This is one of the topics I've changed my mind about as a result of grappling with some of the same points you've raised here. It's easy to frame the abortion issue in a way that leverages oneself into a position of moral authority, while evading engagement with thornier aspects of the question. One version of this is framing the issue a…
This is one of the topics I've changed my mind about as a result of grappling with some of the same points you've raised here. It's easy to frame the abortion issue in a way that leverages oneself into a position of moral authority, while evading engagement with thornier aspects of the question. One version of this is framing the issue as "men trying to control women's bodies." Often this is accompanied by sentiments to the effect that men should be silent on the issue, and that weighing in at all is an attempt by men to usurp women's bodily autonomy. ("No uterus = no opinion!" the ill-conceived placards declare petulantly.) It is an emotional ploy meant to evoke the image of a salacious man (somehow) deriving a rapey sort of pleasure from "controlling women's bodies" in the form of legislatively restricting abortion access. (Quick, get the tissues and lube! The Senate session on C-SPAN is about to start!) The problem is, this framing of the issue doesn't even vaguely resemble reality. About half of the people who support abortion rights are men, and about half of the people who oppose them are women. This isn't about patriarchal men oppressing women. Telling men to shut up only has potential to silence men who would otherwise support abortion rights, since your demands are unlikely to hold any sway with the men (and women) in the opposing camp. Well done feminists, you've just halved the support for your own cause. And you've completely sidestepped any engagement with your opponents' actual motive, which is this: they think abortion is murder. Speaking of which...
On the other side of the aisle, we have those who treat the evil of abortion as a moral self-evidency, and who use visceral imagery and emotional language to delegitimize their opponents. "Sorry, I don't take moral lectures from people who think it's OK to stab innocent babies in the back of the head with scissors." This post was shared to Facebook by a friend of mine, a devout fundamentalist Christian. I replied "Unless of course the baby is a Hittite, Amalekite, or Midianite." What ensued was a lengthy, heated theological argument that nearly ended our friendship. The point of my response was one I could never get him to acknowledge: In one context, you regard "killing babies" as a moral abomination at face value without any possible justification. In another context, you produce an astounding array of sophisticated theological arguments to justify ... drum roll ... killing babies. Is it conceivable to you that your opponents in the abortion argument might have an equally compelling basis for their position that might be worth exploring?
My apologies for the long comment. All this is just to say, to make any progress on this subject, I've learned you first have to relinquish your favorite delegitimizing tactics and step down from the moral podium.
This is one of the topics I've changed my mind about as a result of grappling with some of the same points you've raised here. It's easy to frame the abortion issue in a way that leverages oneself into a position of moral authority, while evading engagement with thornier aspects of the question. One version of this is framing the issue as "men trying to control women's bodies." Often this is accompanied by sentiments to the effect that men should be silent on the issue, and that weighing in at all is an attempt by men to usurp women's bodily autonomy. ("No uterus = no opinion!" the ill-conceived placards declare petulantly.) It is an emotional ploy meant to evoke the image of a salacious man (somehow) deriving a rapey sort of pleasure from "controlling women's bodies" in the form of legislatively restricting abortion access. (Quick, get the tissues and lube! The Senate session on C-SPAN is about to start!) The problem is, this framing of the issue doesn't even vaguely resemble reality. About half of the people who support abortion rights are men, and about half of the people who oppose them are women. This isn't about patriarchal men oppressing women. Telling men to shut up only has potential to silence men who would otherwise support abortion rights, since your demands are unlikely to hold any sway with the men (and women) in the opposing camp. Well done feminists, you've just halved the support for your own cause. And you've completely sidestepped any engagement with your opponents' actual motive, which is this: they think abortion is murder. Speaking of which...
On the other side of the aisle, we have those who treat the evil of abortion as a moral self-evidency, and who use visceral imagery and emotional language to delegitimize their opponents. "Sorry, I don't take moral lectures from people who think it's OK to stab innocent babies in the back of the head with scissors." This post was shared to Facebook by a friend of mine, a devout fundamentalist Christian. I replied "Unless of course the baby is a Hittite, Amalekite, or Midianite." What ensued was a lengthy, heated theological argument that nearly ended our friendship. The point of my response was one I could never get him to acknowledge: In one context, you regard "killing babies" as a moral abomination at face value without any possible justification. In another context, you produce an astounding array of sophisticated theological arguments to justify ... drum roll ... killing babies. Is it conceivable to you that your opponents in the abortion argument might have an equally compelling basis for their position that might be worth exploring?
My apologies for the long comment. All this is just to say, to make any progress on this subject, I've learned you first have to relinquish your favorite delegitimizing tactics and step down from the moral podium.