October 20, 2003
Inarticulate Incompetence
You know when people talk in a real clear tone and seem like they are making a very relevant point, but if you listen to the content, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever? Yup. That was today in IDS 130, where the topic was abortion and I came in expecting a slew of arguments for and against the topic. What I got instead was a poorly argued (on both sides) debate that made me leave thinking it would probably have been no loss if I had just decided to not attend lecture this week.
Let me begin with what has come to be customary, in that I must first point out how poorly the course is administered. The topic is women's reproductive rights and of course, who are the speakers? None other than two old white guys. Good stuff. You would think that they could have at least found one woman to argue one side, but no - they decided to go two people who will never have to confront the issue at all. Also let me state right now that I am pro-choice, always have been, and most likely always will be. No argument that the other side ever makes has ever made me even think otherwise. Moreover, I do not even see why this issue is even so hotly debated - it seems clear to me that the majority of people do not have a basis for so adamantly opposing abortion.
The pro-choice guy went first, and instead of making the usual remarks, he spent his time trying to prove how abortion was not restricted per se by Judeo-Christian doctrine. This entire presentation seemed to me an irrelevant argument. The very nature of separation of church & state, which is one of the foundations of this nation, makes it very clear that it does not even matter whether it is or is not restricted by Judeo-Christian doctrine. What about people who are not Christian? What about people who are atheists? These people have the right to believe what they do and the imposition of Judeo-Christian doctrine upon all citizens of a secular country would clearly be wrong. Despite the useless argument, I still had to say I respected this speaker because he was at least a medical doctor and trained in embryology, and had some basis for what he was talking about. The other speaker did not even have that going for him.
The anti-choice guy was a professor of philosophy and his entire presentation was spent "debunking" scientists who flat out said that they could not determine when life actually began. His contention was that abortion was murder at any stage in the development process and should be outlawed completely. His arguments and analogies were also some of the most nonsensical I have ever heard in my entire life. A personal favorite was an incomprehensible analogy relating fetuses to slaves. The analogy was such nonsense that one person even stated in her comment that the analogy did not make sense to his face. Of course, all responses by this guy were almost always terminated by some dumbass remark like "if you put a human sperm and a human ovum together together, what are you going to get? A human. I never heard of it being anything else." So WHAT? What the hell does that have to do with anything? No one, and I mean no one is denying this fact, so stop repeating yourself!
On getting a question of why there were no women on stage, the guy answered with another nonsensical analogy. "If only women can talk about abortion, can only pedophiles talk about pedophilia? Because when you say the first thing, you necessarily say the second." Wait just a goddamn second. That's not true at all. What you said makes no sense. And you teach people logic?? What the hell? It might have been a good analogy if he had something like, you can only speak of discrimination if you have been discriminated against. Maybe. But the pedophilia thing just did not make any sense! Then of course came all the special case questions: what about rape? What about the mother's health? On the question of rape, the pro-choice guy said at one point - "I do not think any woman can look another woman who has been raped in the eye and say you have a moral obligation to carry this baby to term." The immediate interruption by anti-choice was "Why not?!" Clearly a sensitive guy he was - really cares about all life. He was also a real feminist - he even said, "I think my mom was a feminist - she was a working girl!" Sort of like you're a working boy? You're trying to appeal to women and you reduce feminism to a 12 year old with a babysitting job. What a warm and fuzzy guy!
The real kicker came with the second question however - what about when the mother's health is in danger? The anti-choice guy said, "Well, if we are considering both mother and baby as human lives, I do not see what the problem would be in trading the mother's life for the baby's. It would be the same as trading the baby's for the mother's." Even the hardcore pro-lifers usually make exceptions for issues of mother's health. At least you can't say he is not dedicated.
All in all, I was sorely disappointed by today's segment, although this is not an unusual sentiment for me in this class. I had sort of been hoping their would be intelligent arguments on both sides of the issue, but the more I think of it, the less I can ever see that happening. Not only because IDS 130 is a mess, but more importantly, because the opposition is a mess and their arguments really do not ever make sense.