The Argument
The following passage is excerpted from the article, "Should Men Be Allowed to Discuss Abortion?" by Jim A.C. Everett. Everett describes a controversy that arose in 2014 concerning the cancellation of a public talk about the ethics of abortion. Read the passage for the argument and then answer the questions below.
"Oxford University student feminists have been kicking up a storm. The 'pro-life' group Oxford Students for Life (OSFL) organized a debate on abortion which inspired some troubling attacks. The official Oxford student feminist group (WomCam) is rather intolerant of any pro-life rhetoric, but what really irked them this time was that the debate was between two men. WomCam issued a statement:
It is absurd to think we should be listening to two cisgender men debate about what people with uteruses should be doing with their bodies. By only giving a platform to these men, OSFL are participating in a culture where reproductive rights are limited and policed by people who will never experience needing an abortion.
In the end the event was banned, sparking national coverage and commentary about free speech in British universities.
Note that the OSFL group had already hosted two all-women panel debates on abortion in the same year, so the criticism wasn't that they only have men speak in their debates generally. It was that on this particular occasion men were speaking. One of the organizers repeated in an opinion piece for The Independent:
[OSFL] thought it was appropriate to let men discuss if and when women should be able to make fundamental decisions about their own bodies. Neither will ever have to consider having an abortion. As you can imagine, those of us with uteruses were incredibly angry that they were able to speak for and over us.
The implication is that (biological) men should not be able to discuss abortion in public settings because they are men and could not themselves have an abortion" (Everett, 175-6).
Initial Reply
Is the argument that WomCam and others opposed to the OSFL event an ad hominem argument? If so, why and what kind of ad hominem argument would it be? If it is an ad hominem argument, is it an appropriate use of an ad hominem or is it a fallacy? Overall, do you think that the objection presented by WomCam and other critics of the event is compelling? Explain your answer.