Two recent arguments I’ve come up against in the abortion debate are as follows:
…you [male pro-life supporters] make me kind of want to puke… but that’s neither here nor there… we can discuss this when you get a uterus – oh, wait…
You cannot take emotion out of this because it is impossible to do – that is why I told you to talk to me when you are actually able to have children and carry one in you for 9 months… It is a valid point because you cannot 100% understand the emotional context of this issue because it does not directly affect you and your body AND no matter how much you want it to happen the emotions that surround this issue and all issues cannot be ignored they are too important, perhaps more than science.
Now of course we always hear these arguments at protests or as sound bites on the news, but I’ve never heard them as actual arguments.
What is so disturbing about both of them is that they’re inherently fallacious; my ability or inability to have a child is completely irrelevant to the science behind what constitutes a human life. I may not have the emotional investment that a mother has in bearing a child, but this emotional investment is not needed in determining whether or not a child is human.
Under this line of thinking, if I have an emotional reaction to a minority group, then under such reasoning I can treat people in that group how I please. After all, emotions are more important than reasoning. If I were beat up by a person in that minority group, then unless someone has undergone that same experience, that person cannot criticize my stance.
We hold the above mentality to be absurd in issues dealing with other humans, so why not with the unborn?