Random Snippet: Imagine a world where people actually looked behind their oft asserted claims

Analysis isn't actually a human long suit.  Taking refuge in commonly repeated supposed facts is.  This is extremely common, and unfortunate.  It's a way that people take comfort in their own preformed assumptions so they don't have to look at the facts.  Consider this statement, circulating on a Facebook story right now.

For example, one of my left wing friends has one of those Facebook photo meme things up which states:  Imagine A World Where "Pro Life" Efforts Included Feeding Hungry Children".

Well. . . you live in that world right now.

But that doesn't fit a weird and common narrative.  People on the pro abortion part of this debate take comfort in the supposed notion that pro life people are in favor of the death penalty and ignore the needs of distressed children.  They ought to spend some time with those folks.

I'm rather obviously not in favor of killing people at any stage of their life, but I don't get any credit for doing anything public, pretty much about anything.  But I know people who are very dedicated to pro life issues and, if anything, they would make some feel uncomfortable with the degree to which they are devoted to helping actual living people.  As a rule, I've found that most people who hold pro life issues are radically pro life. . . they oppose the death penalty for example and are dedicated to helping any living soul.  One activist I know here is involved in pre natal health care in a big way and towards trying to help single mothers.

So why the false assumption?

Because it's easy and it doesn't make those holding the other view squirm.  In reality, those who argue its a choice don't want to be talking about the level of choices which this brings up, and it does.  If, for example, a mother has the choice, all on her own, to kill the unborn, why then the state surely has the choice to kill the criminal. . . or maybe just those whose life it deems unworthy.  It gets those folks out of admitting that most abortions are for reasons of convenience, no matter how distressed the carrying mother is, rather than anything larger.  That's far from noble.  Better to come at things with a false "I'm rubber you're glue" argument.

There's a lot of things like this.  It's unfortunate as it makes the quality of actual debate pretty poor.

Also making it poor, I'd note, is the citation of mystery statistics.  "2/3s of marriages end in divorces".  No, they don't.  You hear that all the time, and then people go on to try to make some point from there.  But the point you're delivering is impaired from the onset if your data was messed up.