"If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would No Longer Be an Issue"

Among all the bad pro-choice sound bites that are thrown around in a culture that seems to thrive on tweets and memes, this has to be by far the worst one I have come across. During a discussion on the abortion issue in a sociology class a few months back, a student in the class made this comment in response to the professor talking about the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned in the near future.

Now, aside from being an extremely prejudiced statement (as if simply being male or female can determine the validity of an argument or idea) this assertion offers little in the way of an actual argument against the pro-life case.

The assertion that if I was able to become pregnant, I'd be pro-choice(I'd be female, if that was the case, and my mom and doctor would have quite a bit of explaining to do...), is so laughably bad, it needs an appropriate response:

Now that we've taken care of that, let's review the pro-life argument:

1. It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

2. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.

Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

If both premises are true, and the conclusion logically follows from the premises, then the argument is sound. The statement that "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal and widely available" does nothing to answer the argument put forward by pro-lifers (including pro-life women). The statement "Abortion is wrong" is either true or false, regardless of the gender of the persons saying it.

However, let's just assume, for the sake of discussion, that men could become pregnant. (Again, setting aside the fact that this would mean that there would no longer be biological males, but just assume it to be the case).

What does this end up meaning? If men could get pregnant, would this mean it is suddenly, magically acceptable to intentionally kill an innocent human being? In turn, would this also mean that abortion does not intentionally kill an innocent human being? How does something as arbitrary as gender, or even skin color, determine the answers to those questions? The science of embryology relies upon empirical research to determine the answer to the question "What is an embryo?", which is completely independent of the gender of the persons doing the research. The embryo either has an intrinsic human nature or it does not. Because of this, abortion is still a moral wrong even if men could become pregnant. Pro-lifers are not arguing that abortion is a moral wrong as long as it is done by women. Instead,  we argue that abortion is wrong because it unjustly ends the life of an innocent human being.

The statement does nothing to answer the arguments pro-lifers make against elective abortion, and instead relies on the very controversial assumption that all efforts to restrict abortion are based in a sort of "patriarchal" society that "oppresses" women. Even if that was the case, intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being would still be wrong. Even if a society is inherently unjust towards women and girls, the answer to such an injustice is to try and right the wrongs being done, not promote a further injustice against more innocent human beings who cannot defend themselves. Such a response is foolish and callous, and ends up resulting in the conclusion that the only way women and girls can respond to being mistreated is to turn around and mistreat other innocent humans who happen to be in their immediate care.

That, in itself, is the anti-woman and patriarchal view.

A Quick Thought On the "Inconsistency" Objections

During some pro-life outreach in Los Angeles this past week with the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, one of the common objections that kept being made again and again was that pro-lifers were "inconsistent" for opposing abortion while not giving support to some particular option on a social issue.

Take the issue of aid for foreign refugees for example. One angry protestor at our outreach was shouting "I'll bet you aren't helping any refugee kids! And you call yourselves 'pro-life'!"

The problem with highlighting these "inconsistencies" is that in many (if not all) cases abortion is not entirely parallel with the other issue being mentioned. For example, here is the pro-life argument, in a syllogism (a formal argument):

Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

Premise 2: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.

Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Since the question "Does abortion kill a human being?" can be answered through the science of embryology by determining whether or not there is a human being present in the womb during abortion, then anyone who objects to this argument must use the science of embryology and fetology to answer that question. Similarly, they must also use philosophy and moral reasoning to demonstrate (conclusively) why any difference between two separate human beings can be used to justify killing one but not the other, and why that particular difference is the one we should acknowledge, both in our laws and our moral decision making.

The problem with comparing other social issues to abortion and thus calling those who oppose abortion "inconsistent" is that many of the issues that are typically mentioned tend not to be an issue over who or what we are going to purposely kill. In fact, many are just the opposite. For example, the debate over giving aid and shelter to foreign refugees is not about whether or not it is morally permissible to kill refugees seeking asylum in the U.S. (If it was, those opposed to abortion would most assuredly speak out against the act). Rather, it concerns what the best way the U.S. government should provide aid to foreign refugees while also maintaining the security and safety of American citizens.

Likewise, attacking pro-life conservatives for calling themselves "pro-life" while taking a non-Leftwing stance on the healthcare issue is just as absurd. Republicans who oppose abortion are not opposing socialized healthcare because they are trying to kill those who "need" socialized healthcare; rather, they do so because they think there are better alternatives. The debate over healthcare is how to fix a damaged system in the most effective and moral way possible.

Instead of arguing for why abortion is permissible, the abortion-choicer just engages in a lazy Ad Hominem slander of those they disagree with. Even if the slander happens to be true, if the argument against abortion succeeds, then anyone committed to truth and moral goodness should oppose abortion.

Can Men Discuss Abortion?

"You're a man! You can't speak on abortion!"
This assertion is so laughably bad, I would prefer to ignore it. It is another example of the Ad Hominem fallacy that is commonplace in heated topics like abortion. However, I have heard a more sophisticated version of the idea, so I figure that it is time for another response.
In conversations about abortion, many have approached me and asked how exactly I am able to understand and oppose abortion, since I will never be pregnant. While it is true that I will never be pregnant, that doesn't mean that I am incapable of coming to the correct conclusion on the ethical and legal implications of the abortion issue, and that there is no good reason to oppose the practice. After all, arguments don't have reproductive organs. People do. Since having a certain set of organs does not cause someone to come to the wrong conclusion on any other issue, then this issue must be no different.

Furthermore, there are many women who oppose abortion, and will use the exact same arguments that men do. Are we going to have to assume that if a woman makes an argument against abortion(P1. It's wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. P2. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong) then the argument is sound; but if a man makes the same exact argument, then the argument is unsound, simply because he will never become pregnant? What if a woman who cannot become pregnant made the same argument? Is it invalid, because she will never experience pregnancy?

Underlying the objection is a general belief that personal experience is what defines moral truth. I have been hearing this idea promoted more and more at my university. The concept seems to assume that unless I cannot experience a particular ethical dilemma(such as abortion), then I am not capable of reasoning on the issue. This recently was brought to my attention by an in-class discussion on the issue of abortion itself:
A student had made an observation that if men were capable of becoming pregnant, then the abortion debate would have been ended years ago. When I replied by pointing out that not being able to become pregnant does not immediately invalidate the argument that abortion is a moral wrong, the response was that since I am a male in a "patriarchal" society, then I am unable to understand the ethical issues surrounding abortion.

The first response would be: So what? Since when does being in a "patriarchal" society suddenly(almost magically) validate the intentional killing of innocent human beings? Furthermore, even if American society is radically opposed to the rights of women as human beings, why is the appropriate response to one injustice to simply add another injustice to the culture? Since sexism and gender discrimination are wrong, because they are intentionally denying a fundamental right to a human being(based on the sex organs they posess) then abortion is wrong if it denies a fundamental right to a human being(based on the differences outlined in the "SLED" acronym).

The second response would be:"Could the unborn still be human, and therefore bearing the same intrinsic dignity that you and I bear, regardless of who runs our society?" The underlying assumption behind objections of "patriarchy" is that men don't experience the same struggles as women, and are therefore unable to reason correctly about moral issues that may affect women generally more than men. Unfortunately, this is also flawed. Behaviors like discrimination or sexual harassment are wrong, regardless of who is experiencing the mistreatment. Likewise, as human beings, we are capable of reasoning on moral issues, regardless of what gender we happen to be. To conclude otherwise is to affirm that sexual prejudice is a non-issue, by only considering ideas valid if they are promoted by those of the same sex, and not based on the reasoning behind the ideas themselves.