There's a common move made in discussions of abortion, and this type of thing happens with other controversial issues, that goes like this:
"Those evil, stupid pro-choice people don't even understand that _____. If they did, they'd realize that abortion is wrong!"
"Those anti-choice morons are so dumb that don't even realize that _____. If they did, they'd agree that abortion is wrong!"
The picture that comes to mind for me is that these people think they are "slaying the dragons" in pointing out what they think are obvious facts that people who disagree with them are missing: "Those idiots! How could they be so dumb??"
Now, the problem with this is often that things are more complicated than the "dragon slayer" thinks they are.
Let's begin with a pro-choice example:
"Those anti-choice morons are so dumb that don't even realize that women have a right to their own bodies. If they did, they'd agree that abortion is wrong!"
But, like it or not, there are some complications here:
- Is this right a legal right or a moral right, or both?
- Does this right have any limits, ever?
- Is there any way anyone could wind up with any "right" to someone's body, ever?
- Even if women have these rights, could there be other (legal or moral) obligations that are not based on rights that would make abortion wrong?
Some of these questions aren't super-easy to answer: they really require some careful thought. So no "dragon" was "slayed": things are more complicated than the would-be-slayer, and any of their mob, thinks they are.
An example about people who oppose abortion:
"Those evil, stupid pro-choice people don't even understand that fetuses are alive, that fetuses are biologically human, that fetuses are alive and biologically human, and that fetuses are living biologically human organisms. If they did, they'd realize that abortion is wrong!"
Like it or not, thoughtful pro-choice people realize that fetuses are alive, that fetuses are biologically human, that fetuses are alive and biologically human, and that fetuses are living biologically human organisms. Surely some pro-choice don't realize this, and too bad for them: their misunderstandings need to be corrected. (Do they think fetuses are dead, and that dead fetuses are aborted? Do they think fetuses in human beings are dogs or cats or some other species?!)
The problem though is that more developed pro-choice arguments (see here for an
introduction to these)
accept that fetuses are alive, that fetuses are biologically human, that fetuses are alive and biologically human, and that fetuses are living biologically human organisms.
Pro-choice thinkers acknowledge all that; they typically just argue that despite all this, at least some fetuses don't have the characteristics that make something have rights or wrong to kill, and/or they argue that having these characteristics does not impose obligations on others: e.g., the right to life is not a right to someone else's body, and that even voluntarily sexual relations don't grant anyone that right.
So no dragons slayed, again.
(If a person though thought the initial argument or claim would "slay" the idea, they are apt to try it again, although this time they are responding to a more abstract idea that is new to them, so the chances for a "slaying" from their initial reactions is even less likely now.)
What's the upshot?
It's a common theme here: it's that abortion, like many issues, is complicated: there's a lot to learn about it and simplistic arguments and simplistic objections likely don't get at the heart of that matter.
It might be fun for some people to "score points" with people who agree with them by "slaying dragons" like this, but that's not the route to any kind of progress on any issues.
What's needed is some real understanding and some serious, honest engagement with the issues and arguments, based on the recognition that we might have missed something important in our understandings. "Dragonslayers" need to lay down their swords if they want to be part of that, and they should.
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t really how the arguments go, however. This is a bit too charitable on the pro-choice side and the key point missing in the anti-abortion side is that those who condemn abortion assume the foetus is an innocent human life and deliberately destroying an innocent human life is murder. It is the murder that is wrong, not the abortion per se. There are multitudes of exceptions where abortion is entirely morally plausible (e.g. ectopic pregnancy) as no murder is taking place when you remove a fallopian tube that will certainly rupture and kill both mother and child. No one on the anti-abortion side truly has such a black-and-white view of abortion.
Neither do pro-choice activists. The key issue pro-choice activists struggle with is when do we say it’s permissible to murder? Most would like to say “never” and would do, but they put a box around abortion as an exception. Then when you ask why in this case is murder licit? And then come the more sophisticated excuses of bodily autonomy or they push back against the personhood argument claiming it may be human life in there, but it’s not a person and it’s permissible to murder non-persons. But what it essentially boils down to, is that for pro-choice persons murder is entirely possible for a wide range of circumstances - inconvenience, financial stress, emotional stress, duress, not wanting to see someone in pain etc.
Most pro-choice persons will never have to engage in abortion other than from their armchair (thankfully) but for those who do, the realisation of destroying human life catches up with them eventually. This is why it’s pernicious and should be illegal in almost every circumstance, not just to protect the child.
Hi, "murder" means "wrongful killing (of a person)" and so what's said here is what's called "question begging" or assuming what you are would need to support. Please see the section in the book on question-begging arguments.
DeleteCalling an embryo or beginning fetus a "child" is also question begging: see the section on definitions of abortion.