Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The Pro-Abortion Contradictions: They Endorse What They Oppose; They Oppose What They Endorse

         Pro-abortion arguments are fraught with contradictions.  For example:  (1) Abortion defenders often say that it’s wrong to force morality on others.  (2) They also say that abortion is a woman’s issue and that men have no proper say in it.  Men ought to stay away.
         If so, then the pro-abortion folks need to oppose Roe v. Wade because it transgresses the very principles the abortion lobby says it upholds.
         (1) Before Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973, abortion was illegal in 45 states and was severely restricted in two others.  Opposition to it was formal, legal, and almost universal.  Yet, despite the near universal rejection of the practice, the Supreme Court imposed its morality on the entire nation.  If imposing morality on others is wrong in principle, as the pro-abortion lobby insists, then the Supreme Court decision was wrong because it imposed its morality upon an entire nation.  But that imposition of morality is never opposed by the pro-choicers, which tells you that they are either cheaters or liars.  They say they oppose imposing morality in principle, but they don’t, not if their morality is being imposed.  They only reject imposing morality when someone else’s morality is in view.
         (2) If, as a matter of principle, men have no proper say in abortion, as the pro-abortionists insist, then they ought to oppose Roe v. Wade because it was decided entirely by men, a mere nine men who imposed their morality upon the whole nation.  If men have no proper say in the issue, as the pro-choice defenders insist, then the Supreme Court decision doubly transgresses pro-abortion principles:  It imposes morality and it was decided by men.  But that double transgression of principle means nothing at all to those who endorse abortion.  As long as men impose the same morality the pro-abortion faction holds, men can say, do, or impose whatever they wish.  It’s only when men argue against abortion that they must be excluded.
         In other words, it’s not really about imposing morality on others, and it’s not really about excluding men from the issue.  It’s not really about the pro-choice lobby’s alleged principles.  It’s really about vacuous self-contradiction.  It’s about cognitive dissonance on the grandest scale.
         But then whoever accused the pro-abortion cadre of logical consistency?  Certainly not I. 


Anonymous said...


Just a couple of thoughts:

Why not go with their actual, strongest argument: that abortion rights are a matter of privacy, which the Supreme Court has declared as a matter of constitutionality (14th Amend.). You've created a bit of a straw man--taking a dumb argument to argue against--so that your resolution is pretty inconsequential to people who want to think seriously about this matter. It's not a matter of someone's private morals; it's a matter of someone violating one's constitutional right to privacy. Saying "keep your hands off my body" (I mean, be real, they equally object to pro-life women who wish to violate their constitutional right to privacy) does not necessarily make a moral statement but a legal one. If it's a legal statement--that is, an affirmation of one's right to privacy--then the hypocrisy seems rather non-existent and completely inconsequential. In other words, you haven't actually put a glove on the real argument. Or you've won an argument that doesn't actually exist and has no real bearing on any of the issues at hand.

Again, whether one finds that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution becomes the sticking point. But the law is on their side. Sometimes the law is an ass. When one addresses the real arguments on the pro-abortion side, then one realizes their true fear: sonogram technology and the science of zygotes/embryos has started making new arguments for the personhood of the fetus. If this is the case, and we start down a path of defining personhood for the fetus, then the fetus gets some right to privacy and legal rights. And then we get to play the true hypocrisy card--privacy for me but no privacy for thee.

Dr. Michael Bauman said...

We agree, pro-abortion arguments in this regard are quite weak. But that does not mean pro-abortionists have ceased to use them. In the last two weeks, those arguments have been directed at me six times. Hence this post. I tend to keep my posts on abortion limited in scope so that whatever I'm addressing at the moment won't get lost in the noise of other issues or arguments. So, as in this instance, when a argument comes up, I try to address it in a timely manner based upon my recent contacts.

I also agree with you about the Constitution, in general, and privacy, in particular. But I am not confident that we will be able to change it, not after nearly 40 years of trying and failing on that count. Perhaps that will change; perhaps not. So most of my effort gets invested in trying to take away the abortionists' bogus arguments so that, no matter what the Supreme Court decides, fewer and fewer persons will take resort to abortion. As you can see, out of around 300 posts to date, approx. 15 have been directed at those pro-abortion arguments, such as they are. Most of them are not Constitution based.

Science and technology are, so far as I can tell at the moment, on our side. I'm happy to bring them into the debate, whether in reference to the Constitution (and things like viability) or not. I don't blame the other side for shying away from science and technology. It doesn't look like they'll be getting much help from that quarter, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Best to you.