On the heels of Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame I thought we'd lighten things up a bit and talk about . . . abortion! More specifically, I'd like to echo our President's call for a more civil tone in the abortion debate. That might seem like an oxymoron, and it probably is, but for over 35 years now we've tried screaming at each other and it hasn't worked, so how about trying something else?
In the abortion debate, I am an anomaly. I am the only person I know of (though I'm quite sure there are many others) who has actually changed their mind on this issue (from pro-life to pro-choice). Apart from being raised Catholic, when I became a Republican in the mid-90s one of the main reasons I was pro-life is that I saw abortion as another example of a growing trend where people have a "victim" mentality and don't believe that they are responsible for their own actions. Judas Priest "made" my son kill himself. Marilyn Manson "made" those kids shoot up Columbine. Grand Theft Auto "made" these teenagers steal cars. I didn't like the detachment from personal responsibility that seemed to be growing in our culture. In many ways I still feel that way. At that time it was simply a matter of "you knew when you had sex that a baby was a possibility and now you've got to deal with the consequences of your actions." At that time I should add that I was still in favor of abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or endangerment to the mother.
As weird as it sounds, the thing that actually made me change my mind about abortion was reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. For those that have not read it, no, abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the story. But what is present is Rand's philosophy of objectivism, which (to express it extremely simplisticly) emphasizes total respect for the rights of individuals and, as an extension of that, laissez-faire capitalism. It is very critical of people (and particularly government) intervening in the name of the "greater good." So I started thinking about some of the implications of this. Rand would say that most social programs are bad, because they perpetuate this victim mentality among those whom they purport to help. It's along the lines of "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, but teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Rand would say that it's far better to allow the entrepreneurs of the world to thrive and create opportunities for the lower economic classes to seize, but only if they are willing to work for it. So, how does this relate to abortion? Well, I realized that if I was going to be in favor of eliminating a lot of social programs and telling the lower class that they wouldn't receive anymore handouts, it would be inconsistent to say "oh, and we're going to force you to have that baby even though we won't help you support it." It seemed to me that the only way I could justify being "cold" towards welfare is if I could truly say "well, it was your choice to have that baby."
Writing and rereading that paragraph feels very strange to me now. That's not really the reason I am pro-choice now but that really is the rationale that first led me to change my mind. Since that time I've become a little more pragmatic in believing that women who want abortions will still find ways to get them. I've also been swayed by things such as Freakonomics, which makes a fairly convincing case that Roe v Wade was the single biggest influence in the sudden drop in the crime rates in major urban cities in the early 90s.
So I bring all that up as background as a way of saying that I really do see both sides of this issue; at one time in my life I have passionately argued both sides of this. Even though I have a definite opinion on this issue, I by no means think that I'm unequivocally right. Hence, the only people whose opinion I don't respect on this issue are those who can't see how it's a very, very murky issue.
The question basically comes down to this: at what point does human life start? And one of the main troubles is that science can't answer that question for us. Most people agree that in the moment after you have a fertilized egg you don't have a human life yet and most people would also agree that the moment right before birth you do. So then you start counting forward and backwards. How about a minute after fertilization? A day? A month? How about a day, week, month before birth?
So, of course, with science unable to provide a definitive answer religion is all too happy to step in. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. Religion is there precisely to provide the answers that science cannot (yet) give us. It's just quite unfortunate that a religion (Christianity) that is above all about love, peace, and forgiveness is often presented with a face akin to that of a rabid dog on this issue.
If you are a Christian, you probably should be against abortion. If you believe that only the hand of God has the ability to create a human life, then it makes sense that you believe that life begins at conception. But you should also understand that your belief is just that: a belief. It's not a fact. And you should also be able to see that those who aren't Christians don't have that clear-cut answer, and for them it's a far murkier issue. A good Christian needs to be able to reconcle the fact that it is possible to be both a good moral person and be pro-choice.
I'm not suggesting that will change their mind on the abortion issue. I am hopeful though, that it will help change the tone.
(cringes as he hits "publish post", knowing that the last time abortion was brought up on this blog we got a crazy reverend advocating the bombing of abortion clinics in the comments)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
John, wow, I admire your guts for tackling this! I do think it’s something we need to deal with. Mainstream Americans have been sweeping it under the rug for years, and it doesn’t seem very healthy.
I remember in high school being strongly pro-choice. When I thought about what would happen if I got pregnant, how all my plans would get ruined forever—college, a fulfilling career (heh), marriage (‘cause who would want to date a single mom)—and that I’d have to endure a lifetime of poverty, not to mention, of course, the short-term shame of having to face my parents, friends, and family—this huge wave of fear would come over me. To not have abortions available just seemed hugely unjust. One youthful mistake and my life is ruined? How many other youthful mistakes—DUIs, drug possession, vandalism, theft—eventually got wiped from your record? Yet something far easier for a young person to stumble into—sex—came at this exorbitant price? I remember being frustrated, too, that even in a consensual relationship, it would usually be the guy who kept pushing for sex, yet it would be the girl who would have to live with the consequences.
I think about what future generations will say about us and I do worry they might say, “I can’t believe people used to kill unwanted babies. That’s atrocious. We’re far more civilized now.” *{Unnecessary Tangent 1}
On a purely philosophical level I think it would be ideal to eradicate abortion. But when I consider what it really means for the mother’s future as well as what sort of life you’re bringing that child into, if their mom doesn’t want them, I’m far less sure. And honestly it totally explodes my brains—and probably most people’s—to quantitatively weigh one person’s life against another. *{UT 2, UT 3} Is a fully grown and self-actualized person, with hopes and dreams—who may or may not be partly culpable—worth more or less than an unborn person who has not yet achieved consciousness but is full of potential and completely innocent?
*{UT 1} But then again, maybe way out in the future, they’d have more full-proof birth control or mid-term surrogacy or in-utero gene replacement or mandatory sterilization or some something-or-other we haven’t conceived of yet, so the dilemma would be irrelevant to them.*{UT 2} And there's lots of these types of questions, none of which we're able to deal with so we gloss over them. For example, Up to what ratio of civilian casualties to military casualties are acceptable in a war? If a pandemic were to strike, should we ban the export of life-saving vaccines in order to protect our own citizens first? Does the number of people wrongly executed each year in this country balance out the benefits of capital punishment as a crime deterrent?*{UT 3} I also think it’s really interesting how you can't always predict based on political affiliation how people will answer each question. For example, Republicans generally fight hard against abortion but yet support the death penalty.
*wonders if it's a little losery that I'm the most frequent and verbose commenter*
I've always had the "pro-life for me, pro-choice for everyone else" mentality. I can't legitimately see myself involved in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. But I also can't picture myself in the situation where I would have to envision the next 1, 5, 10, 20 years of my life based upon a decision that has to be made in a month (or 3 months, or whatever...)
But while I consider myself pro-choice, I also don't get riled up and overly argumentative about the subject because I see this mainly as a women's issue. That may be a cop-out, and I'm sure the men that have been in this situation have viable opinions, I think the "my body, issue" claim is entirely valid.
Also, John, I think you are wrong when you say that *most* people can agree that there is no life RIGHT after conception. I think, in fact, that most pro-life people think that life begins at conception.
I was hoping to finish this post before the overtime started, and now 2 minutes into overtime the game is over. Damn.
One Goal.
John:
Who's belief is more valid? Your belief that life begins sometime in the middle of a pregnancy, not really able to be pinpointed; or the dogmatic Catholic belief that life begins at the instant of conception?
I understand what you're saying, and for the most part agree, but whenever you bring up religion and politics, you almost always bring up the belief is not fact argument. This is absolutely true, but you never really seem to understand that to these people (devout Christians) their belief IS fact. And no amount of debate will change that. And, for one, respect that, even though I don't agree with it.
See, I have the feeling that if you're not going to follow the teachings of any given church, you shouldn't be a member of it. That, to me, means that if you are pro choice, you're not Catholic. If you were raised Catholic, and you are now pro choice, welcome to the Universal Life Church, where your personal beliefs are welcomed and embraced.
Where am I going with this? I guess I'm saying that while I agree that the Christian/Catholic dogma is wrong, I would have NO respect for a religion that said "my belief is just a wacky nutty concept with no basis in fact. And probably, much like a fairy tale, is complete and utter fiction." And therefore I accept that they cannot get their heads around the concept that what they believe is MURDER, is really just a totally harmless medical procedure.
Furthermore, I ABSOLUTELY support their right to stand outside abortion clinics and attempt to change the minds of those women that are considering abortion as an option. Not only is it a constitutional right, it's really the right thing to do. I know someone who works at an abortion clinic as a volunteer, and I asked her how many people get information about alternatives to abortion. None.
Becky:
It actually could be considered barbaric to continue this form of retroactive birth control. And what's more barbaric than genocide? The founder of Planned Parenthood is a well documented proponent of eugenics. Abortions are, by a wide margin, freely provided and promoted to the lower class, lower income, minorities.
I much prefer Heinlein's voluntary temporary sterilization concept in so many of his books. Why are we putting so much effort into the argument of whether abortion should be legal and available, when we could be putting so much more effort into making the question moot?
Weir:
When you get a woman pregnant, and she aborts it without your consent, or even any discussion, come to me and tell me you had no right to have the kid. Especially if it was possibly your only chance at having a child.
I have an answer for you on the "when does life begin" question. I say when a baby is capable of surviving on its own, without life support from the mother, then it is its own person. Before that, it is as much a part of the woman's body as her arm is. And we wouldn't have riots over a woman wanting to cut her arm off. It's her decision.
That means that any fetus younger than ~5 months is not considered an independent person in my book. Might seem a bit simplistic, but I say that if the mother decides before that point that she's done supporting this little creature, that's her choice.
Laura,
I don't like that definition. First, it's quite a stretch to say that a 5-month old fetus can survive "on its own". Sure, premature births like that do survive but only because they are placed in incubators for months - in other words, they survive because we have become medically able to replicate the womb. But if you want to count that, then you have a bigger problem. What happens when medical science finds a way to keep a fetus alive after only 3 months, or maybe even after 6 weeks or less?
And the arm analogy - no we wouldn't have riots about it but you'd certainly find yourself locked up for telling people that you intended to cut it off. You'd just have padded walls instead of a cell. You'd also never find a sane doctor who'd be willing to peform that procedure for you.
Post a Comment