make hunting with dogs (particularly fox hunting) illegal. In 2004-2006, there were 14 prosecutions under the act. But does the number of prosecutions reflect the number of offences that have been committed? Is the law being enforced?

Tory MP Anne Widdecombe argues that it isn’t, that the law is routinely broken and that more needs to be done to police it. She recognises that police resources are stretched, and so her proposed solution is to license and protect hunt monitors, members of the public who film hunts to collect video evidence of offences.

Without considering the specifics of any particular alleged breach of the law, we can see why the general context of hunts makes it difficult to discover whether an offence has been committed.

First, there are difficulties in collecting evidence. Hunts are fast-paced, and take place over a wide area on an improvised route, making them very difficult to observe. The fact that hunts go into wild areas, away from people, also reduces the number of incidental witnesses to them.

Second, many witnesses are likely to have reasons to distort the truth about what happened on a hunt. Those on the hunt (and the landowners) will want to avoid prosecution for any offences committed, so may lie about their actions. Hunt monitors tend to be opposed to hunting, looking for ways to incriminate the hunt, which means that their evidence must be treated with extreme caution. Add in the financial interests that locals have in the hunts continuing, and reports of hunters intimidating witnesses, and there will be concerns about the credibility of most of the witnesses to a hunt. 

Third, interpreting the evidence can be difficult. The law is complex and technical. Whether an offence has been committed can turn on such details as the number of dogs, what the dogs are being used for, why the animal is being hunted, or whether it is harmed. In some cases, understanding whether the law has been broken will take legal expertise that many observers lack.

All of these things make it difficult to be sure of just how many hunting offences are being committed. They also go some way to explaining why offences that are committed may go unprosecuted. If we want to see the Hunting Act enforced, then the challenge is to find a way of collecting evidence that addresses these problems.

Robert Mugabe became President of Zimbabwe in 1980. He was then a popular hero, having fought to liberate the country from white minority rule under the Rhodesian Front.

Mugabe’s time as President has seen the ruin of the country. His government has been criticised as riddled with corruption, and with high unemployment and runaway inflation Zimbabwe is now suffering financial disaster. There have also been reports of frequent attacks on his political opponents as he seeks to cling to power, including the use of wide-spread intimidation and of torture, and he is accused of having stolen the last election.

Five weeks ago, there was a Presidential election, and a real hope that Mugabe might be ousted. Things in Zimbabwe have become so bad that it seemed possible that Mugabe would no longer be able to control the opposition to him.

Following the election, Mugabe’s rival Morgan Tsvangirai quickly claimed outright victory. He didn’t have direct access to the ballots, but as a measure to promote fairness polling stations had been required to post local results, and Tsvangirai’s MDC party said that according to these results he had won 50.3% of the vote, more than the 50% required to make him the new President.

Meanwhile, Mugabe’s Zanu PF party refused to publish the results, amidst claims that they were looking for ways to rig them.

Today, finally, the official results were announced, giving Tsvangirai a win but not a large enough share of the vote to avoid a second round of voting with just him and Mugabe on the ballot paper. Whether or not Tsvangirai really won the vote outright is a mystery.

Both parties have some access to the results (ability to see), Tsvangirai’s to those posted outside the polling stations and Mugabe’s to the actual ballots cast, which makes them more credible.

Both have a clear vested interest to lie about the results in order to snatch power, however, damaging their credibility.

Although Mugabe’s reputation for rigging elections gives him the least credibility, without a neutral observer able to operate unhindered by Zanu PF it pretty much impossible for us to know what the outcome of the election really was.