Clear, Simple, and Wrong

Abortion and Strawmen Arguments

I’m going to try something a little different today. Rather than present a topic in essay form, I am going to try something less dry and present it as a discussion. This approach is inspired by Plato’s “dialogues” which are structured as dramatic conversations. Plato used Socrates as a central figure, having him engage in question-and-answer process to probe ideas, expose contradictions, and seek truth. That’s a high bar, so grade me on a curve please.

What follows is a fictionalized conversation exploring, at a high level, why abortion is a complicated topic and why some try to simplify it using strawman arguments. It begins with a question a student asked me when I was a TA in a US state school a “few” years back. I did not respond as well as this dialogue, as the question caught me off guard and I sadly require time to think these things through before I can provide what I consider a reasonable response. As it took place more than half a decade ago, I think I’ve had sufficient time to think about it and hope that what follows is an acceptable, if not good, response to the student’s question.

There is another reason why I’m attempting this format; I want to see what, if any talent I have with fiction. Or at least the dialogue part of fiction. I am looking forward (dreading) to the comments I receive and will decide whether or not to try this again based on what each of you has to say. Should it prove popular I will continue with part 2 in which I hope to explore why we have laws.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

“Why can’t we just let women decide?”

Dr. Declan Cavan looked at the young woman at the back of the class who had made the comment. He was momentarily lost. Questions which he considered too obvious they shouldn’t be asked always threw him for a loop.

He mentally chided himself, “these are young adults,” he reminded himself, “they haven’t thought about these things for 20 years as you have.”

“Are you asking why women can’t decide for themselves whether or not abortion should be legal or why we need a law governing abortion at all?” he asked.

“Both,” the young woman replied. “It’s a woman’s body so it’s about choice. Why should a bunch of male politicians get to decide?”

“Well,” he said slowly as he gathered his thoughts, “that’s a good question. The answer is more complicated than you might think.” He paused again to gather his thoughts. “Ok, this is a little off topic, but I think it’s a good exercise in critical thinking so let’s dig into it.”

He walked over to the chalkboard. “No, not a chalkboard, a whiteboard” he reminded himself. Gone were the dusty days of chalk and slate boards. In their place there were now dry-erase boards and markers. He couldn’t help but feel a twinge of nostalgia as he picked up the black marker. The new system may be cleaner, but somehow higher education seemed diminished by the loss of chalk dust.

“Ok,” he said, “let’s see if we can answer this question.”

He took the cap off the marker, releasing a pungent alcohol smell which faded quickly, and started writing.

“There are three questions we need to answer,” he said as a table with three columns slowly began to take form on the whiteboard.

“The first is ‘why is abortion so hotly debated?’” He moved onto the second column and continued writing.” “The second is ‘why do we have laws?’ and the third,” he said when he completed writing the second question is ‘does the gender of politicians matter?’”

“It’s obvious that gender matters,” the young woman called out. “Clair,” he thought, “her name is Clair.”

“Hang on Clair. If everyone just shouts out what they think we’ll never get anywhere.”

Declan glanced down at the floor while he gathered his thoughts. “Let’s start with the first question, ‘why is abortion so hotly debated?’”

Clair’s hand shot up. He smiled. “I wonder if anyone else will get a chance to talk,” he thought.

“Ok, Clair, go ahead.”

“It’s about controlling women’s bodies,” she said.

Declan frowned despite expecting this comment. He looked around the room, “Does anyone want to comment on that?”

A male student in the back row tentatively raised his hand. “I don’t think that’s right,” he said.

Ok…Jacob, is it?” The student nodded. “Why not?”

“Well professor, I think abortion is more complex than that. I’m sure there’s some truth to what Clair said, or at least some people might want to control women’s bodies, but other people are probably concerned about the rights of the baby.”

“Don’t call it that,” Clair exclaimed, “it’s a fetus.”

“Hold on Clair,” Declan said. “I don’t want to derail the discussion by getting into linguistic arguments about which terms are permitted, and which aren’t. We all know what we’re talking about so let’s agree that both fetus and baby are perfectly acceptable terms for this discussion and let everyone chose the word they wish to use.”

“Care to elaborate on what you said, Jacob.”

“I prefer ‘Jake,’” the student said.

“Noted. Go ahead Jake.”

“Well, science is still uncertain as to when life begins. Some religious people think it begins at conception. Others when it begins looking like a baby or starts having a heartbeat.”

“And some that it doesn’t start until after birth. Why does that matter?”

“Uh, because if it’s a person and you have an abortion, isn’t that murder?”

“Excellent answer Jake,” Declan exclaimed, causing Jake to smile. “The underlying issue is not control of women’s bodies, but the intersection of the rights of the mother and the rights of the child.” He glanced over at Clair, “or the fetus if you prefer. The fact that not even science can tell us exactly when life begins complicates the matter further.”

Declan pondered for a moment before continuing, “There’s another indication that abortion is more complicated than some would have us believe. I’ll waive the no smartphones rule for the moment; can someone find out what polls say about public support for abortion?”

Declan held up his hand before anyone could object. “Yes, I know morality isn’t a popularity contest, but it will give us some insight into why the topic is so hotly debated.”

A small student sitting on the left side of the class began to read from her phone, “Pew says 25% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all cases and 38% in most cases. Gallup says it’s 35% all the time, 50% sometimes, and 12% never.”

“Thank you, Radha.” Declan looked around the class, “from this we can infer that the majority of the population is neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion but hold more nuanced opinions. I do not wish to dismiss what Clair said entirely as there are always people looking to control others, but arguing that all opposition to abortion stems from a desire to control women at best oversimplifies the issue. At worst it is a strawman argument.”

“What’s a strawman argument?” someone called out.

Declan wasn’t sure exactly who had asked the question, but it didn’t matter. “A strawman argument,” he replied, “is one that ignores, simplifies, or misrepresents another’s arguments to more easily refute a person’s position. An example might be that people who are against the death penalty care more about murderers than their victims. In the case of abortion, stating that it’s just about controlling women’s bodies ignores complex beliefs about personhood, moral responsibility, or religious convictions.”

Declan glanced over at Clair. She looked angry. “Are you claiming that I’m intentionally trying to misrepresent someone else’s position,” Clair asked.

“Not at all Clair. I am sure you are completely sincere in your beliefs. Sincerely believing in something, however, does not make it true. If I’ve offended you, I apologize, that was not my intent. My purpose here is not to agree or disagree with what you believe, but to make you think. I am not concerned with what you think but with how you think.”

Declan glanced around the room. “Someone else answer this next question. Why do people use strawman arguments?”

He glanced around before pointing to a young woman in the third row, “Dalia, you look like you’re thinking about raising your hand.”

Dalia blushed, “they don’t understand the issue well enough?” she said before glancing over to see Clair’s reaction.

“That’s one possibility. John Stuart Mill said something to that effect but don’t ask me to quote him. Can anyone give me another?”

Declan pointed at a tall guy in the back, “Nick, you have something?”

“Control?”

“Yes!” Declan exclaimed, “control or manipulation. If you can define the terms of the debate, you can more easily get people on your side. Which nicely transitions us to our next question, ‘why do we have laws?’”

Declan glanced at his watch, “unfortunately, that will have to wait until our next class.”