![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
That's not what I'm getting, mostly. You're saying there are inconsistencies, but I don't hear you being specific about what they are and why you consider them inconsistent.
The trouble with this kind of argument is that you're taking no firm position of your own, contenting yourself instead with challenging mine. "Formlessness" is a good defense, but it makes little forward progress towards any goal.
From:
no subject
If I stop trying to make my point obliquely, I start here:
A) You say that abortion is killing a helpless human being with all that entails.
B) You go on to say that this should be legal, there should be no stigma, there should be no punishment, and you'd *like* it to stop but you feel that it *should* not currently be stopped.
These two things do not go together.
EITHER:
1) You DON'T actually think abortion is the killing of a helpless human being with all that entails, because you think killing helpless non-fetal human beings should be treated differently
or
2) You DO actually think abortion is the killing of a helpless human being with all that entails, and by extension you think killing a helpless human being - shooting a sleeping adult or smothering an infant, for example - is something that should be minimised and you should be sad about it but you shouldn't punish someone for doing it and you shouldn't make it illegal.
I happen to be pretty damn certain that 2 isn't true.
Meaning, you can't possibly simultaneously hold both position A AND position B. If you really held A, you could not possibly hold B without also feeling that OTHER killings of helpless human beings were acceptable, and you don't.
Eliminate "with all that entails" from statement A and you're getting a lot closer to internal consistency. As long as that clause is there, though?
From:
no subject
In discussing B, I do not want it to be stopped by law or by stigmatization. I believe there are other ways to at the very least greatly reduce its incidence. I also qualified my original statement by "in law and in practice." For a religious person, this is a critical difference, where it likely isn't for an atheist/non-spiritualist one. A pretty widespread religious tenet is that morality carries consequences independent of human law or social censure.
In law, 1 is pragmatically hard to avoid without bringing down the consequences I described in my original post. I guess one thing that troubles me is that this too has a slippery slope on it, towards infants, children, mentally incompetent people... that's a road I wouldn't want to go down.
As for 2, I think we do it all the f'ing time, just collectively, by omission, and at a distance. How many people die because they work in places with terrible safety practices, no health care, and wages insufficient to provide for proper housing and nutrition? How many die because they're denied the medical care they need because they can't pay, or because the wait is too long and their condition becomes irrecoverable in the interim? How many people starve because it was economically practical to grow cash crops instead of food there, and then discover how expensive it was to have food shipped in?
Death is far from the greatest evil we can inflict on another, I believe. To not care (and express that caring in word and action) about another is the root of moral failure. One of the great challenges to modern Christianity, at least for me, is that we're now aware of so much of the world that there's just too much to care about for any human. Reconciling that contradiction is the work I'm more interested in.