"Against abortion? Then don't have one!" is a totally confused line.

The BBQ Pit
1

(Just in case anyone thinks I’m making a straw man argument, here’s some evidence that I’m not)

I support legalized abortion, but lines like “if you don’t support abortion, don’t have one” are completely confused. To have a moral belief is to think that something is evil (or good), not to merely dislike (or like) that thing. Only a literally demented person could fail to understand the difference.

I dislike Chinese food, but I’d never even dream of telling other people not to have Chinese food. Just how on Earth would I ever confuse a personal preference for a moral belief? I wouldn’t, and other non-demented people wouldn’t either.

But the general theme of “if you don’t like abortion, then you can exercise that preference yourself and leave others alone” acts as though opponents of abortion are unable to tell the difference between their own personal preferences and beliefs about morality. The pro-choice advocates who pump this theme act like pro-life people are akin to people who hate beer and for some reason think that others should also hate beer.

Pro-life people believe that abortion is highly immoral. This generally means that they think it is at least as bad as theft, usually as bad as rape, and often as bad as murder. My point is not that they’re right. But it makes no more sense to respond to them by saying “if you’re against abortion then don’t have one yourself” than it does to say the following:

“If you’re against genocide then don’t commit genocide yourself and let us do what we want.”

“If you’re against tax fraud then just do your taxes honestly and let us do ours however we wish.”

“If you’re against exam cheating than just don’t cheat on exams yourself and let others do what they want.”

I think genocide is evil. I think tax fraud is evil too, though not even remotely as evil as genocide. And I think exam cheating is evil too, though I consider the offense minor enough that the word “evil” might seem a bit excessive (perhaps “wrong” suffices).

I don’t think abortion is wrong. But the key to genuine discourse is taking the other side seriously. Those on the pro-choice side do not personally prefer to let fetuses live; they believe that abortion is evil. So let’s take their beliefs seriously and give up the “do as you will” crap.

2

Why?

3

Because that’s the heart of serious discourse. If you don’t actually address the opposing side then you do something else, like make a straw man argument.

4

Infinite Google returns for a ridiculous statement can still be a straw man.

5

Actually, I believe what is being made with the statement ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one’ is a bumper sticker. Personally I’ve always preferred the pithy ‘Keep your laws off of my body.’

I suppose if you really want to get worked up about throw away one liners that’s your right; however, I doubt that anyone who sports a bumper sticker such as the above is limited to ONLY that as their point of view. Perhaps they just can’t be arsed arguing with someone who accuses them of being a murderer. I can respect wanting to avoid that.

6

The Google search shows that the line is deployed by some pro-choicers, which shows that I’m not criticizing a phrase nobody really uses.

7

I guess he was thinking that people might suppose that nobody is really saying “against abortion? don’t have one,” but rest assured it’s a common bumper sticker and most of us have seen it.

I agree that it is a failure as a persuasive argument. But I’m not sure that anyone thinks it is. I’m guessing most of the people who slap it on their car don’t expect to persuade anybody. It’s the equivalent of “How’s my driving? Call 1-800-EAT-SHIT.” It’s a middle finger. The motive isn’t to persuade anyone. It’s to signify solidarity with people who agree with you and annoy the people who don’t.

8

I agree that most of the people who use the bumper sticker (and join the Facebook group) don’t expect to persuade anybody with it, but that’s not saying much, because perfectly rational arguments–ones that show, in a totally airtight manner, that the other side is wrong–do not generally convince anybody.

But the statement “abortion is wrong? don’t have one!” is not just an insult to the other side. It represents a total misunderstanding of the opposing side. It’s the equivalent of “support abortion? Move to China!”

But maybe I’m expecting too much of people.

9

It may not be a persuasive argument but I don’t think it’s particularly out of line with a belief that people should have control over their own lives and destinies. I’ve always taken it to also be jab at male (or aging) pro-lifers who couldn’t get pregnant if they wanted, and at the countless pro-lifers who do, in fact, turn to abortion when pregnant because ‘my situation is different!’

10

Bumper sticker slogans aren’t very conducive to a good dialogue. A good starting point for a discourse on this subject is:

  1. What sort of entities have, or should have, rights?

  2. What criteria are we using to determine whether an entity should have rights?

11

I’m not interested in having serious discourse with them. I just want them to fuck off.

12

If someone is Pro Choice, then the argument is made to highlight the choice aspect of the argument not to convince.

The point isn’t nessecarily to convicne them abortion is moral. The point being made is that they don’t choose morality for for someone else.

13

That’s exactly the point the OP is making. In no instance where you find something YOU think is unjust, would you just say, “Oh, well, that’s his cup of tea, isn’t it? I’m against wife beating, and don’t beat my own, but well, he’s all for it, and I’m not going to be a prig about it.” Or, “I’m rather against slavery, but I won’t judge anyone else with a slave.”

To people who believe the fetus is a person, abortion is not a personal preference, but a profound social injustice. It is akin to a holocaust.

No I’m not saying it is, so there’s no point to calling me names. I’m just explaining why that bumper sticker logic is, indeed, completely useless as argument.

But it is perfectly fine as bumper sticker invective, which is what I think it is.

14

I can understand what most of those who have replied to the OP have said: that it’s just a silly line meant to create solidarity and mock pro-lifers. But I fear that the mockery may actually rest on a real misunderstanding on the part of pro-choicers. It’s like they actually believe that freedom of personal preference is the central issue of debate. It’s not. The question is, “is abortion evil, or is it not?”

15

Seconded. At this point, I’m prepared to insist on some sign that my arguments will be given at least a cursory reading before I bring my A-game.

16

I have always felt that people talk past each other on most issues, and would rather not sort out their differences, because they define themselves by their opposition to each other.

17

Would this apply to scientologists too?

Should we rationally discuss their views?

18

It’s possible that you’re misinterpreting the intent of the statement. I’d read “Don’t have one” not as an attempted solution to the problem that people are against abortion, but as a pithy way to bring up the point you’re more or less bringing up yourself:

“Don’t have one” is a way of reminding people exactly how much power, and how much of a right, they have to dictate the outcome of somebody else’s pregnancy. The fact that your response to that statement is what it is, I would argue, is evidence that the anti-abortion crowd is winning that particular battle of the language war when it comes to you. Because you’re thinking about it like it’s a question of moral right and wrong, when in fact there’s a matter of fact way of looking at it as a legally protected right.

Put it this way, if there was a crowd of people who were rabidly anti-mayonnaise, and there should be if there isn’t, you certainly wouldn’t have the same “only a demented person” response to somebody who pointed out that if you don’t like mayo you can just not eat it. But what’s the difference in the end? I’d say the difference is you’ve allowed room for the possibility that it is really a moral issue.

19

It can’t be, or else pro-lifers would stop making exceptions in the cases of rape and incest. If fetuses are people, they’re still people if they’re the result of rape or incest.

20

That bumper sticker is just as cloyingly sanctimonious as the ones with the cute fetus sucking its thumb next to the words IT’S NOT A CHOICE, IT’S A CHILD!