Indifferent Hypocrisy – when one accepts beliefs which one has not taken the time to fully understand; such beliefs are typically formed from tradition, custom, hereditary passage, etc…; when confronted by the reality of the belief, one chooses to violate them; acceptance of such beliefs is the indifference; personal application of such beliefs results in the hypocrisy;
The subject of abortion came up in an essay I was reading. Actually, there were two essays, as there always are, one defending pro-choice and another defending pro-life. The pro-choice was the same old rhetoric. Women’s body and they should have the final say and all that. The pro-life one had an interesting spin on it.
It basically made the following case:
Premise 1: A fetus is a life
Premise 2: It is wrong to take a life
Conclusion: It is wrong to kill a fetus (i.e. abortion)
So that’s the argument we’ve all heard, but the essay was interesting because it chose to ignore Premise 1. That is a question for science and subjectivity, so it assumed that it was true. Premise 2 however is open for debate and that is the debate that I have not heard much about in the pro-life arguement.
The usual arguments about whether murder in self-defense was ok. Then whether it was ok even if the other person did not have control over their actions. Then even if they did not have control and also did not know what they were doing. And on and on. We’ve heard all of these before.
I got into an argument with someone close to me about this. She kept reiterating that even pro-life individuals have abortions, and it is not that they are all of a sudden pro-choice, but that they are overwhelmed by their feelings of fear over the potential harm the child might do to their lives.
My point was not that they were overwhelmed, almost like a form of temporary insanity, but that they were not really understanding the gravity of their pro-life claims to begin with. It’s very similar to all of this nonsense over gay marriages. Ultimately, the question they need to ask themselves is are they willing to stand in the way of the happiness of two people. In order to answer this question, one has to be able to look the couple in the eyes and say “you don’t deserve your happiness.”
For many, saying no to a gay couple might be possible. However, the metaphor when applied to abortion becomes much more difficult.
Imagine that when you enter an abortion clinic as a pro-life supporter, the doctor asked you whether you believe that the fetus is alive. When you answer yes, as you must as a pro-life promoter, the doctor then asks you to confirm that “what you are saying is that the child is about to cause so much harm to your life that you are justified in killing it out of self-defense.” Again, you would say yes. Now the doctor asks you to watch a video illustrating this situation. You assume you are about to watch an ugly operating room video of an abortion. However, the video opens as you look through the eyes of an individual in a park. The individual, you, are holding a gun. All you see is the barrel of a rifle aimed at a child sitting on a swing. The child has no idea that you are there. You pull the trigger. After handing you a kleenex, the doctor again asks you to confirm “that child deserved his fate for what he is doing to you.”
I wonder how many pro-life individuals would go through with the abortion after seeing the video. My guess is not that many.
Of course, now imagine we modify the scenario so that the doctor had told the patient what he was about to ask and show them, and they refused to watch it. Legally, I’m sure the doctor can not force anyone to watch such a video. However, he can at least ask the question whether or not they want to see it, even going so far as saying, “if this is what you believe, this is what you should accept.” For those “pro-lifers” that say “no” to confronting the question and yet go through with the abortion, they are clearly deceiving themselves.
By choosing not to see it, they are stating that the video does not apply to them. And the only condition in which the video does not apply is if Premise 1 is false. Now we know that these individuals were truly pro-choice from the beginning.