With Due Respect: Men should not have a say in abortion!

Recently, the American state of Alabama voted to ban abortion in the state. Regardless of whatever our stand on abortion is, I feel there is always a debate and conversation to be had. Unfortunately, lots of the discussion seemed to be spend blaming white men lawmakers for making the decision.

In this post I will examine the question posted by the BBC, "should men have a say in the abortion debate?"

Arguments based on identity, not logic

The authors of this question are committing a logical fallacy in their statement. Since men do not under pregnancy or abortion, the argument is that men do not have a right to set the law.

The best form of the argument is this :

1) Men do not go through pregnancy or abortion
2) Abortion law should be only set by individuals who go through pregnancy or abortion
3) Therefore only women should set the law since it only concerns the women.

However, this line of argument is flawed.

Logical failure: Does not match reality

We would not apply this line of logic to any other circumstance. Imagine making the following statements:

"We cannot set animal rights because we are not animals."

"We cannot make laws concerning illegal immigration because we were never immigrants."

"We cannot set laws concerning burials because we were never dead or buried."

All these statements are obviously incorrect yet when it comes to abortion, we are more than happy to follow it.

Logical failure: Your identity makes you more virtuous

The argument also assumes that the identity of speaker or lawmaker is essential to the support of the argument.

Let me make this clear: arguments are valid or invalid regardless of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, eye colour, height, weight etc. An argument should be weighted on logical consistency and real-world application, rather than identity.

Allowing such shenanigans would set a dangerous precedent -- we would have no common ground of logic to reach a proper discussion.

Conclusion

It is irresponsible and rather quite disappointing that the BBC chooses to promote identity as a narrative in their articles.

Theology 1.0: What is poisoning the well?

An ad-hoc fallacy
Imagine two people having a debate. The first man begins by denouncing his opponent of being liar, an adulterer and untrustworthy person.

His statement (while it made be true) is an ad-hoc fallacy. It is an attempt to disprove an argument by discrediting the person. In debates, this tactic is called "poisoning the well" (Sire, 2006).

But how does this apply to apologetics?
In our attempts to reason with our non-believing friends, we may unwittingly use such tactics. Let's see some example statements:

"This person doesn't know anything about theology."

"He comes from a church that promotes materialism."

"She does not come from a reputable school."

Sometimes, the tables get turned. For instance, my Christian friends and I have been accused of being "fundamentalists", "imposing morality" and "misguided idealists".

Conclusion
Every argument should be treated on its own merit, and should be independent of the reputation of the person making the argument.



References
Sire, J.W. (2006) Why good arguments often fail