Ofall the hot topics of debate which have risen this spring, there are none more interesting and ironic than the recent Playboy frenzy.
Earlier this week, as the protesters waved their signs and chanted the familiar "Hey, Ho ..." mantra, some strange ironies occurred to me about this ruckus. The Playboy controversy stirs up a strikingly similar debate over the notion of "choice" as does the all-too familiar abortion issue.
The arguments behind the two issues revolve around the concept of individual choice versus the greater societal good. Being that the Playboy protesters are by and large also pro-choice advocates, one must question their reliance on the concept of "choice" in one arena but not the other.
In the case of the abortion debate, those who are anti-abortion believe that the societal good (i.e. preventing what they see as murder and a devaluing of human life) transcends the individual's choice. Or, better stated, no one can make a choice if that choice causes another to be harmed. Thus, anti-abortion advocates demand that abortion be outlawed for the greater good.
On the other side, pro-choice advocates believe that a woman's prerogative to make reproductive choices cannot be overlooked because of the pro-lifer's "societal good."They argue that having an abortion should be an open alternative for all women, and that the anti-abortion advocate's conception of "murder" is skewed since the fetus is not yet a viable or independent life form.
There should be little doubt that the overwhelming majority of the Playboy protesters are also pro-choice. The two movements are unquestionably made up of many of the same people: the "Spare Ribbers" and women's issues advocates.
This understood, let's consider the anti-Playboy argument. The protesters contend that Playboy's depiction of nude women is misogyny and that such portraiture contributes toward society's treatment of women as objects. So, women should not have the choice to participate in the photo shoot because the greater societal good should come first.
Serious credibility questions come to mind here. How can these people completely negate individual choice on the Playboy issue but not on the abortion issue? Granted, pornography does carry with it a disturbing mindset. But is the destruction of potential human life not an equally disturbing idea, if not more so? And if a woman has the "right" to do with her body anything she wishes, why does this exclude posing for Playboy?
There certainly are situations where we must waver on the question of individual choice versus the greater good (though we rarely agree on what the "greater good" actually is). But those who disregard the notion of individual choice on the Playboy issue should ask themselves whether they would apply those same standards to another issue such as abortion.
And if there is indeed a double-standard at work in the minds of our Playboy protesting peers, we must wonder whose interests they are trying to represent. If, in this select situation, they want to disregard their own notion of choice, it becomes clear that the only interests being taken into account are the ones written on the protest signs.
