If every child conceived and then killed by abortion had been allowed to live another year before being murdered, not only would the epidemic of infanticide which already exists be essentially unchanged in its character, the moral stakes would be clear to all, beyond muddlement. We know better than to kill six month old children. We know that even in infancy the nature of a person - that he or she is a person - does not change. To question this seems absurd: am I unable to be identified with myself in college? In highschool? As a five year old? I have pictures, memories, of all those times, and so do many who know me. Why then can I not reasonably identify with my unborn self? (I have pictures of that too.) As a young adult, my rights go unquestioned: but go back far enough in my life, and I have people telling me they mysteriously vanish.
When? Oh, um... well, definitely sometime before, um... let me get back to you on that one. I have a partial-birth abortion advocate on line two and my argument feels kind of queasy right now because I don't quite know how to draw a definite line between my much more civilized opinion and whatever he wants.
In short, the denial of the personhood of the unborn person is arbitrary: while cloaked in sometimes valid-seeming babble about viability and the survival (to take the highest the case is put) of the mother*, these serve merely to obscure the issue. That issue is that a person, a unique human being, is under certain conditions - which they can not, as a criminal could, be held responsible for - considered liable to the whims of another person in all things, even on the question of life and death.
This is not consistent with the developed theories of natural law morality as put forth either by Christian culture or the Enlightenment, which both insist on the universality of human rights, whether considered God-given and obvious or merely patterns that can be deduced. As far as I know they are not consistent with any such theories of universal morality. Whether or not such other constructions provide justifying exceptions is beyond my knowledge; that such exceptions, if they exist, are not logically consistent I am confident. (And in fact, a double-standard exists legally: while maintaining a bizarre
"right" to kill a child outright, various products, most notably alcohol
and tobacco, carry warnings against risks to the unborn child. Obvious morality cannot be brushed so easily out of our consciousness.)
What might serve to justify abortion is an ancient principle long since rejected in theory: we might recognize it best in feudalism or the rights of the pater familias. In either case, a power of life and death was given up in many cases to a person with some legal responsibility over or for others. This aspect of feudalism - like many others - is seen as backward and barbaric by most modern commentators, but it is the Roman custom which really draws their ire, as an example of subjugatory patriarchy.
Yet under what other logic can you justify the common refrain, "Leave my body alone!"? A moralist railing against the capricious whims of the patrician slave-owner or concubine-keeper would be met equally vehemently by an appeal to the custom and to the fact that slave or woman was dependent on him for such well-being as he or she had, and therefore was subservient to him - thus ignoring equally with the abortion advocate the fact that another human is affected by his decisions.
In case you have not yet noticed where I am going with this, let me state my thesis plainly: a justification of abortion can logically only be that of the hypothetical justification of the worst excesses of any other time when some people have power over others by accident of culture or nature. It is nothing more or less than the justification of power: I have power to do this, therefore I may.
* It is an unfortunate fact that it may sometimes be necessary to take measures to save one person's life, measures by which another person must die. Where the line lies in medical ethics I am not prepared to dispute, but it is obvious that this is not the situation I am addressing. Exceptions can be made to a negative: it is very difficult indeed to make exceptions to a positive, as the legal strategists trying to limit abortions bit by bit have found.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
2012/02/23
2012/02/09
The First Amendment and the Religious Exception
The idea of a "religious exception", as commonly defended, is both heart-warmingly humane and oddly indefensible. That citizens not be forced to do things they consider immoral seems like the most straight-forward common sense; that citizens be allowed to ignore the law of the land for any consideration is a legal absurdity.
In the United States' tradition, the most relevant article to cite is the first amendment to the Constitution, which states:
The second clause, though, causes more difficulty. (It is worth noting in passing that the general reading of these amendments, while they bind Congress specifically, has included the other branches of government, Congress having been specially limited as the branch which set policy.) We can quickly recognize that it has in fact not been consistently followed. Until very recently, the most infamous clear violation of this principle would be the persecution and de facto outlawry which followed the early Mormons largely on account of their practice of polygamy.
This exposes the potential problem: if a country, collectively speaking, truly believes some action to be wrong - in a more modern context, we might cite the draft (or, I suppose, draft-dodging), or segregation - at what point do we say, "Enough is enough?" The hard-line libertarian answer - allow everything! - is absurd. Not only would it be rejected by almost any populace, even the proponent of the idea would not want to extend it to some things - a religion- or culture-driven "honor killing", for example. And his objection would not necessarily be the death (if it were of, say, an already criminal murderer or rapist), but the essential lawlessness of the act, especially if the victim objected to the code (as we can all imagine most would).
In the current state of politics, when this principle is being challenged on a matter of life or death - contraception and abortion - I have to admit I am glad the law, interpretation, and precedent exist and stand mainly on the side I favor. But in the long term, this seems an uneasy and impractical compromise. There is a part of me that would be more comfortable without the exception, without that second clause and its interpretations, even if the result were to be requiring civil disobedience - which seems often the best way to change laws.
In the United States' tradition, the most relevant article to cite is the first amendment to the Constitution, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Two things are most straightforwardly guaranteed here: in the first case that the Congress on the United States shall not proclaim any one religion, sect, or cult to be an official or favored one. So far we have done a fairly good job on this score, and perhaps even gone overboard to the point of denigrating all religious considerations in political decision-making.
The second clause, though, causes more difficulty. (It is worth noting in passing that the general reading of these amendments, while they bind Congress specifically, has included the other branches of government, Congress having been specially limited as the branch which set policy.) We can quickly recognize that it has in fact not been consistently followed. Until very recently, the most infamous clear violation of this principle would be the persecution and de facto outlawry which followed the early Mormons largely on account of their practice of polygamy.
This exposes the potential problem: if a country, collectively speaking, truly believes some action to be wrong - in a more modern context, we might cite the draft (or, I suppose, draft-dodging), or segregation - at what point do we say, "Enough is enough?" The hard-line libertarian answer - allow everything! - is absurd. Not only would it be rejected by almost any populace, even the proponent of the idea would not want to extend it to some things - a religion- or culture-driven "honor killing", for example. And his objection would not necessarily be the death (if it were of, say, an already criminal murderer or rapist), but the essential lawlessness of the act, especially if the victim objected to the code (as we can all imagine most would).
In the current state of politics, when this principle is being challenged on a matter of life or death - contraception and abortion - I have to admit I am glad the law, interpretation, and precedent exist and stand mainly on the side I favor. But in the long term, this seems an uneasy and impractical compromise. There is a part of me that would be more comfortable without the exception, without that second clause and its interpretations, even if the result were to be requiring civil disobedience - which seems often the best way to change laws.
2012/02/08
Why It is Reasonable to Vote Single-Issue With Regards to Abortion
This started as a reply to a discussion on facebook - the blog post may not get much wider attention, but the numbers I looked up to make my point shocked me. An amalgamation of the best sources I can find suggest that, as a minimum estimate, there are 600,000 abortions in the US each year. These "best sources" are, in the interest of full disclosure, mostly pro-life organizations, verified by Wikipedia. Oddly (or not), pro-abortion lobbies seem extremely reluctant to talk about the actual numbers, occasionally mentioning "abortions per 1000 pregnancies" or similar statistics, but almost never admitting the sheer enormity of that six-digit number. And in fact, the data that is presented suggests the number is closer to 800,000 - but I'm willing to guess low to make a point.
That point is this: If abortion were outlawed tomorrow, I think we can assume that no more than half that number of abortions would continue. I suspect it would be even fewer than half, but I'm willing to say, for the sake of argument, that half of the women getting abortions want it enough to go through an illegal procedure. That means we instantly save hundreds of thousands of lives: even if we assume that of the 300,000 babies no longer aborted, another half of them die due to natural causes - miscarriages, still births, etc. - we're still looking at 150,000 lives saved per year.
If you could suggest any other policy change that would even begin to approach the positive effect of outlawing abortion, maybe I - and the thousands of other voters and citizens for whom abortion is the most important issue facing us - would think about changing our priorities.
That point is this: If abortion were outlawed tomorrow, I think we can assume that no more than half that number of abortions would continue. I suspect it would be even fewer than half, but I'm willing to say, for the sake of argument, that half of the women getting abortions want it enough to go through an illegal procedure. That means we instantly save hundreds of thousands of lives: even if we assume that of the 300,000 babies no longer aborted, another half of them die due to natural causes - miscarriages, still births, etc. - we're still looking at 150,000 lives saved per year.
If you could suggest any other policy change that would even begin to approach the positive effect of outlawing abortion, maybe I - and the thousands of other voters and citizens for whom abortion is the most important issue facing us - would think about changing our priorities.
2012/01/26
The Stupidity of Abortion
The thing that irritates me most about the self-righteous pro-abortion crowd, who somehow want us to identify the killing of unborn children as an essential part of "women's rights", is their near-complete disregard for reality. The average pro-abortion liberal, who plans to vote for Obama no matter what because all the Republican candidates are pro-life, takes a stand as though he recognizes in himself the second coming of Gandhi or MLK Jr., while it would be more accurate to assign him the moral and philosophical stature of the hidebound slave-owner refusing to vote for "abolitionist" Lincoln – and perhaps even less scientific credibility than that fine hundred-fifty year old gentleman.
He, after all, at least had a centuries-old belief in "inferior races", apparently borne out by the obvious superiority of his culture. The modern advocate of "abortion rights" is forced to steadfastly ignore everything the human race has ever known about the conception and growth of children in order to make any sort of case.
Of course, I am assuming that the killing of human beings is wrong. If that is indeed so, as we almost all believe, the case for abortion breaks down from the beginning. Attempts to avoid the vise founder on the fact that any requirement for humanity conceivable beyond simple physical humanity depends on judgment. When a practical authority of one group to judge another as a lesser party is established, the precedent renders a free, much less a moral, society untenable. If, on the other hand, morality is non-existent in any kind of objective form; if the "right" to abortion really is merely a social preference, a convenience, then its supporters have no case to make against those who would rather ban the practice, except mob opinion. A popularity contest, if you will.
Speaking of popularity contests, the presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been roundly criticized for his stance on abortion, as he is willing to deny its validity even in cases where pregnancy is a result of rape – and more controversial still, in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Yet the absurdity of the spectacle should be obvious: people willing to kill or let be killed hundreds of thousands of children are protesting that someone might die. Santorum at least makes it clear that he knows what he is advocating: the average abortion advocate wanting to crucify him displays a complete ignorance of the reality being debated.
We start, as I said before, with the assumption that killing another human is wrong in and of itself. We may admit, if pressed, that certain situations may necessarily justify, or perhaps excuse, killing: self-defense, perhaps; or the punishment of a murderer or rapist. Yet the run of the mill advocate of abortion does not even go so far as to admit that abortion involves death: facts are ignored. The argument given is not often that the death of an infant is the lesser evil (though this argument seems at least plausible in the "mother's life" scenario – no doubt why it is the focus of the abortion activist who could clearly get no logical traction elsewhere). No: the normal argument is that it is not our business, a defense many wife-beaters would no doubt also like to have applied to them. Those who come closest to admitting the inherent evil still hedge, talking about how killing the child is better than forcing it to live in poverty and misery (the programs these same people tend to advocate to relieve poverty and carefully shield people from misery are apparently not applicable to babies and mothers), which brings us right back to one part of humanity deciding another part should be deprived of rights.
If the mainstream apologist for abortion would admit to the truth – that a human being is killed – and still say they considered it acceptable, we would all know what the stakes were. Instead, they ignore the facts and the big picture, and end up looking ignorant – either deceived or self-deceived.
He, after all, at least had a centuries-old belief in "inferior races", apparently borne out by the obvious superiority of his culture. The modern advocate of "abortion rights" is forced to steadfastly ignore everything the human race has ever known about the conception and growth of children in order to make any sort of case.
Of course, I am assuming that the killing of human beings is wrong. If that is indeed so, as we almost all believe, the case for abortion breaks down from the beginning. Attempts to avoid the vise founder on the fact that any requirement for humanity conceivable beyond simple physical humanity depends on judgment. When a practical authority of one group to judge another as a lesser party is established, the precedent renders a free, much less a moral, society untenable. If, on the other hand, morality is non-existent in any kind of objective form; if the "right" to abortion really is merely a social preference, a convenience, then its supporters have no case to make against those who would rather ban the practice, except mob opinion. A popularity contest, if you will.
Speaking of popularity contests, the presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been roundly criticized for his stance on abortion, as he is willing to deny its validity even in cases where pregnancy is a result of rape – and more controversial still, in cases where the mother's life is in danger. Yet the absurdity of the spectacle should be obvious: people willing to kill or let be killed hundreds of thousands of children are protesting that someone might die. Santorum at least makes it clear that he knows what he is advocating: the average abortion advocate wanting to crucify him displays a complete ignorance of the reality being debated.
We start, as I said before, with the assumption that killing another human is wrong in and of itself. We may admit, if pressed, that certain situations may necessarily justify, or perhaps excuse, killing: self-defense, perhaps; or the punishment of a murderer or rapist. Yet the run of the mill advocate of abortion does not even go so far as to admit that abortion involves death: facts are ignored. The argument given is not often that the death of an infant is the lesser evil (though this argument seems at least plausible in the "mother's life" scenario – no doubt why it is the focus of the abortion activist who could clearly get no logical traction elsewhere). No: the normal argument is that it is not our business, a defense many wife-beaters would no doubt also like to have applied to them. Those who come closest to admitting the inherent evil still hedge, talking about how killing the child is better than forcing it to live in poverty and misery (the programs these same people tend to advocate to relieve poverty and carefully shield people from misery are apparently not applicable to babies and mothers), which brings us right back to one part of humanity deciding another part should be deprived of rights.
If the mainstream apologist for abortion would admit to the truth – that a human being is killed – and still say they considered it acceptable, we would all know what the stakes were. Instead, they ignore the facts and the big picture, and end up looking ignorant – either deceived or self-deceived.
2011/12/06
Moderation, Tolerance – and Reality
A liberal friend was lamenting on facebook today the state of affairs where Newt Gingrich is a moderate.
Frankly, and as a conservative, I'd have to agree. There's no question he fits the category reasonably well: his own views seem to be more or less in line with a conservative ideology, but he doesn't seem to be over-committed to any of them, is in many ways a "DC insider", and has proven more than willing over his political career to play ball with the big-government kooks. Hardball, sometimes, but Verlander doesn't stop being a pitcher because no one can hit him. When conservativism (at least supposedly) favors small government, that all makes him either a hypocrite or a moderate or perhaps both – but I'm feeling polite.
And this is one of the guys supposedly headlining the supposedly conservative Republican candidate selection? Sheesh.
There's a simple problem with moderation: some topics simply don't allow for it.
If my family are pacifists, and your family believes in a universal draft, and we agree to "compromise" and just draft one person per family, that's not a compromise – your agenda has won in principle, and the rest, as Churchill said, is just haggling about the price.
If some crazy professor thinks we should force abortions to prevent population growth, and some priest thinks abortion is evil – occasionally a medically necessary evil to save more life, but still not a good thing – and the "compromise" is that people can kill infants if they want to, that's not a compromise: the side that thinks killing the babies is okay has won in principle, and the only question is who gets to decide who has to die.
Are we seeing the problem here?
Sure, there are issues on which compromise is possible, but in order to compromise some level of agreement is necessary. If, for example, I think a car is worth five thousand dollars, and the dealer thinks it's worth sixty-eight hundred, we can eventually compromise, perhaps at six thousand. But it's only possible because we both agree the car is worth something. If I'm a Luddite who thinks cars are a deception of the devil, the car has what can only be described as negative value, and any possible sale – even if I were to frustrate the dealer so much he convinced me to buy the car for $1 – is a net win for the dealer who thinks it's worth something.
If you say you think that all violence is always wrong, and I'm in favor of executing petty thieves, but you get argued into justifying self-defense, you've lost the logical argument – only the degree is in question, not the fact of retribution.
Which is why recent politics show up as a lot of nonsense. For example: One side – supposedly extreme – wants to stop spending money we don't have. The other side – supposedly backed up by the ivory towers – wants to spend even more money we don't have than we're already spending. And the supposed "compromise" positions have, at their most conservative, suggested that we should spend less money that we don't have than we're currently spending, but really there's nothing wrong with spending money we don't have… which is a net win for the people who want to spend money we don't have.
In case you've somehow missed the point to this point, here's the short version: if the choices are "all" and "not any ever", "some" is not a compromise: it's a logical victory for the side of "all" and future choices will move further and further towards "all" unless actively overturned. Political Exhibit A? Growth of the United States Federal government since... let's say since World War One at the absolute latest.
Frankly, and as a conservative, I'd have to agree. There's no question he fits the category reasonably well: his own views seem to be more or less in line with a conservative ideology, but he doesn't seem to be over-committed to any of them, is in many ways a "DC insider", and has proven more than willing over his political career to play ball with the big-government kooks. Hardball, sometimes, but Verlander doesn't stop being a pitcher because no one can hit him. When conservativism (at least supposedly) favors small government, that all makes him either a hypocrite or a moderate or perhaps both – but I'm feeling polite.
And this is one of the guys supposedly headlining the supposedly conservative Republican candidate selection? Sheesh.
There's a simple problem with moderation: some topics simply don't allow for it.
If my family are pacifists, and your family believes in a universal draft, and we agree to "compromise" and just draft one person per family, that's not a compromise – your agenda has won in principle, and the rest, as Churchill said, is just haggling about the price.
If some crazy professor thinks we should force abortions to prevent population growth, and some priest thinks abortion is evil – occasionally a medically necessary evil to save more life, but still not a good thing – and the "compromise" is that people can kill infants if they want to, that's not a compromise: the side that thinks killing the babies is okay has won in principle, and the only question is who gets to decide who has to die.
Are we seeing the problem here?
Sure, there are issues on which compromise is possible, but in order to compromise some level of agreement is necessary. If, for example, I think a car is worth five thousand dollars, and the dealer thinks it's worth sixty-eight hundred, we can eventually compromise, perhaps at six thousand. But it's only possible because we both agree the car is worth something. If I'm a Luddite who thinks cars are a deception of the devil, the car has what can only be described as negative value, and any possible sale – even if I were to frustrate the dealer so much he convinced me to buy the car for $1 – is a net win for the dealer who thinks it's worth something.
If you say you think that all violence is always wrong, and I'm in favor of executing petty thieves, but you get argued into justifying self-defense, you've lost the logical argument – only the degree is in question, not the fact of retribution.
Which is why recent politics show up as a lot of nonsense. For example: One side – supposedly extreme – wants to stop spending money we don't have. The other side – supposedly backed up by the ivory towers – wants to spend even more money we don't have than we're already spending. And the supposed "compromise" positions have, at their most conservative, suggested that we should spend less money that we don't have than we're currently spending, but really there's nothing wrong with spending money we don't have… which is a net win for the people who want to spend money we don't have.
In case you've somehow missed the point to this point, here's the short version: if the choices are "all" and "not any ever", "some" is not a compromise: it's a logical victory for the side of "all" and future choices will move further and further towards "all" unless actively overturned. Political Exhibit A? Growth of the United States Federal government since... let's say since World War One at the absolute latest.
2011/08/30
Rick Perry Loves Babies
A friend passed this along the other day, and it's a poorly written screed of a rant which doesn't exactly deserve an answer. On the other hand, it exposes to full light arguments many other make much more guardedly, so I'm going to have at it anyway.
The short version is that liberals don't want to deal with consequences, especially natural ones and especially consequences of sex. While Ms. Farris takes a passing swipe at the record of the abstinence-based "sex education" programs Perry has championed (ineffectual both because she clearly doesn't care about the issue of teen sexual activity, and because the only source she gives admits there's not enough knowledge to base a conclusion on), her main point is – guess what? – a huffy defense of what's been ironically labeled "reproductive rights". Which rights are otherwise known as abortion and indiscriminate birth control, which it's imagined the government should somehow pay for. Never mind that the government's never officially and en masse done anything like that until Obama did his thing. Now it's done, Perry possibly undoing that measure would be a violation of these rights. Wait, what?
(And Ms. Farris, that "DIC" you talk about? If Perry were elected and created any such institution, with the current mood of the Republican party he'd lose half his support – or haven't you heard about the Tea Party and limited government?)
I mock, I summarize. Here's a fun one: the article doesn't even mention the decision that most concerns most Republicans, the HPV vaccine debacle. Me, I've heard other sources question whether the vaccine works as well as it should, whether he violated Texas' constitutional procedure, and so forth, and that makes me a little leery. But Perry pushed this women's health initiative through in the face of his (Republican) legislature which in fact overturned it. Bad idea? Maybe. But where's the narrative about Perry courageously standing up to his party to do something for women?
...Yeah, I didn't think so. Apparently all that matters any more to the feminist left is the right to kill children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)