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

[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.

[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.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

On further thought, I realize that pro-life people see advocating abortion as advocating murder.

It is a very unclear and fraught choice, either way.

[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...

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

No.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"No, I disagree", or "No, I'm not going to discuss this"?

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

*nod* Self-esteem needs to be grounded in reality; it's about one's worth (which is unconditional), not the perfection of one's judgment, morals, or accomplishments. Believing oneself infallible leads to just what you mention.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

The labels on people and "sides" certainly are.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

(My initial version of the previous comment said "argue" rather than discuss, which I feel is more correct in the sense of "debate" but can too easily be miscontrued as an implication that failure to dispute would be acceptance. Which is not intended.)

[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.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Assuming the truth of the statement leads to two questions:

#1: Why does the allegedly-fully-human blastocyst *not* have a right to control it's own body?

#2: Why do *you* have the right to refuse to give *me* bone marrow or a kidney?

(and assuming that "we have no way of knowing" is the same as "we can reasonably assume" is a nightmare when you start discussing human reproduction. For the record)

[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?

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Well, since most people wouldn't argue that a 1 year old has a right to control their own body #1 should be "right to life". The answer in this case seems to be that there is a conflict of rights that can be in opposition, and there is no way at least with anywhere close to current technology to have both rights be respected.

When I said "no way of knowing" I meant that the question is almost teleological in nature. You can't produce an answer through scientific reasoning, because it's not a scientific question.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

I made the mistake of reading some of the comments on the articles about the "suspect." Some of those comments are pretty virulent stuff, including threats of violence towards him and his family. As far as I can tell, you're correct that there are no proven cases of arson traceable to this motive, although there is a remarkable amount of church vandalism and arson. There have been some pretty serious crimes against protesters, though, including some causing permanent injury or death. Both sides, of course, argue that the other started the violence.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

No, I disagree, and will not add to that until you explain your statement.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

zenten already got #1 for me.

#2 is tricky. I believe that there is a difference between what's morally right and what's legally enforceable. Giving bone marrow or a kidney is morally right, but it can be argued (and usually is, implicitly) that it should not be legally enforceable, because the negative consequences of diluting the right of sovereignty of the body outweigh the positive consequences of saving lives by such involuntary "donations". I can imagine a society that might decide otherwise, and in fact it could make a very good premise for a science fiction story.

Your last statement is a bit loose. I believe that human identity begins at fertilization, at which time the genotype is set. I think it's not an ironclad argument, but to say that it's an unreasonable assumption would be hard to justify.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

The function of prayer is a whole other question, and one I don't want to confuse this discussion with.

I agree that information is a good thing, and the more of us there are being realistic and honest with it, the less people will be susceptible to the argument that, as you say, well you're the only one who thinks so, so you can't be right".

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Yes, that.

There's a good side discussion to be had on what constitutes a scientific question... but perhaps that belongs elsewhere.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

I don't know how unclear I would find the choice, were I ever in a non-hypothetical situation to have to make it in a specific instance.

The general case, though, is much harder, because I think there are very real limits on how much morality should be legislated.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It seems simple enough:

If abortion is killing a helpless human being, then the rest of your opinion, where you hold that it should be legal, that it should not be punished, that it should carry no stigma? Is monstrous.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

So I should be allowed to get blood tranfusions, bone marror transfusions, yank out a spare kidney, etc from a 1 year old without restraint, because they have no right to control their own body and none of those are fatal?

The answer in this case seems to be that there is a conflict of rights that can be in opposition,

If you accept that a microscopic clump of undifferentiated cells is a human being with all the rights of a human being, then yes, you have rights in conflict.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I believe that human identity begins at fertilization, at which time the genotype is set. I think it's not an ironclad argument, but to say that it's an unreasonable assumption would be hard to justify.

You need to define "human identity" before we can continue, here.

(While we're at it: What's your opinion on IVF and HeLa? Is HeLa fully human with all human rights? It's got a MUCH stronger case for being a separate, individual organism, given that, unlike a blastocyst, it *can* survive nonparasitically. And they've got the exact same amount of functional brain matter!)

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

I see it as a moderate statement: the radical pro-choice statement is that "abortion is morally neutral." This was perhaps most clearly expressed by Mary Anne Warren in "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" (Monist 57, 1973, sec. 1): "abortion is not a morally serious ... act, comparable to killing in self-defense ..., but rather closer to a morally neutral act, like cutting one's hair."

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

I know there has been violence around abortion clinics. I have no idea which side would have started the violence -- likely, in many cases, there was some amount of mutual escalation.

I try to avoid reading the really inflamatory stuff, anywhere. It lets me feel better about humans as a whole.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

Ah, ok. That is pretty radical.

It leads me to wonder, though, how you feel about hormonal birth control that allows fertilization to happen, but prevents implantation. Or the "morning after" pill.