My contribution at the FB discussion was this:
First, there is no context (for me) for that statement. I never thought of the Red Pill thang, and I don’t even know what that means. Truly, I ought to get out more.
As it floats out there all by its lonesome, the statement seems to present a contradiction in ethical standards.
Pro-choice advocates affirm the moral entitlement of a pregnant woman to do with her body whatever she pleases - to have a baby or to refuse to carry on a pregnancy and, so, to abort the pregnancy. It’s her body, her choice.
Pro-circumcision ostensibly affirms the moral duty to circumcise a male infant. In this case, circumcision imposes a change in the body of the male child which he is not choosing. Rather it is his parent(s) who do so. It’s his body, but not his choice.
If this is a correct analysis of abortion and circumcision, then it’s a contradiction of ethical values to be pro-choice and also pro-circumcision.
- This is, of course, an incorrect analysis of abortion and circumcision. Correctly evaluated, both are exactly the same thing (that is, as far as the ethical dynamics are concerned):
In circumcision, the male child’s body is altered wholly apart from his choice, wholly as a choice by someone else.
In abortion, the male or female child’s body is altered wholly apart from the baby’s choice, except the result is not whether a male child shall have a foreskin, but whether he will live at all.
It’s a stringent, inviolable tenet of abortion advocates that the inhabitant of the womb is not a person.