As one of the tweeters for NZ Skeptics, I've helped accumulate a diverse collection of followers, who inspire and educate me. However, lately, people with very different, and, frankly, misogynistic viewpoints have jumped into my bubble. This has also been an interesting and educating experience, because there is nothing like having your ideas challenged to get you to examine them critically. I've also impressed myself at my ability to live by the mantra “don't feed the trolls”.
So, I was walking along the twitter path through the twitter forest and noticed all these tweets about the abortion bill. So I took a chance and decided to comment on the topic. Guess what, an abortion troll appeared almost immediately! How surprising.
In my tweet, I had written that abortion should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal one, that it would be great to see evidence-based comments on the bill, and wouldn't it be nice to avoid the demonising of women, which, it seemed me, was totally irrelevant to the bill, and just plain nasty.
The troll retweeted my comment with a list of disparaging, unhelpful, rude comments. Here is a summary of the sorts of intentionally-offensive things that people like us have to put up with: the troll suggests that women have the right of choice 2 “keep their underwear on”, “the right of choice 2 wait and not hurry”, the right of choice to “say no to sex”, the right of choice to “keep their legs together”, the right of choice to “tell the guy to wear a condom”, the right of choice to “get the [prophylactic] jab and the pill”, the right of choice to “get a clue and comprehend... [that it's not] your body and not your choice”, the right of choice to “justice for rape”, and, finally, the right of choice to “shut the f@#k up about your sexual hardships”.
I'm aware that this is an emotional topic, and readers may have differing views on abortion, but let's examine the issues and comments skeptically, logically, and rationally. I want a dispassionate, neutral look at whether the claims/replies are logical fallacies, or whether they are valid arguments, possibly making valid points. As such, are they then worthy of further scrutiny and discussion? Is there genuinely any science that we may have missed?
Also, we had to do a bit of reasoned guesswork to tease out the troll's intended meanings (as the ranting is a little convoluted), but you'll be the judges of whether we have succeeded in that respect.
Let's start with “Women have the right to choose to keep their legs closed”, and “women have the right to choose to keep their underwear on”
These two statements are effectively identical, so we'll assess them together. They both seem to suggest that any pregnancy outcome is always the woman's ‘fault' for being sexually active. This is an Ad Hominem fallacy - attacking the character of the opposing party, rather than address the actual issue at hand. Here, it is a blatant attack on the moral character and reputation of any woman who wishes to have an abortion. The character of a woman has no bearing whatsoever on a foetal abortion. Saying women should keep their legs together also puts all the responsibility for the pregnancy solely on the pregnant woman. It removes the male participant from the equation, and assumes she had the ability to control the events that led up to the situation in which she finds herself.
I think we need go no further with these first statements. They have no worth as any sort of argument. Consider them discarded.
“Women have the right of choice to wait and not hurry”.
The rationale into the meaning of this statement must be taken from the context of the surrounding statements. We read it as perhaps indicating that the woman has somehow ‘trapped' her male partner into a sexual relationship, and now has a pregnancy to deal with; or perhaps has leapt into a sexual relationship and hasn't been prepared for the consequences. Again, this is an Ad Hominem attack on the character of the woman, rather than addressing any sort of discussion, or making any reasoned conclusion around the topic of foetal abortions. Discovering now that the troll is a fundamentalist Christian, leads us also to believe that they are advocating abstinence as a solution. There is, in fact, evidence that focusing on abstinence alone, as a way to reduce unplanned pregnancy, does not work [1].
“Women have the right of choice to say no to sex”.
The troll is yet again Affirming The Consequent. They are making a simplistic single-issue explanation of the situation. There is no accounting for any power dynamics or nature of the relationship, the pressure felt to go ahead with sex, age differences, the financial situation, the family situation, the level of poverty or lack of sex education, the religious constraints around using birth control, the health considerations of the person, specific medical reasons, the number of children already being taken care of, pre-existing health conditions, and most importantly, the right for a women to make a decision about her own body. The statement is perhaps also a case of False Dichotomy. The troll is allowing for only a black or white answer, whereas, at the very least, there is a myriad of shading and grey areas which need to be considered.
Yet again, we look for some valid argument, and we find only fallacies.
“Women have the right of choice to tell the guy to wear a condom”, and “women have the right of choice to get the jab and the pill”.
These are also very similar, as they mention birth control methods. We'll examine these together as well. The troll has Jumped To Conclusions, drawing a quick conclusion without looking at relevant and easily available evidence that describes the many different reasons for unplanned pregnancies. The trolls statements are also Hasty Generalising. He has applied a belief to a larger population than he should, based on nothing more than an assumption. He has made a vast over-simplification.
“Women have the right of choice (to) get a clue and comprehend... [that it's not] your body and not your choice”.
This is an Appeal To Wishful Thinking. His desire for his statement to be true is used in place of any real evidence for the truthfulness of the claim. As he offers no argument for his claim. We are now clear on the point that he is placing more value on the life of a foetus, than the woman carrying it. I can hear Monty Python's song from The Meaning of Life, ‘Every sperm is sacred' ringing in my ears.
“Women have the right of choice to justice for rape”.
He is betraying his misogynistic world-view here again, suggesting that getting an abortion is simply a way a woman might get even with a rapist. He is telling the victim what to do, while leaving any comment on the behaviour of the rapist unsaid. He's offered no instructions about alternative behaviour for the man. He is ignoring the emotional shockwave of a rape, and the way it can change the woman's life forever (and potentially the lives of any existing or future children or other family members), regardless of whether the pregnancy is terminated or not. Instead he is focusing the audience's attention on the (in his view misguided) hate she feels towards the rapist and is advising her to seek justice through the courts, rather than terminating the pregnancy. This is an example of Affirming the Consequent (simplifying the situation into a single issue) and is also an Argument By Emotive Language. He has substituted facts and evidence with reductive words that stir up emotion.
Again, all fallacies, so another kicked to the kerb.
Finally, “Women have the right of choice to shut the f@#k up about your sexual hardships”
This doesn't sound like any sort of claim or argument. It's just plain old misogyny.
Alternatively, access to abortions has clearly been linked to better outcomes for women in terms of their ability to get an education, support any children they already have, in terms of their mental health and ability to earn. [2]
Reviewing the familyplanning.org.nz website, I couldn't find any mention of ‘women keeping their legs together' as being good advice. Instead on the front page they point to a study that confirms the importance of education and information. [3]
Unfortunately, the statements I've been discussing here could fall into the fallacy Appeal to Popular Belief. It must be admitted there are a large number of people who seem to hold both anti-woman and anti-abortion views.
As if reading my mind, a few days later an article in The Guardian appeared about a poll that had been conducted about voter's attitudes to abortion. The poll concluded that those on the pro-life side of the debate were decidedly not pro-woman. 47% of pro-life voters wanted to see
equal numbers of men and women in positions of power, compared to 80% of pro-choice voters. The #metoo movement was viewed very differently by the groups too, with 71% of pro-choice voters being favourable compared to 23% of pro-life voters. [4]
The summary at then end of the poll [5] reads “We find that anti-abortion voters are among the most likely – if not the most likely – segment to hold inegalitarian views.”
In conclusion, I hope the voices of those like the tweeter are heard, but that their views are scrutinised with rigour. I hope the submissions are reviewed in light of the evidence, and attacks on women are dismissed, and in no way bend the opinions of those tasked with forming the bill. Victim blaming should not inform policy making. The submissions should be viewed with the best health outcomes for those seeking abortions in mind.
References: