Re: Men: Why Do You Oppose a Woman's Right to Abortion?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I am saying that the most difficult moral decisions are those that, to one degree or the other, run counter to one's interests.
Men do not have to give birth to children, and, generally, they bear less of the burden of caring for them than do women. It is easier for them to focus on the morality of the issue as opposed to its practicality.
Ok, we are somewhat in agreement on that. Though I think that although it may be easier for a man to focus on the morality of the issue, it does not make it easier or more likely for him to be correct in his moral judgement. Indeed the morality of abortion must be weighed against other morals. There is the morality of providing for existing children, the (in my opinion) immorality of bringing unwanted children into the world. And many other factors, also to do with morals, that women, being the primary caretakers, may have a better view of than men. A man might look at those things I mentioned and say they are a matter of practicality. But a woman knows that providing for children is a moral imperative.
Quote:
The point is not that men who do not give birth or shoulder the primary responsibility for raising them are in a superior position to judge the general morality of women, but that they are less conflicted in judging the morality of a given decision or action: abortion.
Here's where I was pointing to the second paragraph, as the scenario you provided (what if your daughter gets pregnant) presents a conflict for a man. So it seems you mean that those who are not personally involved (conflicted), regardless of sex, are better able to judge the morality of abortion. But aren't men just as frequently involved as women? Aren't women who are not pregnant or have not had abortions just as removed from the situation?
Quote:People who are not engaged in a given combat event do have a better vantage point for judging the morality of the actions of the combatants. Some knowledge of what battle is really like probably makes for an even better perspective, but it is not the negation of a given position or state that improves moral clarity, it is the lack of or reduced personal interest in the circumstances and outcome of the action.
This should not at all be counterintuitive as it is an ethical premise that our society firmly holds.
To a point, it is. But I think that people in general lean towards condemnation. There are two things that would make someone a good judge of a soldier's actions in combat. One is disinterest, as you say, but the other is --what you say would help but I think is necessary-- some experience having been in combat. If we take this and overlay it on the abortion issue, we have the necessary disinterest in men (if they are not the father or otherwise interested) but we don't have the necessary experience of having been pregnant. Therefore, men don't have all the tools necessary to make a moral judgement.
FreeDuck wrote:"Judge no, lest ye be judged."
Quote:First of all, this is a non-sequitur. The issue of whether a man or a woman is more likely to have moral clarity on the issue of abortion has nothing to do with judging anyone. It is possible to assert that a given act is morally wrong without assuming the mantle of judge over any individual.
Yes, it is a non-sequitur. It wasn't meant to be part of the argument.
The quote itself does not specify whether a person or action is being judged. I quoted this scripture because it is one of my favorites. It seems to say to me exactly what you interpreted it to mean, and I use it because that's what comes to mind in situations like these, not because I assume you to be Christian. It does not mean (again, to me) that we are not to make judgements of morality -- of course we must make those judgements for ourselves or we would have no guiding morality -- but that we must be careful of judging another's morality in situations that we don't understand. And this is exactly what is done when one purports to be better able to make moral decisions about someone else that affect only that other someone. I snipped the rest of your argument about my quoting of Jesus because I think you misinterpreted my intent.
I see your point a little better now -- thanks for clarifying -- but I still don't completely agree. Maybe you are not taking the argument to its seemingly logical conclusion, that a man, being supposedly better able to judge the morality of the situation, should be the one to make the decision. But are only saying that men take a greater interest in the morality of the decision because they are not required to bear the burden of it. If that's the case, I do agree.