May 16, 2008

  • abortion

    I was asked what my opinion is on abortion so I thought I’d share it here. Maybe, it’ll be controversial enough to make me some enemies for once. That’d be cool. But I doubt it.

    My opinion on abortion is actually fairly straight forward and not even particularly interesting.  I can describe it in one sentence. And that sentence is:

    It’s none of my business.

    That’s not as shallow a perspective as it sounds. It’s not merely out of a desire to avoid controversy (I want controversy!) or to run away from challenging issues that I say that.  I’ve actually given this a lot of thought. And that’s the thing I come back to, it really isn’t any of my business. When it comes to deep heart wrenching moral issues, choices over life and death and what constitutes life, why should it be my business, until the time comes when I have to make that choice or a choice like it? And you know what?

    It’s none of any of YOUR business either.

    Well unless you are making that choice right now, well then it’s your business. But the rest of is? Why are we so intent on dictating the truth of a complex moral issue to others? Do I? Do any of us really have the right to tell someone what’s right and what’s not about something that is so very unknown?

    And certainly, certainly, it’s none of the GOVERNMENT’S business.

    That’s the big issue. It’s what everyone spends the most energy arguing about. Should abortions be legal or illegal? Isn’t that odd though? We don’t argue so much about whether a fetus is alive or not. Or whether abortions should happen or not. Or whether abortions are moral or not. Those questions only come up as secondary questions, as means of getting at the answer of the central question which is should it be illegal or not.

    I think that’s entirely backwards. Whether or not it is illegal doesn’t matter so much to me. It’s the other questions that are more interesting. It’s the other questions that are hard. Almost impossibly hard. And none of my business too.

    That’s why, in the absence of consensus, the government should be getting the hell out of everyone’s way and just let things happen as they will. It absolutely should NOT create laws preventing people from engaging in or providing for abortions. That’s up to the people themselves. It’s not their place.

    Unnecessary laws are bad in general. They warp and pervert society. They create belief systems that are not organic developments of our social will but rather the dictates of a small oligarchy of opinion makers. When you have a strict law asserting that something is illegal, people tend to start to think it is wrong because of the law without any reason behind it.   The examples of this are numerous.  Once upon people really did think that mixed marriages were morally wrong. People did think that mixed bathrooms were wrong. Why? Regular people thought this. Not just the villains. A cursory glance tells us this is absurd, but the rule existed. And people believed in the rule. They capitulated to the law. It’s association.

    I could go into a huge list of things here that are illegal that probably shouldn’t and never should have been for exactly that reason, but I don’t want to bore you. Simple not particularly controversial examples include under aged drinking or sharing of copyrighted music.  These things aren’t wrong. Or at least if they are wrong, it’s far from obvious that they are wrong and there’s a good deal of disagreement on the matter. And yet the law tells us they are wrong so more and more and more people come to believe it. Without introspection. Without consideration. They just believe. We trust the laws to provide guidelines for right living.  But when laws do not represent the social consensus they become perversions not principles to live by.

    That’s the thing with abortion. I think it’s a very good thing for us to argue about it. I think it’s perfectly fine for us to disagree. It should be a matter of serious concern to us about whether in this case or that other case a person should have an abortion. We should talk about it. It’s fine for someone even to try to convince someone to or not to have an abortion, so long as they do so with respect and don’t presume to dictate to the person what they *must* do. Because it really is their decision.  And it’s hard enough without assholes trying to force someone to go along with their point of view.

    I’m also perfectly fine with social crusades about it. If a group or organization wants to fight to try and get everyone to believe that life begins at conception and abortion causes the death of that life, more power to them. I don’t agree with that. But they are welcome to argue for it. They are welcome to try and convince people. But they aren’t welcome to try and dictate behavior to people. To try through threat of force or law, make people act in accordance with their world view. That’s just wrong.

    And maybe they would succeed. And society will turn in consensus and decide as a group that abortion should be illegal. And that’d be no problem for me. If that’s what the vast majority of people agree, then that’s what it should be.  

    But I hope to god that even if that happens we setup some kind of meaningful social group child rearing program and massively expand access to birth control mechanisms and education and everything else. Otherwise it seems like we’d just be screwing a lot of people over. But of course, I can’t imagine that concensus developing unless those mechanisms were already in place, because the people being screwed over aren’t likely to agree any time soon!

    But for now, there is no consensus. So each of us must make the choice ourselves and we can ask everyone else what they think and how they feel, but it’s an individual choice. It has to be an individual choice. Otherwise it’s like a kind of bondage. Unless God came down from heaven and told you himself that this was right or wrong and you know it for a fact, you are forcing people to act in accordance with your arbitrary opinions. What gives you the right to do that? Nobody has that right.

    So that’s my core position. But there are a few other random external considerations and arguments I will make for now just for completeness.

    The Social Economic Perspective - 
    The way society is now, it’s virtually impossible to argue that allowing abortion isn’t a net social gain. We reduce the number of births (always good in this age of population overload) and we increase the prosperity and opportunities of those who have abortions and of the children in those households.

    The Economic Justice Perspective -
    Labor is called “labor” for a reason. To demand that women without choice engage in many hours of hard work to produce a new citizen without compensation really really is a kind of slavery.

    The Scientific Perspective -
    It really is hard to say what distinguishes the cells after conception from any other cells. Someone with biological training could probably make this point better than I, it doesn’t really sway me as an argument goes.

    The Philosophical Perspective -
    If the question is what we “label” alive (and by “alive” I mean an existence that we put value in), surely the point at which we make the break is arbitrary. Unless we identify something that can meaningfully called a soul and then figure out when that comes into  existence, really nobody can say what choice is better. To say that life “begins” at conception is the same as saying life begins when we become self aware or when we develop the capacity to communicate.  Or we could make an arbitrary cut off at 3 months after conception or 3 years after birth, or whatever. There are no facts to go on. It’s a label, not a mathematical principle, so we should decide it base on what we *want* to think. What do we want to put value in. What are the advantages of valuing a child before birth as opposed to only after? What are the disadvantages?  I could go into depth about them, but I think pro-life people have a lot of room here to make solid arguments for valuing the fetus, pre-birth.

    And of course, there’s one last question to answer, and that’s as always the Hypothetical question. What would you do, Nephyo? You of course will eventually ask. And so I will answer.

    I think I would want to have the child. It would depend on whether or not I was confidence I could support the child and give them a decent life and there weren’t any other unexpected matters to consider. But that’s my basic answer regardless of whether I am hypothetically a woman or hypothetically a man in a relationship with a woman making that decision.  Of course in the latter case, I would make my opinion known while fully recognizing that it isn’t really ultimately my choice.  And I’d tried to help that person understand her own feelings and come up with her own decision without trying to force any particular belief system on them.

    And this is just me right now, ten years ago when I was in High School I probably would have thought differently. But I’d still try to be supportive and in no case would I ever think that I wanted to have the child just because I thought to not do so was some deep moral wrong akin to premeditated murder. I’m not sure if it is entirely good or entirely bad in every situation, but I definitely don’t believe that it’s anywhere near on level with murder. And I really can’t imagine anything that would make me believe that.

    So why then, in such a situation would I want to have the child rather than an abortion? Well, to be honest I’m not even the least bit sure whether I want to have children at all and honestly I suspect strongly I wouldn’t be a very good Dad, though I’d of course do my best. But still, if the situation arose, I’d want to do it.

    Why? I’m not entirely sure myself. But I guess I just think, all else being equal, that that chance of adding a unique potential to the world is worth gambling on.

    So that’s my opinion on abortion.  I guess that means I’m pro-choice.

    Feel free to flame.

Comments (10)

  • All good points. It’s not your business, nor is it the government’s. My views on it: well, I do believe it’s ultimately the woman’s decision; though, I think if she’s in a relationship -either married or whatever- she should at least listen to her partner’s opinion. And also, the circumstances might affect the decision, too. Anyways, why don’t I give you this: a hypothetical situation: what if your wife is pregnant, but giving birth to the baby will kill her. She’ll need to either have a c-section, and even that might not save your wife’s life. You are faced with the decision of either sparing the life of your wife or saving the unborn child. What do you do then?

  • = )
    *thumbs up*

  • @rianahntr - Wow. You’re tough. Hmmm..

    Well it would depend on her of course. I assume that the wife doesn’t have a say in the matter right now for some reason or another, because if she did then we default to the none of my business position. But even if for some reason I have to make the decision for her, I think it would still depend on her. I hope, I would know my wife well enough to understand what she thinks about this. And if for her, this baby is far more important than her own life, then for her I would choose to save the baby and do my best to raise that baby to the best of my ability in her name while telling the child always of his or her incredible mother and ensuring that her memory survive.

    But as to what I would want in particular, there’s no question that I probably would not have developed a level of connection with the unborn child that I had with its mother. But she might have. So I, personally, would want the Mother to live. I would want to gamble on her life. The only reason I wouldn’t is if I knew for a fact that she wouldn’t want me to. And I mean really really wouldn’t want me to. Like she would hate me for doing it. Then I’d respect her wishes, even if it meant her death. I hope that I would love her enough to let her go in that situation.

    But in the absence of that knowledge of her wishes, I would probably try to save her life. I’d want her to live so she can do incredible things with the rest of her life and so that we can be together. And she can always have more children in the future, hopefully without as much risk.

    So yeah it basically depends on her.

  • *flame* fwoosh.

    well, I must say, I disagree, but I respect your opinion. cliched, I know. but true. you’ve obviously thought about this and you’ve got some reasonable arguments. all the same, I tend to be pro-life. I think there are occasions when one person can tell another person that something is right or wrong. for example, it is generally held that shoplifting is wrong. when a store detective arrests the guy who just swiped a copy of GTA IV, the detective is imposing his moral code on the shoplifter. plus, if I see the person steal, and I inform the store management, I too am imposing my moral code.

    I don’t believe in imposing my morals on someone in every situation; for example, I don’t drink, myself, but I have no problem with someone who does. that’s their choice. but abortion isn’t just about one person, it’s about the life of the unborn child, who I believe is a person and merits the rights of a person.

    I don’t usually blog about these things on Xanga, because I myself don’t really like controversy that much. All the same, feel free to flame back….:P

  • Interesting. You have a very respectful set of opinions there.

    In all likelihood, I will never be forced to face the issues of an abortion. I have no desire to spawn, and am doing nothing that would make it happen accidentally, so the only way it would come up for me is if some sort of force were involved (in which case I’d go for the “morning after” pill and just avoid the whole situation, but that’s another argument entirely). So for the most part, I’m also in the “It’s none of my business” camp.

    However, there is the tiniest percent of probability that it may be an issue for me, and I come from a big family so a somewhat larger probability it will come up for someone I care about, so there is a chance it could be a relevent issue for me. In which case, I’d say I’m for legalizing it. I don’t think it’s something that should happen often, or in every case of unplanned pregnancy (because if that happend both myself and my brother would have been axed before we ever really came to be, which would be a sad day for humanity indeed). In fact I think if you have the means to raise a child, or at least to carry out the pregnancy and give the child to a family who can, then you should. However there are a lot of times when that just isn’t a realistic possibility (and I do believe there are times when abortion is the right choice). If abortion isn’t safe and legal then people will still be doing them, only in back alleys with coat hangers, or throwing themselves down stairs or a multitude of other ways that could kill the mother or leave her unable to conceive again.

    Whether you believe it’s morally right or not, you must acknowledge the realities of the world we live in. It needs to be legal because making it illegal won’t stop it from happening, it’ll just keep it from being safe.

  • I’ll be your enemy if you vote for me.

    You suck! You suck! *throws rotten tomato*

    @VaultESL - Yeah, we’re all three teetotalers, which was why it was funny to say we invented the Xanga Saga when we were all DRUNK. Wahahahahaha!

  • @fullmetalbunny - drunk on the sheer magical flow of inspiration, yes? no? oh, dear.

  • @VaultESL - What’s with this respecting my opinion BS? You’re supposed to call me a monstrous baby killing freak… or something like that.  

    Geez finding good enemies is so damnably hard these days…

    As for your comments… I agree that there are matters are public morality and there are matters of private morality. This, I firmly believe, ought to, for now, be a matter of private morality. I just can’t see anything empirical that leads me to assign that “person” label to a fetus. It’s a social choice. And it’s clear that we as a society haven’t come to anywhere near a consensus on it.  When we do, or when we get a lot closer then I’d say it was a matter of public morality.

    Now, you can argue that making that choice of  defining Personhood as beginning at Conception is good for society, maybe even that it makes us more compassionate and caring people as a species. Similarly I could argue that society benefits more from defining personhood as beginning at or near birth. If this is the argument that we are having then we have no real beef with one another in my book. In fact I think those arguments are exactly the argument that we shoudl be having. It’s what needs to be decided by society *before* we make laws outlawing abortion and enforcing a particular perspective on the populace. And you might very well convince me. I wouldnt’ really be surprised if you did.

    If, instead, you are arguing that abortion is and ought to be a matter of public morality right now then I’m afraid our disagreement runs quite deeper. But still, I feel I can understand your perspective.  If I were to argue your point for you it would be to take the very liberal position that it is the duty of the Government to protect the interests of those lacking the capacity to protect themselves and who more so fits within that purview than the unborn child?  Likewise government laws and programs protect disabled people, mentally ill people, children, the elderly, the poor, criminals, pets, wild life, plants, natural resources, and generally all kinds of things even though there are certainly always those who would rather that the government didn’t.

    IT’s a very strong argument, actually, and I, being very liberal, find myself nearly moved by it.  However, I still reject it very strongly.  On the one hand there is the simple matter that the value to society is lopsided here. We go back to the prior argument. The reality of society being as it is now, the benefits of allowing abortion are enormous, whereas the harm caused by illegalizing it is great indeed. In contrast in most, if not all, of those other government programs and rules, we can clearly see the value gained by society as a whole.

    So I’d say the government acts validly only when it acts either in accordance with concensus (as in the case of murder, rape, and theft) or the government acts to the greatest advantage of society (ala liberal or protectionist policies). And in neither case do I feel that outlawing abortion falls within the government’s purvue.

    But even more than that, the idea of the government imposing its will upon people on a matter that is that personal just doesn’t pass my smell test. I feels bad. It feels *dangerous*.  Religious states in the past have gotten into all kinds of trouble when they tried to tell people what is and isn’t right. That’s taking away our autonomy. It’s leaving us without the freedom to choose for ourselves. And it’s different than say a little matter of say the legality of cocaine, wherin I think the government acts unjustly too but who really cares right? IT isn’t a deep moral issue.

    But abortion is. It’s almost a matter of one’s personal faith. One’s core principles and values about the nature of life itself.  Would it be ok if the govenrment demanded that you believe in the one true God?  No?  Then why is ok for the government to demand that you believe that life and personhood begins at a specific point in time? And then to have them impose punishment upon you for believing differnetly? The thought makes me ill.  It really would feel like a kind of tyranny.

    Anyway, that’s why I’m pro-choice and why I guess we disagree. That’s fine though and I too respect your opinion. I wish I didn’t so I could make an ememy but bleh I’d rather not lie about that. Anyway, thanks for at least disagreeing with me! It’s a step in the right direction at least.

  • @elvesdoitbetter - 

    Well like you, I would not be surprised if abortion never really becomes a matter of my personal concern, and I certainly see your point that abortions are going to happen anyway and in a lot more dangerous environment if it is made illegal. That’s certainly true and it’s definitely something I should have mentioned.

    Still, while I agree with you in principle about the importance of  “acknowledging the realities of the world we live in”, that alone would not be enough to make me Pro-Choice. That’s why I give the “none of my business argument” rather than *just* focusing on the arguments about how society benefits from allowing abortions or the harm that would be caused by outlawing it.

    Because society does enact laws totally flaunting the reality of the world we live in sometimes. If the people want it enough we do it, however stupid it might seem. Again, and I keep going back to this example, but anti-drug laws are the classic example. They certainly *don’t* stop people from using drugs. And it can be argued that the harm caused by their enforcement exceeds the benefit gained by making them illegal. And yet the laws exist. And society hasn’t broken down as a result. IT makes some people’s lives suck. But it seems that we cruel humans are willing to accept that.  It could very easily be the same with abortion. And if we really believed that the unborn child was of equal value in all cases to the born person then I’d say it probably *should* be that way. In spite of the harm caused.

    Likewise the utility situation could very easily change. Maybe we can create systems so that most of the harm caused by abortions being illegal can be avoided or removed. Maybe we can get things to a state where the utility is roughly equal because say, perhaps society is all so well educated and so prepared and do to advances in modern technology that the chances of anyone actually getting into an unplanned pregnancy becomes microscopically small for example. If something like that were to happen, would you consider outlawing abortion to be a good idea or would you still oppose it? Or would you just not care in that situation? Me. I’d still oppose it.

    Take this for another example, why can’t I go out and murder somebody right now? There’s always those people that we just know and I mean *know* beyond a shadow of a doubt that the world would be better off without them. There’s somebody out there that everyone would thank me for ridding the world of. So why don’t we legalize murder in those cases?

     It’s because we privilege the principle over the mere utility of the situation. The idea is fairly simple, we’d rather protect our right to live without threat of someone, anyone, being able to arbitrarily determine that we deserve to die without our having a say in the matter, then to live a slightly safer existence because certain monstrous people are removed from the populace. It’s a matter of Justice really. A matter of what constitutes fairness.

    That’s why my argument takes the form of arguing that dictating that people aren’t allowed to have abortion is unfair. It’s unjust. It’s imposing someone’s will upon someone else on a matter on which there is no concensus. I don’t just think that that would suck for society if it were to happen, I also I think that’ its just plain wrong. It’s too much power for the government to wield. It’s dangerous and it’s unwise and it makes the citizenry into puppets of the decisiion making elites. I don’t want to ever see us go there. No matter the reality of the society in which we live.

  • @fullmetalbunny - 

    Thank you for the offer! 

    But there’s some sort of circular logic problem going here.  How can I vote for someone who is my enemy! That just doesn’t make any sense!

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *