![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hypocracy, judgementalism and nuance
Jan. 22nd, 2009 11:53 amI've noticed a technique used both by campaigners against abortion and campaigners for greater abortion choice. I think it might best be described as the crowbar method, although I've never used a crowbar so I may have picked the wrong metaphor. Basically how it works is you find a crack in the person you're addressing, stick your argument into it and them try to lever the person into your position. The crack is an example which the audience is likely to agree with them about.
If the speaker is anti-abortion the example will be something like a feckless rich women whose on her twelfth third trimester abortion because she's just got an invite to a fun party and the bump won't go with the dress she wants to wear. If the speaker is pro-abortion-choice the example will be something like a 10 year old whose been raped by her father and the pregnancy will kill her and the embryo has a terrible disorder which will lead to it having a short painful life and she's going to try to perform a DIY abortion with a rusty can opener if she can't get one.
Most people will agree with the speaker about the ethics of each abortion. Then comes the slight of hand disguised as logic. Once you've gained their agreement on your hypothetical/mythical example you then claim that they must apply the same judgement to all abortions otherwise they're a hypocrite. If the speaker is anti-abortion they will ask why you think the life of a foetus should depend upon the circumstances into which she is conceived. Why should a life be less valued because her mother is ill or poor or a rape survivor? If the the speaker is pro-abortion-choice they will accuse you of being sanctimonious for judging which women are worthy of having abortion. They will accuse you of being a misogynist for dividing women into those deserving of an abortion and those to be punished with a pregnancy. If you agree with rape exceptions then you're only punishing women for having sex and if you don't agree with rape exceptions you're a monster.
Of course, this argument doesn't work. Well it might beat some people into submission but it doesn't work logically. Life is complicated and unfair. I generally think that the best we can do is muddle through trying to make the best of it. Few ethical issues are a matter of absolutes. Different ethical aims conflict and compete in many circumstances and this means that the same action may be ethical in some circumstances and not in others. I think that it is generally wrong to steal but in some circumstances it is justifiable, for example I don't see much wrong with someone caught up in hurricane Katrina nabbing some essentials from a flooded shop. I think that killing is wrong but I accept that there are circumstances where its better to kill someone if it's the only way to stop them killing others. It's not hypocrisy to think that the abortion is justifiable sometimes and not other times, it's nuance and it's almost impossible to navigate life without it.
If the speaker is anti-abortion the example will be something like a feckless rich women whose on her twelfth third trimester abortion because she's just got an invite to a fun party and the bump won't go with the dress she wants to wear. If the speaker is pro-abortion-choice the example will be something like a 10 year old whose been raped by her father and the pregnancy will kill her and the embryo has a terrible disorder which will lead to it having a short painful life and she's going to try to perform a DIY abortion with a rusty can opener if she can't get one.
Most people will agree with the speaker about the ethics of each abortion. Then comes the slight of hand disguised as logic. Once you've gained their agreement on your hypothetical/mythical example you then claim that they must apply the same judgement to all abortions otherwise they're a hypocrite. If the speaker is anti-abortion they will ask why you think the life of a foetus should depend upon the circumstances into which she is conceived. Why should a life be less valued because her mother is ill or poor or a rape survivor? If the the speaker is pro-abortion-choice they will accuse you of being sanctimonious for judging which women are worthy of having abortion. They will accuse you of being a misogynist for dividing women into those deserving of an abortion and those to be punished with a pregnancy. If you agree with rape exceptions then you're only punishing women for having sex and if you don't agree with rape exceptions you're a monster.
Of course, this argument doesn't work. Well it might beat some people into submission but it doesn't work logically. Life is complicated and unfair. I generally think that the best we can do is muddle through trying to make the best of it. Few ethical issues are a matter of absolutes. Different ethical aims conflict and compete in many circumstances and this means that the same action may be ethical in some circumstances and not in others. I think that it is generally wrong to steal but in some circumstances it is justifiable, for example I don't see much wrong with someone caught up in hurricane Katrina nabbing some essentials from a flooded shop. I think that killing is wrong but I accept that there are circumstances where its better to kill someone if it's the only way to stop them killing others. It's not hypocrisy to think that the abortion is justifiable sometimes and not other times, it's nuance and it's almost impossible to navigate life without it.