The Article About Abortion That Has Nothing To Do With Abortion
That's right. I am not attacking pro-life or pro-choice, I am attacking YOU, because there is a 99% chance that you consider yourself "pro-life" or "pro-choice."
While you might try to determine, based on the text in this article, my "views" on abortion, I can assure you that I offer as many contradicting and thought-provoking perspectives as possible in order to confuse you. So don't even try. Like I said, this is an article about abortion that isn't actually about abortion.
I must apologize for the inflammatory title. I don't usually go about calling EVERYBODY stupid. But this truly warrants it. I assume I'm covering just about everybody, because nearly everyone, when asked for their stance on abortion, will say something like this:
"Oh, me? I'm totally pro-life. I think the rights of the unborn ought not to be trampled upon."
"Well, I'm pro-choice. A woman ought to be able to choose what she can do with her own body."
"I'm pro-life. Abortion is murder!"
"I'm pro-choice. There are already so many babies in this world that need homes. The last thing we need is more from irresponsible teen moms!"
"I'm pro-life. There are too many teen moms using abortion and birth control as excuses to be sexually promiscuous!"
Ok, so what's wrong with all of these answers? They're stupid. Rather, the concept of labeling or classifying one's self with an undefined label does not provide adequate depth for any type of discourse. Let's talk about why.
Why are these labels "undefined"?
"Pro-choice" and "pro-life" mean absolutely NOTHING. Do you think you're accurately portraying even a single element of your opinion by calling your self pro-whatever? These labels are debate framers; they push you into a vague, poorly defined position in order to polarize the debate. Polarized debates are bad because not only is it impossible to really get anywhere, but the intricacies of the issue are completely lost.
Let's talk about intricacies. "Pro-life" first.
So you are pro-life, a.k.a. stupid. What does that MEAN? Sure, it means you think abortions are immoral. But does it also mean you support a law banning abortions? That is a completely separate issue. You might assume they are the same, because you pushed yourself into a poorly defined position. Let's take it a bit further. So you just discovered that your opinion that abortions are bad, and your opinion that the government should pass a law making them illegal, are two separate issues. But what government? Some people think the federal government should do it, some people think the state governments should do it. Some people think it should be illegal all across the world, so they feel the best way to accomplish this would be to form European Union-like governing bodies across continents so that member countries have to agree to a certain set of standards - like, for instance, banning abortions.
Now, what about "exceptions." Some people think all abortions are wrong, regardless of circumstance. Some people would make exceptions in case of rape. Some people would make no exception in case of rape, but would make one under one circumstance - if a doctor believed that birth would lead to the certain death of both the baby and the mother (i.e. the baby would die no matter what) and the only way to save at least the mother would be to murder the baby. This is getting complicated! How the heck does the term "pro-life" cover this? What does "pro-life" even MEAN? Some people would argue that it means you are against abortions and support criminalization, and all other issues should be discussed separately. Some people would INSIST that it means you are against abortions but not necessarily supporting criminalization. Some people would say it means you are against all abortions, no exception, and etc etc.
If you are pro-life, you must be against vaccines, right? Well, how does one have anything to do with the other? Some vaccine cultures are grown on aborted fetal tissue cell lines. (Friends - pause here for a moment. Chuckle at the dark irony of injecting dead babies into live babies. Relish the moment - irony this dark and delicious is hard to come by.) So you are not increasing the demand for abortions, since the same cell lines are used, but people with principles may oppose vaccines that are grown on dead babies, for the same reason a vegetarian may refuse to wear leather or fur, even if it is used merchandise i.e. did not materially increase demand. So if you say you are "pro-life" (a meaningless term) and pro-vaccine (another meaningless term) I could totally call you out on that, and you wouldn't know what the heck hit you.
Then to even further complicate things, you have the problem with exceptions to any law - there are always going to be people who genuinely qualify for the exception but cannot receive it due to red tape - and there are people who are going to manipulate the system to receive the exception, leading to further red tape. So if you support abortions under certain circumstances only, you should be prepared to explain how that exception won't infringe upon the rights of those who genuinely qualify and won't be available to those who don't. This is a tricky area.
Now let's look at "pro-choice".
Of course, if you are pro-choice, you are also stupid. Again, you are basically calling yourself a completely meaningless term and acting as if it describes what you believe. It means a different set of beliefs depending on who you are talking to.
So you support abortions. Which ones? First trimester? 2nd? 3rd? 1st and 2nd only? Only before a scan reveals electromagnetic activity? Only before the pain receptors start working? Do you support post-partum? Only in case of rape? What about incest? Some people would call that pro-life. Only in case of assumed death of both parties during labor? Some people would call THAT pro-life. Do you think states should be able to govern abortion? What about funding? Do you feel the government should make private entities fund abortions, or use public funding for it? That is a question that is not answered by your outrageously inadequate admission: "Lol, I'm pro-choice. I support a woman's right to do what she wants with her body." That says absolutely NOTHING! You could disagree with a fellow "pro-choicer" on nearly every single point!
Let's take Joe. Joe is asked by his friend Jane if he is pro-life or pro-choice. Joe says: "I'm pro-life. But I don't think abortions should be illegal."
Jane looks dumbfounded and bewildered. Jane, her silly brain riddled with the ridiculous notion that complex topics can be polarized and compressed into buzz-words, simply cannot comprehend what Joe just said. "Did you just say you are pro-choice AND pro-life?"
Joe: I guess I'm an idiot for using one of those polarizing debate-dumbing terms that you plebs use. I should have said "I believe that abortions are immoral and should not be performed under any circumstance, even rape or incest. However, I don't think the federal government should make any law regarding abortion. I (do/don't) think states should be allowed to make that decision."
Jane is now a little less confused since Joe actually explained his position a little better. Now they can start talking about delicious intricacies, like the applicability of one's universal truths onto others, and scholar Walter Block's examples of the existence of exceptions to a law inherently violating the rights of those who qualify for the exceptions. The sado-masochistic movie theatre where you are allowed to yell "fire" when it is crowded is a great one. His principle is that one cannot make a federal law against yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre if it might violate one person's legitimate right to do so (i.e. the S&M dude who paid good money to take part in a sado-masochistic movie theatre exit-door stampede). Interesting principle when you apply it to abortion - how would the cross-analogy "movie theatres" prevent the "non-S&M theatre patron" from "yelling fire" without a federal law? Since according to that principle, the federal law, even with an exception written in, would, by the very existence of red tape and the default of criminality, extinguish the rights of those S&M patrons of an S&M theatre. This is something to consider when discussing exceptions to abortion - something that is not even touched upon in mainstream debate which has been reduced to "pro-life vs. pro-choice". Like I said previously, if you hold a position involving exceptions, you have to be able to explain how only the genuine would qualify for and receive an exception, but also how ALL the genuine would be able to qualify, and how NONE of the non-genuine would qualify or receive. And, if you believe that some of the genuine would slip between the cracks and be denied rights, and some of the non-genuine would manipulate the system, you must be prepared to admit that. There is no skating over these, they are not ice rinks they are political and moral issues.
Did you know that some people do not support procreation at all, or anything that could result in it? Some examples are certain sects of Gnosticism and early Christianity, certain accounts of Jesus' teachings, and many esoteric sects of eastern religions. This seems rather extreme but when you consider that the "survival of the human race" concept is dependent on the linear perception of time, (i.e. we have to procreate now so that our species survives in the future thanks to our procreation in the past) procreation all of a sudden can be examined under a different light. Most people cannot shed their linear left-brained perception of time for even a nanosecond, so they cannot examine this position effectively - but that is irrelevant. What IS relevant, is that a viewpoint exists that is clearly NEITHER pro-life nor pro-choice, even to the simplest layman. (Note that anti-natalism may not qualify since it is not necessarily anti-fertile intercourse as the other schools of thoughts are, so abortion could still be an issue.)
So in summary. These are things we should talk about when discussing abortion:
-Which abortions do you support/oppose? All? Some? Which exceptions, if any? How do we maintain those exceptions?
-What is your moral position?
-What is your legal position? Is it different? If your opponent thinks it conflicts with your moral position, how do you explain that it doesn't?
-What are your ideas regarding applicability of your universal truths onto others?
-What are universal truths?
-What is your stance on vaccines and other scientific endeavors that involve cell lines from aborted fetuses?
-Do you support procreation? Why or why not? If not, from which school of thought do you approach this issue? Anti-natalism, gnosticism, taoism, etc?
-What are your feelings regarding the rights of a woman vs. the rights of a fetus?
-What are your thoughts regarding human consciousness and its relevance when the ideas of time/destiny are taken into account - for instance, many people feel that an embryo is destined to become a being with a consciousness, so even though it does not have a functioning neural system yet, it is still immoral to kill it. Many people feel that this is not the case, i.e. the possibility of X future should not determine Y action in the present. What are the metaphysical or spiritual ramifications of your answer?
-Can you comprehend the absence of linear time? Whether yes or no, how does this affect your perception of different aspects of the debate?
-Et cetera, so on, so forth
So we can cover the scientific, the philosophical, the medical, the ethical, the moral, the metaphysical, and even the religious.
What do you NOT say?
-I'm pro-choice. or, I support a woman's right to choose, etc bla bla.
-I'm pro-life. Blah blah, blah.
These terms don't mean ANYTHING! Or, to be more specific, they mean different things to different people! "Pro-choice" is a completely different set of viewpoints depending on whether you are a libertarian from Maine, a communist from Iceland or a conservative christian from Idaho. It doesn't mean anything to say you are pro-life or pro-choice except that you are stupid and want to polarize the debate by forcing an undefined collection of viewpoints into an undefined buzzword and use that as representation of your "informed opinion."
From now one, if someone asks you if you are pro-life or pro-choice, you will not use either of those terms in your answer. You will attempt to eloquently and succinctly describe the most important elements of your perspective. For example:
"I don't support any abortions except for post-partum abortions at least 7 years after birth, and then, only in the case of incest or girls under the age of 18, unless they are raped, in which case I don't think an abortion should be allowed. I also think that neighborhood governments should have the authority to criminalize or de-criminalize abortions, but they should be required the death penalty the minimum penalty if it is criminalized. I only support procreation by Scandinavian people for they are the perfect race."
So this is a parody but at least the person accurately described a few interesting facets of their perspective rather than saying "Lol I'm totally pro-life/choice." Which, of course, doesn't mean anything except "I'm totally stupid."
No comments:
Post a Comment