This video has been making the rounds on social media, and it’s crossed my path a number of times. It features Bill Nye the Science Guy giving a really patronizing, condescending lecture to the pro-life community, and I’ve seen a number of people post this video with captions praising Bill Nye for defeating the pro-life stance entirely. Problem is, he’s done no such thing, and in fact the entire video is four and a half minutes of cringe-worthy misunderstanding.
So, let’s take a look at this trainwreck:
(Disclaimer: I’m not trying to debate the ethics of abortion with this post. If abortion is morally justifiable, these arguments certainly aren’t why, and all they’re doing is making pro-choicers look like they don’t know what they’re talking about. In fact, I think this is probably the worst collection of pro-choice arguments I’ve ever heard, due to the simple fact that it betrays a total misunderstanding of every facet of the issue, which is ironic, given that Bill accuses pro-lifers of being ignorant.)
Misunderstanding one: “who are you gonna sue? Every woman who’s had a fertilized egg pass through her?”
Bill Nye says that because pro-lifers consider a fertilized egg to be identical with a human person, they should therefore hold spontaneous abortion or miscarriages as equal to murder the way they hold clinical abortion to it. If abortion is murder, then this argument is like saying that the mother of a baby who died from SIDS is just as guilty of murder as a mother who went into her baby’s room and smothered it to death. It’s absolutely ridiculous. In one case, the mother has no control over whether her baby dies, and in the other, the mother is directly responsible for the fact that her baby dies.
Misunderstanding two: “when it comes to women’s rights with respect to their reproduction, I think you should leave it to women.”
This at least has some merits. However, if abortion is murder, then it’s not just the rights of the woman being affected. It’s also the rights of the human person whose future is at stake. Even if it’s not murder, in the case of (specifically) abortion being treated as a women’s issue, the father’s rights to his child would be completely ignored in favor of the woman’s, and that’s not fair.
This is also ignoring the fact that, in all cases (not just abortion), if one party has a personal and emotional investment in an issue (as women do in the case of their reproductive rights), then it’s more than likely that they will be unable to make an objective and logical decision about it. This doesn’t mean they should be excluded from the decision by any means, but it does mean that they shouldn’t be the only ones allowed to have a say.
Misunderstanding three: “sorry guys, I know it’s your interpretation of a book written 5,000 years ago…”
This actually makes me furious. In addition to the chronological snobbery (which is a fallacy, by the way), this is an attempt to discredit and disregard all pro-life arguments as “lol religious people and their silly superstitions, amirite? Good thing us sciencey people are smarter than that.” There are plenty of pro-life organizations, as well as people, who are not religious, and nonetheless consider abortion to be a moral evil. Many of them would be legitimately offended at being lumped in with the religious crowd. I’m curious as to whether Bill Nye has ever talked to a pro-lifer, if he thinks their arguments can all be tied back to the Bible.
Misunderstanding four: “nobody likes abortion, but you don’t get to tell people what to do.”
Actually, yes I do. I have every right to tell someone not to commit murder. The government also has the right to tell someone not to commit murder. If abortion is murder, then both I and the government have every right to tell people that they can’t have abortions.
Misunderstanding five: “she has rights over this, especially if she doesn’t like the guy that got her pregnant.”
Disliking someone is not an acceptable motive for murder. If abortion is murder, disliking the guy who got you pregnant is not an excusable motive to have an abortion, any more than it’s an excusable motive to kill a toddler. Even if the woman in question was raped.
Misunderstanding six “to squander resources on this argument based on bad science, on just lack of understanding, is very frustrating.”
The argument isn’t based on “bad science” because it isn’t based on science at all. Life and personhood are not scientific concepts. You can throw as much science as you want in there, and it’s not going to do a lick of good, because this isn’t a scientific issue–it’s an ethical one. If abortion is murder, then this is just as serious an issue as any other issue we could be “squandering our resources” on, like human trafficking or terrorism or poverty.
Misunderstanding seven: “abstinence… closing abortion clinics… not giving women access to birth control has not been an effective way to lead to healthier societies.”
First of all, abstinence education and limiting access to birth control are not necessarily actions endorsed by the pro-life community as a whole. Bill Nye is still confusing “pro-life” with “Christian,” and even then, he doesn’t understand the nature of the issues. Second of all, if abortion is murder, then allowing it is much more detrimental to the health of society than any of the things he’s listed.
Misunderstanding eight: “I just really encourage you… not to pursue these laws that are really in nobody’s best interest. Just really be objective about this.”
Well, if abortion is murder (say it with me, folks), then these laws are in the best interests of the unborn people they’re saving. Just because they’re not in the best interests of the would-be murderers doesn’t mean that nobody‘s best interests are being considered here. And I don’t think dear old Bill gets to lecture people on objectivity when he just said that women are the only ones who should be allowed a say in the abortion debates.
TL;DR: none of Bill’s arguments work unless we’ve already demonstrated that abortion is morally permissible. Unfortunately, the question of whether abortion is morally permissible is LITERALLY THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT so all he’s managed to illustrate is that if abortion is morally permissible, then abortion is morally permissible. You’ll have to excuse me if I’m not particularly amazed by his logical prowess on this point.
Here’s a thought: How about we try and actually listen to what the other side has to say and come to an amiable, rational conclusion instead of shouting over them about how wrong they are? Pro-lifers, I’m talking to you, too…