RU486 debate

. .. copied from http://www.matthiasmedia.com

RU486 debate

10 February 2006 AD

I couldn’t help noticing one of the interesting arguments being used by some of the (particularly female) members of the Australian Parliament in relation to the RU486 legal debate (Here’s one report about the current debate).

To paraphrase, I heard it said a number of times that “Male politicians should trust women to make thoughtful ethical decisions about their own bodies, and should not try to impose their male/chauvenistic/catholic/religious ethical views.”

This is, on the one hand, a very clever tactical argument. What man is going to counter that argument by saying, “No, actually we can’t trust women to do that!”? You’d have to be a very brave or a very stupid male (indeed, being both would be a distinct advantage).

But, on the other hand, it is a fundamentally silly argument that clearly attempts to avoid the main question.

For example, do we trust men to “make thoughtful ethical decisions about their own bodies”? Or do we outlaw rape and carnal knowledge?

“But hang on, that’s different! In that case you’re talking about men hurting another person! We’re not talking about a situation like that … “

Ah, now we’re getting closer to the real question.

Noticed by Ian at 10:53 AM