I have heard the defense many times and it ends conversations.
“Men can speak about abortion when they get a uterus.”
At first, this statement may get a pro-life male to quietly leave a dialogue not knowing exactly what to say because they do not have a uterus. Apparently, only the presence of a uterus can qualify a person to speak on moral issues like abortion.
However, this is a silly argument.
Let’s turn the tables a bit. What if I thought beating women was possibly a good action? I would expect that nearly every woman would be up in arms wanting my head on a platter. Of course, I really do know that beating women is a horrible sin and crime. But let’s just create a hypothetical.
If I thought men should beat women, a woman could respond, “Hey, that is horrible.” Using the above logic of not being able to speak about abortion unless I have a uterus, I would respond, “Your opinion is worthless until you can produce male hormones.”
That response would also be silly because the presence of male hormones is not a prerequisite of knowing the moral law just like knowing the immorality of abortion does not require possessing a uterus. The use of this argument may be a great way to convince yourself of victory by using a logical fallacy, but it doesn’t really prove anything. Besides, I suspect many mammals have a uterus and we are not asking Minnie Mouse, Faline, or Miss Bunny if abortion is right or wrong.
What logical fallacies are you hearing about abortion? What are some of the responses that are giving you difficulty?