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

[zenten.livejournal.com]

My own personal belief is that "personhood" is something that we make up to make considering moral, legal, etc type questions easier, and does not actually exist. It's like saying "when is red no longer red but orange?" We might somehow all end up agreeing on an answer with a dogmatic enough education, but it's not going to really change anything besides making definitions more consistent.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

*is curious*

What, if anything, then morally differentiates a person from a dog, or a germ, or a rock?

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Dogs, germs and rocks aren't people.

I really don't see how you can have a "first cause" when it comes to morality. The best you can aim for is consistency, and even then I don't know if that's always desirable.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Your first sentence seems to me to beg the question; can you explain?

"First cause," meaning an answer to the question, "why?" to which "why" need not be asked again? I'm guessing most parents want one of those! Dogma posits one; mystical experience grants one, but it's nontransferable except indirectly (see "dogma"). In either case, but especially the latter, relating that to practical matters is a tricky matter of interpretation and discernment.

I think consistency is something to pursue with caution: inconsistencies signal things that need work, but often need not be resolved immediately.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

I've come to the conclusion that there isn't a first cause to the question. I basically have to decide "what is a person" for myself, and there isn't some formula or set of logical reasoning based on facts or anything that can allow me to come to the conclusion.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

What do you base it on, then?

I don't know of a way to get to a provably right answer either, mind you.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

I go by what feels right.

I'm of the opinion that's what everyone else does, they just come up with elaborate justifications for taking that position. At least the ones that aren't going by "this is what this authority figure tells me is a person".

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Fair enough... I already explained why I picked the point I did.

In a certain sense, where I want to get is the recognition that everything is sacred and inextricably connected. That's a whole other discussion again, though!