I knew, when posting yesterday’s article, that I would
come up against the opposing view. And so
it was offered on my social media page. I’m
concerned, however, that my arguments may have been lost in the satire or
potentially inflammatory language; thus in the interest of informed dialogue,
I’m reprinting (can one use that term when referencing the internet?) the
opposing response and my own rebuttal to “3 Ways to be Pro-Life andAnti-Misogynistic, Concurrently.” I’ve
also added to my rebuttal, in the middle, because I noticed something that I
missed. To wit, I give you the following
dialogue…
Me: In
responding to your rebuttal, I must point out that your argument is based
solely on straw men. While I will address
each of those momentarily, I point out that the issue at stake here is not one
of women’s health care. The issue I am
arguing is whether or not men are permitted to engage in the abortion
debate. I argue that they are. I offered three different arguments to this
end, and in the spirit of fair play, I will summarize the premises I forwarded:
The Gender-Specific
Intellect Argument
1.
Intellectual ability is not based on gender
2.
Therefore, men and women have equal
reasoning abilities.
3.
Therefore, men are able to apply their
reasoning abilities to the issue of abortion
The Human Life Argument
1.
The science of embryology and Pro-Abortion
philosophy agrees that human life begins at insemination.
2.
Men and women are equally the result of
successful insemination.
3.
Therefore, men and women can equally
represent human life and the appeal for the protection thereof.
4.
Therefore, men can engage in the abortion
debates as a member of the human species.
The Dual Party
Responsibility Argument
1.
Successful
insemination results in human life.
2.
Successful
insemination requires both male sperm and female ovum.
3.
Men
hold 50% of the responsibility for new, individual human life.
4. Therefore, men are equally able to
engage in the abortion debate.
If you would like to
address the premises in any of these arguments, I would love to talk more about
them.
To clarify, I did not
coin the term “Pro-Life.” Though, in
light of both my “Dual Party Responsibility” argument and “Human Life” argument
above, I find the term highly appropriate.
I believe the wording used by the opposition is “Pro-Choice” for the pro-abortion
movement and “Anti-Choice” for their opposition. Thus we find that even in political and
philosophical realms, branding is paramount.
To assert that any issue,
to include the topic of abortion, “has become too polarized to speak rationally
about between two parties of ideologies,” is impossible to adhere to. This standard would then have to be applied
universally to all topics that are polarizing: socio-economic equality,
immigration, gun control, gay rights, healthcare, etc…ad naseum, ad infinitum. The
polarizing effect of any topic cannot dictate its value in intelligent
discourse.
As for the straw men you
present, I will address them now. The
first straw man, which was the topic of the under-representation of women in
the governing bodies of United States, begs the question: as citizens of the
United States, are we to only adhere to legislation that has been forwarded by
the representative for whom we individually have voted? Conversely, can we ignore the legislation that we didn’t,
in effect, vote for?
For the second straw man,
I offer three academically approved sources for a definition of terms. Hysterical:
a state in which your emotions (such as fear) are so strong that you behave in
an uncontrolled way
(Merriam-Webster). Unable to control your emotions or behave because you are very
frightened, excited, etc… (Cambridge Dictionaries). Exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of
people (Oxford English Dictionary). None
of these imply passion. What the word
hysterical implies is lack of control, due to an extreme emotional
response. This is a frequent argument
used against women, feminists in particular, to discount what the woman is
saying. My point in using this
particular word, and I was exacting with my word selection, is that women who
are arguing against the ability of men to engage in the abortion debate may not
use slogans such as, “get out of my uterus,” as an acceptable rhetorical tactic. Because
it gives credence to the claim that women cannot be trusted to argue except in
an emotionally uncontrollable manner. A
well thought out and reasoned, albeit passionately delivered, argument is
required if we are to maintain our intellectual credibility. It is what we expect of men; and we should
hold ourselves to the same standard.
I appreciate your passion,
and I agree with you that women are grossly under-represented in our government
and routinely undervalued in legislative discourse. The latter is the reason for my appeal to
feminist. To employ straw men, however zealously,
distracts from the issue being argued, and does not defeat the argument at
hand. I will also point out, in closing,
that while I offered full disclosure of my personal experiences and ideological
leanings, I did not use these in my arguments.
Therefore, they are not pertinent to my conclusion. Regardless of passion, my premises stand: Men
are able to, and should, engage in the abortion debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment