An early SSC essay (Scott himself pro-choice) defending the Principle of Charity against the 'pro-lifers don't really care about fetuses, they just want to oppress women' argument. The arguments: (1) the 'why not support contraception / allow rape exceptions' points assume consequentialism, which pro-lifers (esp. Catholics via natural law) explicitly reject — you can't round non-consequentialists to consequentialists (contraception is itself a mortal sin; rape-exception is often political compromise); (2) 'is a fetus a human' is the noncentral fallacy; (3) where are the millions who'd genuinely care about fetuses if not the pro-lifers? (given millions care about chicken suffering); (4) what does 'not really believe' even mean (the surface-honest vs deep-signaling model leaves no room for a secret woman-hating level with no effects); (5) even if all pro-lifers were misogynists, that's the genetic fallacy. Concludes: debate the actual meta-ethical disagreement, not hidden motives.

Quality 75 · Excellent. Excellent: a canonical, much-referenced charitable-argumentation essay applying several rationality tools (Principle of Charity, noncentral + genetic fallacy, the consequentialist/non-consequentialist divide) rigorously to a charged issue — a defining model of how to argue charitably; early and slightly meandering but genuinely load-bearing. 75.

Claude’s paradigm shift 58 · Moderate. A strong, original application of charity + noncentral + genetic-fallacy + the consequentialist-divide to abortion discourse. B58.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. Much-referenced within the rationalist sphere as a model of charitable argument; no material reach. RWI2.

Fetal Attraction: Abortion and the Principle of Charity