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

[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?

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

I often have trouble following what I'm trying to say too... and I don't have nearly enough full knowledge, both medical, factual and emotional (being close to someone who's had an abortion or even lost a child, for example) to be able to think of full practical matters. For spreading information, for example, I believe an extended family/friends conclave should be able to do it, as long as it's good and real information. I think this is the old "village" purpose, where everyone could raise everyone else's children as necessary; there isn't as huge a line drawn between houses. Of course, that trust comes from knowing each other, and new arrivals change dynamics. Parents should not trust only one source (school system) to come up with all the knowledge, even if schools are a good way to spread knowledge efficiently.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Trusting others to educate one's children seems to me to require either negligence or a belief that the would-be teachers are competent and also hold views similar to one's own.

[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".

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

That false argument, in italics, is kissing cousin with "X number of people can't be wrong!" Well, gee, how many were wrong (and some still are) thinking that the planet is flat, for example? Though that's a different type of argument, the words of that argument have been bandied in all areas, mostly as hype and coercion, and no one thinks twice about it anymore. All new facts have to be "discovered" by a small group (sometimes independently) and introduced to a larger group, which destroys both false arguments.

It all boils down for me to being able to think that the possibility of being wrong exists, and that truth can withstand criticism; if the critical analysis is flawed, truth will stand; if it isn't, then maybe that wasn't the truth. But to do so without feeling like a "loser" in an argument, or in a social context? Rare trait. Is that trait physionomical or cultural? Yeah, huge other debate, but they're all linked. (Similarly with the function of prayer, which I was using as an example of debate fodder and not as my actual debate argument.)

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

*nod* The more deep-rooted one's confidence is, the more willing they seem to be to accept the possibility of being wrong, especially in areas where they know they don't know that much.