What are the Real Morals and Questions in the Abortion Debate?
Abortion rights activists are in trouble. Their terminology is failing. While they have successfully fended off the "anti-life" labels from their enemies, their own "pro-choice" label is becoming increasingly limited. First, there is the counter-attack on conservative forces, attempting to label "pro-lifers" as "anti-choice." This is a mistake. It exposes the weakness of the word choice. "Anti-choice" and "pro-choice" are bland. While the "right to choose" sounds nice, it does not link to a moral. The opposing side, for example, has a powerful tool in "pro-life." They have linked their political stand to a moral: saving a life. Now, who doesn't want to save lives? Too simple you say? In the end, yes. But most people don't get that far. For a world ruled by headlines, they have the advantage. The right to make choices in the end must be limited by the right to life. For example, we should all agree that murder is wrong. So, when can you rationalize taking a life? Do you see how the contextualization weakens the pro-abortion side?
There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.
But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.
So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .
There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.
But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.
So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .
Labels: abortion, choice, civil rights, freedom, language, politics
|| posted by mW @ 5:37 PM
Carhart and Abortion
In the just handed down U.S. Supreme Court case of Carhart, the court upheld the ban on the so-called "partial-birth abortions" (see my earlier posts for refutation of that very label). This is a not-so-subtle battle in the outright war on the right of abortion. Do not be fooled that this only about one procedure. It's just one more step for these people to eradicate this right altogether.
Sadly, this is one more result that falls directly at the feet of each pro-Bush voter in 2004. I tried to warn people that the presidential nominees were irrelevant to the long-term civil rights of this country, but the ability to name Supreme Court justices would last for decades. Bush's two right-wing appointees, Roberts and Alito, both voted with the 5-4 majority (and based on her voting record, the departed O'Connor likely would have sided with the minority). A majority, who according to Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, offered "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the ban. This is not the first 5-4 decision that these Roberts and Alito have swung.
While I understand the viewpoint of religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder, and thus must be stopped at all costs, they need to understand the viewpoint of persons with different religious beliefs. What is obvious to them is just spin to me. "Partial-birth abortion" was and is called "DX." What some see as a "baby" others see as a "fetus," and yet others see as a mere collection of cells: what the Roe court called a "potential life." Those that have the ability to think for themselves have the right NOT to see this as murder, but as the control of possibilities.
That is, there is the problem that abortion isn't just abortion, it's about fitting women into historical gender roles. That they should be mothers, life-givers, servants. Right. That thinking should be dead. Women have proved more than capable to do anything men can. As such, they should be given the right to choose how to use that possibility by controlling what happens to their bodies. It's impossible not to see abortion as a piece of that male-dominated cultural hegemony.
Moreover, this attitude is emblematic of male attempts not only to control women, but to control women's sexuality. There is the concept that women themselves are at fault for having sex. Right. I've yet to see any serious attack on men at that level. Several years back, there was a big outrage against "teen premarital sex." A major magazine inquired to many of these conservative figures (Republican and Democrat) to comment on "adult premarital sex." None would. So if you don't want to ban all sex, what are you doing? Trying to use it as a method of control, as an apparatus of power.
Sex is what it is. Use it as you will. Don't let anyone judge you for it. And don't let it dictate your possibility. Man or woman. And be wary of any sideways attack on the right to have an abortion, no matter how inconsequential or tangental to that right it may seem.
Sadly, this is one more result that falls directly at the feet of each pro-Bush voter in 2004. I tried to warn people that the presidential nominees were irrelevant to the long-term civil rights of this country, but the ability to name Supreme Court justices would last for decades. Bush's two right-wing appointees, Roberts and Alito, both voted with the 5-4 majority (and based on her voting record, the departed O'Connor likely would have sided with the minority). A majority, who according to Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion, offered "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the ban. This is not the first 5-4 decision that these Roberts and Alito have swung.
While I understand the viewpoint of religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder, and thus must be stopped at all costs, they need to understand the viewpoint of persons with different religious beliefs. What is obvious to them is just spin to me. "Partial-birth abortion" was and is called "DX." What some see as a "baby" others see as a "fetus," and yet others see as a mere collection of cells: what the Roe court called a "potential life." Those that have the ability to think for themselves have the right NOT to see this as murder, but as the control of possibilities.
That is, there is the problem that abortion isn't just abortion, it's about fitting women into historical gender roles. That they should be mothers, life-givers, servants. Right. That thinking should be dead. Women have proved more than capable to do anything men can. As such, they should be given the right to choose how to use that possibility by controlling what happens to their bodies. It's impossible not to see abortion as a piece of that male-dominated cultural hegemony.
Moreover, this attitude is emblematic of male attempts not only to control women, but to control women's sexuality. There is the concept that women themselves are at fault for having sex. Right. I've yet to see any serious attack on men at that level. Several years back, there was a big outrage against "teen premarital sex." A major magazine inquired to many of these conservative figures (Republican and Democrat) to comment on "adult premarital sex." None would. So if you don't want to ban all sex, what are you doing? Trying to use it as a method of control, as an apparatus of power.
Sex is what it is. Use it as you will. Don't let anyone judge you for it. And don't let it dictate your possibility. Man or woman. And be wary of any sideways attack on the right to have an abortion, no matter how inconsequential or tangental to that right it may seem.
Labels: abortion, gender, politics, sex
|| posted by mW @ 12:13 PM[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010