Ok so, in my Practical Ethics class on Friday, my teacher (grad student) decided to bring one of the esteemed professors in the philosophy department to lecture to our class. Basically he was trying to prove to us why abortion is morally wrong. He gave his theory to the class, gave some examples, and finished up for questions. It’s a 50 minute class and he left about 15 minutes for questions. So, after he opened the forum for questions, a lot of the questions that were being asked didn’t really challenge his philosophy about why abortion is morally wrong. So me being pro choice, and being the person that I am, I decided I was going to challenge his theory. Mind you I’m the only black male in a class of maybe 25 students and my hair is all afro-like and nappy, which I quickly remembered after this old white man with white hair called on me with an interesting look on his face. I had spent about 3 minutes writing down my question so I would know exactly what I wanted to say. My question to him was this:” What if I posited it to you that the contemporary western world, and even speaking in retrospect, the western world would consider “uncivilized” nations barbarous. These people born in these so called barbarous areas were born liberated from these decrees because they naturally governed themselves as they were “uncivilized”. People today who are pro-choice are only marred by constitutional and federal law. Just like those “barbarous”, more importantly, human beings were born and lived by what America would call “natural rights”, shouldn’t human beings have the privilege to exercise those natural rights and freedoms that this country so palpably praises (he also tried to stop by interrupting me during my question)?” So, he responds to me by saying: “Well, you know what, this is not how you argue philosophy. You’re using all these big words…….. All fetus’ are human beings. And its not that they have potential life, but that they will have life. All of you were fetus’”. So I responded by saying: “Ok so, then what you would you say to those women are victims of extreme unfortunate circumstances such as rape or even those who face serious health risks upon deliverance of the babies. Should they be forced to have these children?” He responds, “Of course. Well, there are certain situations that can be exceptions. “Before he go on I said, “so you’re saying that your theory is relative”. He responds, “My theory isn’t relative, I’ve proven to you that abortion is morally wrong, period. So can you really call me a relativist??”. So, before I could respond he goes to the other side of the room. He evaded me by not looking my way as I sit on the far right of the classroom, yet my hand was raised high. So he finally acknowledges me and calls on me. So I gave him another number question. “So since you’ve proven to me that you’re theory is relative I want to ask you this. Over George Bush’s tenure he appointed several Supreme Court justices and none of them are pro choice. In order for an act to be passed by the Supreme Court, you only need a 5:4 vote. So gradually the Supreme Court has been filled with justices who are against abortion which indicates that in only in a few years, abortion will be completely admonished by constitutional law. Since your theory is relative, I want to know how you feel about a potential law that will not tolerate any exceptions (trimesters {as they have been gradually taken away by Supreme Court votes})?” This dude completely dismissed me by saying, well I think the Roe. v. Wade was totally wrong. In fact, I think he was incoherent. That guy must’ve not had an IQ over 60. The class laughs. He shrewdly evaded answering my question and the class was over.
Ok so, as I was reading Chuck D's Fight The Power it led me to reflect on the events of that day. It reads: ""....Our philosophy is not to go deep, deep, deep, deep when people don't understand the simple. Keep it simple. Let them get mad in bits and pieces but then drop it to make them look stupid. Our plan was to make people put their foot in the mouth if they challenged us. Not to go so deep where someone could attempt to dismiss us as crazy. We could be right in what we were saying but we could be right in the wrong environment ...."
I think probably one of my biggest problems is that I don't use enough discretion when I'm trying to make such passionate points. And a lot of times, my emotions begin to dictate my discourse. And that can only make me seem irrational. In that environment where I was a complete minority: It was a class of 25 students. I was only the black male. The Lecturer was an esteemed professor in his field. The class' receptivity to his lecture was completely repository-like. I was the only who decided to confront him and make an extreme counter point/theory. What I did wrong was, is that I let my emotions get the best of me. I became so passionate in what I was saying that I was losing sight of I wanted to get across. I didn't want to fight/argue with him. I wanted to challenge him. And when I tried, I got emotional, which was to my disadvantage. The message from Chuck D's is something I'll carry with me from now on. There's one thing to reach the Tipping Point. But its another thing to learn how to control, channel, and communicate that emotion. I got away from informing, and welcomed a debate. And no matter how ended, as I student, I was going to lose. So, for those of you looking to challenge other's on certain ideas, use some discretion so you're not easily dismissed.
