NRL News

How is it when it comes to abortion really, really smart people can be so really, really dumb?

by | Aug 23, 2021

By Dave Andrusko

Noam Chomsky

Editor’s note. This post ran a year ago today in NRL News Today. Obviously, the question is a perennial.

This week over coffee, a friend of decades and I had a friendly but intense back and forth conversation over (what else?) the presidential campaign. He is a veteran observer, by no means an unyielding Democratic partisan, but he honestly cannot grasp how ugly and vicious and unyielding almost all media coverage is of President Trump. As a result, he failed to appreciate what kid gloves virtually the entire media treated last week’s Democratic National Convention.

I came away thinking about another friend of decades and an exchange we once had. This individual, who frequently participated in debates, and I disagreed over something. Who knows, when it comes to the overall point, perhaps I was entirely wrong. 

But my late friend had reached his conclusion in a manner that made zero sense to me (and I’m guessing any third party, had there been one). He made assertions that (in the back of his mind) he had to know would fail an introductory high school logic course. 

The irony was staggering. He was a brilliant college professor and taught, among other topics, Symbolic Logic—whatever that is.

This gentleman was not only incredibly smart, but was also one of the kindest men I’ve ever know. His particular blind spot was Noam Chomsky.

As insightful and knowledgeable as my friend was (he thoroughly intimidated me with his sheer brilliance, although that was never his intent), the fact that Chomsky was a pioneer in a host of fields, most especially linguistics, did not mean Chomsky’s expertise was universal. In a word, Chomsky (like all of us) could make jaw-droppingly stupid remarks when he ventured outside his (admittedly numerous) areas of competence.

Here’s one example– what Chomsky once said when speaking at a reception where he received University College Dublin’s highest award—the Ulysses Medal.

So, what exactly did he say? As the story unfolded (as reported in the Irish Times), Chomsky began with the usual pro-abortion bromide: protective abortion laws are “attacks on women’s rights.” Well, okay, one man’s opinion. But Chomsky was just warming up.

He said there had been improvements in women’s rights, “Although they are nowhere near where they ought to be and it’s going to be a long struggle.” And then

“There is a strong debate at the moment with regards to a woman’s right to control an organ of her own body – namely the foetus. …Pretty soon you can imagine legislation prohibiting the washing of hands because thousands of cells are flaked off that could be turned into a stem cell and you can grow a foetus– so you’re killing a person. It’s attacks on women’s rights.”

Maybe it was a long evening and he was tired. Maybe, in a flourish of free (and I do mean free) association, he reasoned women’s rights=right to her own body=everything in her body is hers=ergo she can designate what (in this case whoever) resides in her body in any language she chooses.

Or maybe it was just a stupid comment.

What about the washing hands gibberish? Just as a baby is not an “organ,” a skin cell is a skin cell, not an embryo, and not a “potential” embryo.

How can smart people be so dumb about abortion?

Categories: Abortion