Women are not able to support Objectively Arguing for abortion

It has sometimes been said that men should not have a say regarding the
issue of abortion as they are not directly affected by it. Indeed, since
men can not suffer the direct consequences of pregnancy, many feminists
have argued that men should therefore keep their mouth shut the whole issue
of abortion. And you can just Google this general theme of finding multiple
items from feminists who advocate this view.
However, in opposition to this idea, I want to make is that far from men
who need to be quiet on the evaluation of the morality and legality of
abortion, it is, in fact, women should crush the abortion debate. And if
such an idea, given the times we live in, may seem radical, it is actually
a very good reason for it.
Does this girl look like she could give you a coherent argument for
abortion? I don t think so.
So to understand why women should stay out of the debate on moral
permissiveness and / or legal abortion, consider the issue of jury
selection in a criminal or civil trial. First, note that the jury objective
and goal is to seek the truth and follow the evidence presented in the most
objective manner possible. Now, with that in mind, imagine that we have a
criminal trial where a male defendant was accused of raping a woman.
In such a situation, and given that, as mentioned, the purpose of a jury is
to seek truth as objectively as possible, we all understand that it would
be wrong and unfair to allow a woman on the jury this trial if the woman in
question had also been raped by a man in the same way that would have
happened in the trial currently under consideration. And we all know why
that would be a bad idea and irrational? Because the potential juror had
previously been raped, because of its past history, would obviously not as
objective and impartial would be required to serve on such a jury.
Indeed, we all understand that the emotional and psychological proximity to
the type of test under consideration would cloud his objectivity and make
it a part member, rather than an impartial jury of women. Moreover, we all
understand why such a woman would not be as objective as was necessary for
the jury service: namely, because a mind clouded emotionally and
psychologically is a spirit that is more sensitive to motivated reasoning
and cognitive biases. And that's why a woman could not be trusted to fairly
assess such a case of rape.

But can give examples more. For example, we also understand that the jury
would not be allowed to be a family member of an accused person because no
one expected or could sufficiently guarantee that a family member would be
objective in their assessment of the evidence against their parent. In
fact, even the trial judge should recuse himself if he had a conflict of
interest with the case under consideration because of potential bias and
reasoning motivated than trying such a case might raise.
So we can see by these examples how an emotional and psychological
closeness person to a certain situation makes them less objective reality
on the arguments they are considering; In addition, such close proximity
actually gives us a strong reason to be more cautious assessment of such
person about a certain issue rather than be more confident of their
assessment.
Note also that the social science also supports the above illustrations.
For example, in his book The Righteous Mind, specifically in chapter "Vote
for me (here's why)," popular social psychologist Johnathan Haidt finds
that when interest and / or reputation concerns are at stake, people are
very good to find evidence that supports a position they already hold,
probably for intuitive reasons. What this means is that when interest is
involved, as well as during the discussion topics emotive, people are very
good confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

Now, with the above points in mind, the link with the issue of abortion
should be clear. In the abortion debate, we try to objectively and fairly
evaluate the status of the unborn human being, both in a moral and a legal
sense. We also seek to assess, as objectively as possible, that the
abortion is murder, thus establishing if eligible or not. We even evaluate
whether abortion is a social good or not. So these are serious issues, just
as serious as damn evaluate the evidence in a murder trial.
Therefore, we all wish that those evaluating these subjects concerning
abortion is as objective as possible. But in all these debates, a woman is
like a member of the jury that would compromise rejected as a juror,
precisely because it could not count on being as objective as possible on
the evidence in the study ; Indeed, because it is very emotional proximity
woman, psychological, and those interested in abortion issues making the
evaluation less reliable than more trusted. And this is because there would
be a very good chance that a woman suffers from severe cognitive biases in
assessing the evidence regarding abortion and the status of the unborn
child.
After all, women themselves admit that it is they who are directly
influenced by the emotional, psychological and physical effects of
pregnancy and abortion. And so, knowingly or not, they are themselves those
who tacitly recognize that they have an increased susceptibility to
cognitive biases and motivated reasoning regarding the subject of abortion.
Unlike women, men are not directly concerned by the issue of abortion. Men
are also less emotionally, psychologically, and personally invested, as
many women admit themselves; after all, that is often the reason why women
argue that men should have no say on abortion to start. But because of
this, a strong case can be made that men are more objective reality
evaluators evidence on the issue of abortion and immorality potential
women. Indeed, men, given their ability to remain more detached the issue
of abortion, can actually be trusted to give an impartial assessment of the
evidence concerning the humanity of the unborn child. And so men can give a
more accurate assessment of whether abortion is murder or not.
Exactly & # 8230; This means that men are less biased and less prone to
motivated reasoning on the issue of abortion.
And so, long and short, it is this: although men are sometimes told that
their views on abortion should not count because they are not directly
affected by pregnancy and abortion, he is actually very emotional and
psychological closeness of a woman to the issue of abortion which makes
opinion-prone cognitive bias on less objective and less reliable than the
abortion of a man. So if anyone should be ignored with regard to the issue
of abortion, it is women. But if women should be heard on abortion issue
and in the end they should in fact be-then no one should dare to say that
men of abortion arguments should not be listened to as well.
Read more: Women are careless with contraception because they like the
attention to get an abortion?