Examining Whataboutism in the Abortion Debate

I’m not the biggest fan of whataboutism. It’s lazy and it often reflects a lack of creativity, intelligence, and responsibility in arguments.

“[R]egulation of bodies and choice” for men

Perhaps no example is worse than Democratic Georgia State Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick, who was actually elected to her seat in the Georgia House of Representatives. She’s actually introduced legislation known as the ‘Testicular “Bill of Rights” Legislation,’ which will:

• Require men to obtain permission from their sexual partners before obtaining medication for erectile dysfunction
• Ban vasectomies in Georgia
• Make it an “aggravated assault” crime for men to have sex without a condom
• Require a man proven to be the father by 8 weeks gestation to start immediately paying child support
• A waiting period for men to buy pornography or sex toys in Georgia

No, folks, this isn’t from the Onion or Babylon Bee, or any other parody site. The bill has actually been filed by five Democratic lawmakers. The above bullet points come from a tweet by Rep. Kendrick, who also noted “You want some regulation of bodies and choice? Done!”

Rep. Kendrick is also featured in a glowing feature from Rolling Stone. The bill has also made news, especially with local outlets, and even CBS in Los Angeles, California.

The bill is in response to the heartbeat bill making its way through the Georgia legislature. I have shared my thoughts on the good intentions but the ultimate folly of proposing and passing heartbeat bills at this time. Does that mean that this is any way for a duly elected official to respond? Of course not, unless she and the four other Democrats have the maturity of a junior high school students. Getting elected is a privilege, not something to be abused by elected officials who wish to play whataboutism with “regulation of body and choice.”

Such arguments about regulating men is not merely a matter of whataboutism. Sometimes it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Such people not only share the maturity of junior high school students, but the understanding of biology, or lack thereof.

I have come across just about every abortion argument there is. Believe it or not, some people actually ask about men ejaculating through masturbation, or women shedding an egg through their period. In order for an egg to develop into an embryo, fetus, born child, the sperm needs to actually fertilize the egg.

As Madeline Fry writes in closing her aptly titled op-ed, “The ‘testicular bill of rights’ exemplifies the Left’s anti-science streak on abortion”, for The Washington Examiner:

Obviously, having a vasectomy or getting a prescription for Viagra is different from

having an abortion. Fortunately, we have made dramatic scientific advancements in recent centuries, and we understand that sperm are not human beings. The problem with the “let’s restrict men’s freedom like women’s and see how they like it” fallacy is that abortion is not just about a woman, it’s also about a child.

Many pro-abortion activists don’t believe or understand this basic scientific idea. For them, any discussion of about the relationship between the rights of a woman and a minor she carries in her body is just too complicated or else somehow designed as a ruse. In any case, the genetic science that proves the humanity of the child is just an inconvenient fact to be ignored.

There are ways to address heartbeat bills, which includes focusing on abortion regulations and restrictions Americans do support. But this is far from one of those ways.

Save the Kittens!

When the Senate failed to protect babies born alive from abortion attempts just a few weeks prior to introducing the Kittens in Traumatic Testing Ends Now (KITTEN) Act, it’s okay, in my opinion, to employ whataboutism.

The act would bar the Department of Agriculture from conducting experiments on kittens bred to be infected with the foodborne illness of toxoplasmosis, and then euthanized so as to not infect people. As mentioned by CBS News, the Department of Agriculture says it is looking for alternatives to these deadly experiments.

What about babies who are no longer unborn children, but are actually born and alive, and are recognized as human persons under the law, who, under the failed Born-Alive Abortion Protection Act, would be owed the same degree of care as any other child born at that gestation, not more, not less?

A statement from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat who voted against the above act which would protect babies born alive from abortion begs that question even more:

“The KITTEN Act will protect these innocent animals from being needlessly euthanized in government testing, and make sure that they can be adopted by loving families instead,” said Merkley…

The very same could be said about babies born alive from abortion attempts, who too are “innocent” and who are “being needlessly euthanized” when left to die from exposure. If it’s a matter of the child being wanted or not by his or her parents, we too can “make sure they can be adopted by loving families instead.”

The bill does enjoy bipartisan support. From House co-sponsor, Rep. Brian Mast, a Republican from Florida:

“The fact that we need a piece of legislation to tell the federal government to stop killing kittens is ridiculous on its face,” said Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., who is co-sponsoring California Democrat Jimmy Panetta’s version of the bill in the House. “(B)ut what’s even worse is, when you hear the details that the government is actually breeding hundreds of these cats just to intentionally feed them parasite-ridden raw meat and then kill them even though they’re perfectly healthy.”

What’s “ridiculous” is that babies, often which are also “perfectly healthy,” are aborted late into pregnancy and then when they are born alive, they are left to die from exposure.

This is not to say kittens should be euthanized after experiments. The U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives surely can and should consider passing both bills. In fact, these bodies have a moral duty to walk and chew gum at the same time.

What Are YOU Doing For People Already Born?!?

This is another argument I’ve heard from those trying to entrap pro-lifers.They might ask how many children pro-lifers plan to adopt and/or foster. They might also ask what programs pro-lifers are supportive of for those already babies and their mothers already born.

I bring this up towards the end because it’s two-fold. Adoption ought to be presented to women as a loving, selfless, life-saving alternative to abortion. The pro-life movement is also composed of women who have become pregnant, were not fit to be a parent at that time, and placed their baby up for adoption. I have a friend who placed her first child up for adoption that comments asking how many babies pro-lifers have adopted hurts her feelings when it comes to how she might not have been able to parent her child, but she did choose life for him.

Are there children waiting to be adopted and/or fostered? Of course. Do we need people working on the adoption and fostering process? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it has to be on pro-lifers, and it doesn’t mean someone is any less pro-life if they are not in a position to adopt or foster children while advocating for rights of the unborn.

The issue of supporting already born babies and their families is a more compelling whataboutism argument. Pregnancy centers do a fitting job advocating for mothers during and after pregnancy in ways such as material aid, medical referrals, and providing and/or assisting with housing.

As a compassionate conservative, I believe in programs such as federal paid family leave and social safety net programs. Some of my fellow conservatives may not, based upon ideas of personal responsibility, which I can understand. However, it’s a fair point to discuss and be asked what we are doing to be pro-life for those born and unborn.

Largely, whataboutism from the abortion advocate side is faulty, immature even. There can, however, be a place for it when employed thoughtfully, appropriately, and respectfully.