Jun
9
8 Things the Abortion Debate Is NOT About
Allow me to get right to the point.
In its essence, the pro-life argument can be summarized with the following syllogism (2 premises and a conclusion):
1) It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
2) Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
3) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
Personally, I might tweak it a little, but that’s it in a nutshell. If someone wants to argue against this position, s/he must either a) show that the terms are unclear; b) show that the argument is unsound (i.e., the premises are not true); or c) demonstrate the argument to be invalid (i.e., the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises).
Unfortunately, the “discussion” often gets sidetracked with various counterclaims, accusations, and just plain bad arguments that serve to distract from the facts and the real issue. I was recently reading about this in The Case for Life, 2nd ed., by Scott Klusendorf, who identifies eight of these distractions. So, I thought I’d lay them out for you in an abbreviated format.
The abortion debate is not about:
1) Labels
Aside from the fact that there are secular pro-lifers and religious pro-choicers, calling an argument “religious” is a dodge, not a refutation. It’s also a category error. If critics can refute the pro-life argument, fine. But merely dismissing it with a label is intellectually lazy.
2) The Origins of an Argument
If chauvinistic men popularize the pro-life argument because they secretly despise women, the argument is not refuted any more than the fact that Margaret Sanger was a racist who promoted eugenics proves the argument correct and that abortion is wrong. An argument stands or falls on its merits, regardless of the questionable character of those making the argument.
3) Motives
Even if it were true that pro-lifers defend the unborn only for political expediency, or only because they hate women (both of which are not remotely true), it wouldn’t follow that their pro-life argument is invalid or unsound. An argument stands or falls on its merits, regardless of the motive(s) of those making the argument.
4) Perspectives
Much too much is made of this whole “woman’s perspective” thing — or that of any other sub-group. Feminists, like women in general, do not all share identical perspectives on the abortion issue, even among those who support abortion. While gender perspectives on abortion help us understand personal experience, they are no substitute for rational inquiry.
5) Psychology
Many women regret their abortion(s), while many others do not, but nothing follows from this regarding the rightness or wrongness of abortion. While post-abortion experiences help us understand the personal feelings of those involved (and this is important for healing), they do not speak to the moral question of abortion.
6) Lost Benefits
Pro-life advocates should not use arguments along the lines of “abortion kills future cancer-curing doctors and brilliant musicians.” It is just as wrong to intentionally kill a homeless man with only a grade-school education as it would be to intentionally kill some highly prominent contributor to our society’s advancement.
7) Moral Neutrality
If you believe that all moral views are equally valid, you’re simply advocating for moral relativism, in which “morality” is just about personal preference. But this is not a neutral position. Relativists think that they are right and nonrelativists are wrong, else they wouldn’t oppose nonrelativists who argue that moral truth is real and knowable.
8) Legal Neutrality
The state either recognizes the humanity of the unborn and thus protects them, or else it doesn’t recognize their humanity and thus permits killing them. Suppose it’s 1860 and the Supreme Court takes no position on the humanity of slaves, but it affirms the legal right to own them. Would this be neutral?
Did you find these as clarifying as I did? I hope so. Now, think about discussions — both in person and online — that you have had (or almost had) on the abortion issue and how you might have revised or framed your responses differently, based on the need to avoid the above distractions and stay focused on the real issue at hand. It’s a good exercise which will help prepare you for your next discussion with a pro-choice advocate.
