Current issue

[ironphoenix]

I've been reluctant to post on this subject for a while, because my position isn't a popular one, I fear. Recent events, however, have made it harder to stay silent, so here goes. If you don't stop reading here, I ask that you go all the way to the end.

I believe abortion is wrong. I believe it is a killing of a helpless human being, with all that entails. In cases where if the child doesn't die then the mother will, I can support it, but not otherwise.

That said, I believe a lot of other things, too.

I believe that safe, effective contraception and thorough, realistic sexual education should be universally available. I believe that sexuality, and current reality being what it is, women's sexuality in particular, should not be stigmatized. I believe that child care should be available and affordable. I believe that staying at home to look after children should not be a "CLM." I believe that victims of rape should be supported and treated with dignity and respect, not further victimized. I believe that in law and in practice, women should have free access to safe abortions. I believe that women who choose to have abortions should not be stigmatized either, and should have access to support and counselling services. I believe that we as a society need these things. I believe that the consequences of not having these things are contributing or would contribute to a lot of suffering and oppression. I hope that we, as societies, can overcome the systemic and structural factors which lead women to consider having their children aborted. I believe that the best ways to do this are by providing the support I described, not by imposing restrictions on vulnerable women at the time of their need.

That beling my fundamental position, let me now write a few things about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, a doctor who specialized in late-term abortions, apparently motivated by his practice.

I believe that killing this person was wrong and unjustified. I believe it was an intrinsically wrong act of itself, and more. I understand the position that could be taken, that killing someone who would themselves kill many others is the lesser of two evils, and I reject it. I believe that it's a false saving, and one which merely contributes to the violence and oppression that encourage women to seek out abortions. I believe that "preemptive" acts or punitive vigilanteism undermine the social relationships of trust and mutuality that build lasting solutions to systemic problems. Let me say this again clearly and unequivocally: I repudiate this killing.

In closing, I ask that you not quote me out of context. I've written short sentences here, but they're part of a whole. It would be easy to misrepresent me by taking bits of this and leaving the rest behind; please don't.

Comments

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

I don't think that your position is an unpopular one.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

It isn't one I've often seen presented in this rather polarized discussion; I guess I'm afraid of being seen by each "side" as part of "the enemy."

[soul-diaspora.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

You're welcome... and thanks for your support, too.

[mikepictor.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

I don't know why your opinion would be unpopular. You have a belief, a strong one, but you also do not want to legislate your opinion on those that wouldn't share it. I think your position is a perfectly sensible one.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

You're welcome!

See reply to dagibbs' comment above...

Thanks for your encouragement!

[arndis.livejournal.com]

I consider myself pro-choice and I think your position is awesome: you think that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, because we are going to help women have children only when and if they want, and with lots of support. If all pro-lifers thought this way, we would not HAVE the debates about this problem and related ones that we do as a society; we would all be doing something productive about it together. The problem is all the pro-lifers who use "but what about the helpless unborn babies" as a pretext to shame and control women.

From what I've read Dr. Tiller was doing his best to save the lives of the mothers, cases where the baby was either hideously malformed or would kill the mother before or during birth, or both. So, to my mind, if you know you can't save the baby, but you can save the mother, you save the mother. At least that's one out of two still alive and healthy.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Well, if everybody thought the same way, there wouldn't be debates no matter what the position was, but I agree with your point.

I think people on both ends of the polarized spectrum are part of "the problem".

I didn't actually know that that was what Dr. Tiller's practice was about; I'm happy that that's how he saw it.

[thesheryl.livejournal.com]

I think your position is excellent. I believe that abortion should be safe and available to women, but I frown on it being used as birth control.

That being said, I could never have one myself. But expect everyone to think and feel the way I do about it? Not so much.

I applaud you for posting this.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[ilanikhan.livejournal.com]

I don't see how your position would be unpopular - in fact, I believe that it is likely shared with a large portion of the pro-choice folks.
Thank you for getting this out there.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! And, thanks for your support!

As for the position being unpopular, see my reply to dagibbs' comment above.

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

I mostly agree with you, however, I don't know if society will ever get to such a state where abortion is eliminated by way of comprehensive education/contraception/childcare/etc. The entitlement society we live in is the main reason why I don't think it will be, because more and more people think "I can do anything I like and I don't need to be responsible for the consequences of my actions" - and thus there is less of the "prevention" side going on (education, use of contraceptives, etc.). This is also why STD rates are still rising, even though basic contraceptives are easily available. (This theory is not restricted to sexual behaviour, it also applies to obesity rates, among others)

The most important aspect of sex education I believe should be self-esteem. To teach people that they don't need to have sex to fit in, or to keep a partner, or because it is expected on X date, or whatever else. Kids are also starting into sexual adventures way too young these days (and not just "these days" I guess, I thought the same thing when I was in high school and my peers were having sex and I was like "WTF? Already?").

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

*nod* Consequences don't care who's responsible for them, do they? They just are. Prudent people consider the consequences of what they do, and act accordingly. Sadly, none of us are always prudent, and even when we are, sometimes things beyond our control or low-probability events lead to bad consequences anyway.

I agree that self-esteem is critical; I have no idea how to teach it if the parents and social circle are undermining it, though!

[jagash.livejournal.com]

The pickle is that artificially elevated self-esteem leads to an entitlement society. "I am awesome and have never failed/done wrong so there are no consequences".

Good points, I just think the solution is a bit more difficult then what you propose.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The actual evidence shows that the lack of education and limited use of contraceptives has little-to-nothing to do with entitlement and arrogance.

[green-ogre.livejournal.com]

Thank you for sharing.

I don't agree with you on everything, but as a society we should be able to hear and listen to all sides of an argument.

I think it a shame that political discourse is often reduced to sound bits and policies often have all the nuances removed.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Thanks for reading!

And I agree.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I believe it is a killing of a helpless human being, with all that entails.

This statement is not, in any way, consistent with the rest of your position.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

No.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

It is fully consistent, if you are looking at the reality of what can actually be factually decided, and have the point of view that people *also* have the right to control their bodies.

[http://users.livejournal.com/niall_/]

I don't consider myself "pro-" anything, except pro-common sense... I think those labels further polarise discussion and limit sharing of ideas.

I have been doing a lot of thinking on this because I've lately had to take Outaouais busses more often (due to being late for the 27/40), and passing by the Bank abortion clinic silent protesters, especially during their lent vigil with the slogan "praying for an end to abortion". I constantly wonder, what would I say to these people to figure out exactly what their position is, and if their arguments are internally-sound or if they're just dogmatic?

And in these internal dialogues (always treacherous since I'm only talking with my self-image of what I think they actually stand for), checking questions and answers, I rarely go anywhere, finding some of my own inaccuracies or at least realising some positions are based on dogmas of my own; but a few things did come out clear.

I believe in also wishing an end to abortion clinics, as in, a proliferation of places due to rising demand for such a painful and difficult procedure (and, sadly, due to an image of the procedure as birth control, with which I also disagree), through pro-active action starting mainly with knowledge, disseminated through the community of what it is and what it is not; of why it happens, and try to prevent that. If strength of purpose for that task is achieved through personal and communal prayer, that's fine. (I'm hoping the people there aren't using prayer of the "hoping God does something about it" sort, which does nothing. Actions speak much louder than words on a placard.) But I also realistically believe that abortions will still be needed, due to the sheer number of people around, and as such, should be done by medical professionals in safe, supportive environments, same as other medical procedures. Not illegal and back-alley "doctors" ending up doing more harm than good. Also, plenty of information beforehand, so the choice is made in clear conscience on both sides. (And the choice never goes away, is never forgotten. This also I know.)

And yes, it must also mean stop propagating the myths and fables always circulating in teen circles; you can't have an "adult" come in and tell them they're wrong, they'll distrust the source; and if a teen already knows it's erroneous and tries to correct them, then they go "well you're the only one who thinks so, so you can't be right". This is a strong force of misinformation on how sex happens, how even pregnancy can or can't occur. I've found a 30 year old, otherwise intelligent woman thinking that "pulling out" was effective contraception, in the last month! These old myths have been around for over a century, rarely changing in some cases, the older teens telling the younger ones and then disappearing from the environment (school, usually) so new, corrective information from the same source can't happen later on. Sex education in school is barely making a dent, it seems. On this, I'm stumped.

The vigilantism of and by absolutist or zealots is also wrong. It usually is flagrantly hypocritical to boot, but yelling loudly is viewed by some as an effective persuasion method, and thus are mobs formed...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm having trouble following what you're saying. Can you clarify what you mean you would want *in practice* as opposed to theory?

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I find myself disagreeing only slightly -- perhaps crucially, perhaps not -- with your statement, because I don't think a fertilized ovum in the early stages (say, the first trimester) qualifies as "a human being".

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Do you believe there's some definite, observable marker for "turning the corner", or is this a somewhat loosely defined thing?

I'm certainly open to argument on where the line is, and why; in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I tend to draw it as early as I think is reasonable (i.e., fertilization).

[ziggy-b.livejournal.com]

Many years ago I read a book by Michael Crichton titled "A Case of Need" where the main character was a doctor, and friends with a man who performed abortions (he started because the first woman who came to him needed one because her fetus was unviable). It was written many years ago, 1968, when abortion was even less popular. I like it because his argument was that "No matter how you feel about the issue personally - publically it will happen so you might as well try to minimize the problems associated with it". So no matter what people think personally, I very much believe in that philosophy that we might as well support those who decide to have one as much as possible.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Interesting-sounding story.

Were I a doctor, I doubt I could justify performing most abortions to myself--but then, I chose not to be a doctor.

I generally agree with the idea that there's little to be gained by harming women who are having or have had abortions.