A little while ago, I was involved in a discussion on abortion which had five people up until 4 in the morning. I don't intend to start the discussion over again here, but I do want to talk briefly about something someone said during the conversation that has bothered me ever since: the classic "no uterus, no opinion" appeal.
Now I understand that this is a powerful debating tool, used to argue that the opinions of about half your detractors don't even matter, but as a logical argument, I find it quite frightening. What this statement essentially means is that if something doesn't affect you directly, you can't have an opinion on it. I don't think this needs a whole lot of examination to show that it's a frightening concept, but let's take a quick look at what results from this standpoint...
Probably the most poignantly, I, as a man, can no longer have an opinion on things like rape. As a white man, I can't have an opinion on things like racial discrimination. As a member of the middle class, I can't have an opinion on things like welfare. If you accept "no uterus, no opinion," then logically, you should accept all of this, too, correct?
I think that in itself is enough to debunk the whole idea, since I do have opinions on all those things that don't affect me directly, and I'm sure 95% of white, middle class men do too. I find it interesting that I would never be yelled at for stepping out and saying something like rape, racism, or poverty is wrong, but if I were to put my opinion (which really isn't very hard-core anyway) on abortion out there, it can be discredited because I am a man.
Also, not to overreact, but I do think that this idea, if it were to be accepted by a logical populace, would inevitably lead to the downfall of civilization. Society is based on things like compassion and sympathy, and cannot function without them. The Social Contract is all very well, but I don't think that it alone could support a civilization without being augmented by compassion. Compassion and sympathy mean caring about things which don't affect you. We cannot have a culture in which people don't care about such things, and even if we could, I don't think I'd want to live there.
I guess in a way it's fortunate that the populace isn't particularly logical, then, so everyone won't reach that conclusion...of course, if everyone was logical, then the issue probably would never be raised...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hello Ben,
I'm not sure if I'm part of your intended audience as this blog seems mainly visited by your family, but I will at least throw something out there in case I am.
I agree with you that even if something does not directly affect someone, they still can have and express an opinion about it. Abortion is one of those moral dilemmas both myself and society haven't worked out quite yet, and as such the need for discussion, debate, and informed people regarding this topic is great.
Alas, I fear that most people already feel that if something does not directly concern them then it is none of their business, and I don't think this is anything new. The vast majority of people are likely only to get involved when something affects them personally. The fact that half those registered to vote don't show up to the polls regularly and that even more aren't even registered lends credence to this idea.
Whether or not this has or will cause the downfall of society remains to be seen. We still have plenty of people that are actively campaigning not only to convince people to switch their view, but others to join their cause that have otherwise minded their own business.
Although you said you do not wish to raise the discussion of your opinion here, you do close with the sentence "if everyone was logical, then the issue probably would never be raised" which suggests that you consider those in opposition to your point to be illogical. Earlier I mentioned that I am not committed to an opinion on this topic, and I was wondering if you could share this logical insight with me. Because you say people are trying to discredit your opinion because of your lack of personal involvement with the issue I suspect that the opinion you hold is against abortion.
Anyways, I hope this post finds you well. It's been customarily cold here in Maine, and I can only hope that Spring doesn't tarry too long.
Mr. Cronin! No, you weren't part of my intended audience, but I suppose I was underestimating your 'net stalking abilities.
The illogic I was speaking of was in reference to the specific statement, "no uterus, no opinion." However, while I would not go so far as to say that pro-choice people in general are illogical, since I haven't spoken with too many people about it, it has almost universally been my experience that this is so.
I referred to my opinion on abortion as "not that hard-core," because I'm not, strictly speaking, against abortion. I am, however, quite against the murder of children in all but the most extreme circumstances, which I don't think is a very extreme position at all. I am not strictly against abortion because I am not positive when life should be considered to have begun - it doesn't really make sense to me for it to be at birth, but nor does it really make sense to say it's at conception.
My only real position, therefore - which, amusingly enough, I do still get argued with for - is that we should not allow people to kill a human being. The debate about when life begins is quite open, but I don't think it's really logical to debate abortion as it is usually done, when the essential question is when life begins. It's not really a matter of debate (or, I hope it isn't) whether we should kill children, but people seem to lack the clarity to go for the heart of the issue.
Good stuff, Benjamin. There's a connection here between this issue and the issue Matthew is pondering: what is the basis for morality?
If logic is not the basis for morality, then there is no possibility of public debate on any moral issue.
Dad
Ben, you have actually understated your point. If you continue your reducto ad absurdum than you reach the point where you are unable to offer an opinion on what anyone else thinks. After all, ultimately we are all individuals.
Also, you have said that, "It's not really a matter of debate (or, I hope it isn't) whether we should kill children." However, there is an actual position which suggests that it is ok to execute a child up to the age of two as they do not yet possess the cognitive abilities of an actual human being. Granted this is an extreme position which most abortionists do not hold. Still, it is one of the positions on the table at this point.
It's somewhat interesting to me that Cronin labelled you as pro-life. Yes, I would tend to say the same thing but there is nothing in your post thats makes a statement toward either direction. So, why did the feeling come across? Perhaps it didn't, but there is the sense of logic in the post. Seems to me that the display of logic and thought is what tends to lead us to the conclusion that you are pro-life. There's something to that.
Post a Comment