Mood:
coolThe following is an email I posted to a yahoo group I belong to (the one I mentioned a few days ago)...the topic was abortion...
*************************************************
Well I have fallen 12 msgs behind just in the last few days. I did read them all but I know I'll miss replying to some things. I know that if I went through and replied to each one we'd all get over loaded with far too many emails. Anyone else agree? Maybe it's just me...
Anyway, I'll attempt to sum up my thoughts on all of the recent emails I have yet to reply to. Just so you all know, I'm going to generalize a little (I know, that is dangerous waters to tread in to begin with) as to what pro-choicers and pro-lifers believe. Feel free to let me know if I was a little off, but keep in mind I mean no harm/insult by any of this :)
I totally understand the point of view you're coming from: a baby isn't considered "human" (i.e. protected by law under the Bill of Rights) until it is fully born. Even partial-birth abortions were legal for a time there, but that's for another discussion. Anyway, those who are pro-choice tend to see fetuses as non-human, so there is no problem with terminating a pregnancy if it is just not the right time for the woman, she can't afford it, etc. A woman's rights are impeded if the gov't tells her what to do with her body. Nobody else should be able to control her body and what she does with it, especially her unborn child. To do so would force her to bear children against her will and, thus, would increase the number of unwanted children in the world, increase the costs of welfare, increases in possible drug use, crack babies, crime, etc.
But, whether pro-choicers like it or not, pro-lifers see things quite differently. (Don't worry though, pro-lifers don't like how pro-choicers see things either, so it's a shared frustration). For pro-lifers (at least the ones I'm referring to), they believe life begins in the womb. Some may disagree as to exactly when life begins exactly (conception, when brain waves are present, when the fetus responds to stimuli, etc), but their point is once life begins, nobody (woman included) should be legally able to terminate it. And, furthermore, the gov't should not support it financially lawfully.
If abortion was illegal would abortions still happen? Of course. Making something illegal doesn't stop it from occurring, it just tells people "Big Brother (gov't) doesn't like that, and you'll get in trouble if you get caught." Laws are passed, of course, to curb people's behaviors away from the "bad" and toward the "good." Laws aren't passed on the assumption that the behavior will stop (just look at how well we all follow speed limit laws). A pro-choicer would most likely believe that laws should support people's rights to their own bodies. If someone infringes on someone else's body, that's one thing, but as long as one doesn't infringe on any one else's body/property, leave it alone. Most pro-lifers, remember, believe life begins in the womb. So, they would argue, an abortion isn't along the same lines as a woman getting a tattoo or piercing, but that abortion is murder.
Everyone I talk to who is pro-choice will say this is a bad analogy, but nonetheless, whenever you hear a pro-life person mention that they think abortion is murder and therefore wrong, remember that they are saying abortion is wrong just like walking down the street and pulling a gun out and shooting someone dead is wrong. Or, to make it a closer analogy, a mother pulling out a gun and shooting their post-birth child dead. Very gruesome and ugly images yes, but so is abortion to them. And you may (and probably do) disagree 100% with either the analogy or with the pro-life stance, but that is nonetheless how they see things. Even though there is an obvious difference in the timing of abortion vs. killing ones own born child, they see little difference as to the injustice to human life done.
But, as with everything else in life, one must analyze the "everything else" of the situation. I realized a long while ago that the most difficult things in arguments are the "other shoe" and "point of view" issues.
As for the "other shoe" issue: there's always the problem of not being able to "walk a mile in the other person's shoe" so to speak. Can a man ever REALLY comprehend the pain involved with childbirth? Can anyone who has not had to live through it ever fully understand or comprehend the mental/emotional anguish of being raped? Or having to outlive your own child? Or (because it's late and i can't think of a better one) the pain of a man being kicked in the groin? Women will never know what that feels like for us (yeah it hurts like hell) just like men will never know what childbirth feels like. A man could survive being tortured in a POW camp and still not know EXACTLY what childbirth feels like. So they'll never be able to argue fully on that scale. The question is, though, does that make their point of view worthless? I argue that it does not, since each one of us have a complexity of "hands" that life has dealt us that NO ONE else ever received. To say "this hasn't happened to you, so you don't really understand what I'm going through" is one thing (and obviously true in the literal sense) but to say "you haven't gone through the exact same thing I have therefore I don't want to hear from you at all" really makes it so that no one can ever critique anything you say or do. Not to mention, it will probably leave you quite friendless.
Aside from the complexity of never being able to physically/mentally "walk in the shoes," there's the reality of everything else involved in decision making. There are a potentially unlimited number of points of view: as an economist I tend to look at the financial aspect of many issues. Because I'm religious/spiritual I tend to look at things from that point of view too. Had I decided to get my degree in psychology instead, I would probably see things MUCH differently. As someone mentioned (I believe it was Matt), had my girlfriend gotten pregnant before either of us were married, our thoughts/concerns would have been much different than if we both were financially/emotionally/physically ready. As my brother (father of 4) would say, "you may think you're ready, but you never are." He told me the same thing goes for marriage as well as kids (and that could be extended to many other things in life of course).
So the question could always arise: what gives you the right to tell this person how they should act if you can't "walk in their shoes" or fully see their "point of view." Very good question, and it's damn tough to answer. The best thing I can offer is, if I (along with others) have no ability to mention my thoughts or opinion on the matter, then who does? If no one does, than what we will get would approach chaos. Just think about it, NO ONE being able to tell ANYONE what to do, say, think, etc. Laws are designed to curb behavior so as to prevent that chaos...
Unfortunately the decision of whether or not to have an abortion means the woman is in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" category of life decisions. What I mean is, if she has the abortion, there are always the questions in the back of her mind as to "Should I have done this? Could there have been another way? Am I going to regret this later?" And if she doesn't have one, she may always wonder "What if I had one?" Although, I've yet to meet a woman who at first admitted that they were uncertain about wanting another child and then, after having one, said "man I wish I hadn't had a child." Could just be me though...
As for Bob's posting...for the record I don't think it was too harsh at all. I've had conversations with people who didn't spend more than 2 seconds thinking that I might have anything intelligent to say (perhaps they were too busy thinking I was wrong?) So for you to see some of points as "non-crap" means a lot to me; and you seem to have a certain patience/politeness that I hope I convey as well. :) Anyway back to what you were talking about: the whole "what if I'm wrong?" question. Keep in mind, though, it goes both ways.
What if the pro-lifers are wrong and they cause more harm than good by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term? Or...what if pro-choicers are wrong, life does begin at conception, and they are seen as sitting idly by and allowing others to murder their own children?
Both of them have reason to worry; both stances carry with them a burden of possible guilt (and if it truly exists, the possibility of eternal damnation). Now, unfortunately (for my defense) if the pro-choicers are wrong (i.e. abortion really does = murder) then they could easily say "so what?" and the answer to that would be greatly up to debate. What I mean is, they could always argue that even though it may be murder and even though it may be the murder of an innocent person, it would take place before the person ever knew it's own existence and that their death could still be better than being born into a "crappy situation" (insert any negative aspect you'd like to think up: drug addicted, abusive, neglectful, etc). I would argue that this brings up a whole new mess of questions though (is murder ok if the person doesn't know they're dying? could we argue a 2 yr old "doesn't know their own existence" either? how many people alive today say they'd rather be aborted than living in their present state? etc)
And, of course, if the pro-lifers are wrong that means that a woman who is not ready yet to have a child would be forced to bring it to term, either give it up for adoption or raise it herself, which would raise the problems/questions that Bob mentioned in his post. But for many pro-lifers, they don't see abortion as an option. They see it as murder. They would rather gov't funding be used to help the woman (and hopefully man if he is still in the picture) bring the baby to term, get a job, daycare etc than see the child be murdered. Now you don't have to tell me what would cost more, trust me I know. But pro-lifers don't see murder as an option, and would never consider allowing murder to take place in order to "save the gov't money." To us, it would be like a mother who has 5 kids already say "well I can't afford the bills, so I guess I'll have to off one of my kids." I'm not mentioning this to start a fight or get a "who is for/against that?" discussion going. I'm sure we all agree that murdering one of your born children is wrong. But for pro-lifers the fact that the question "should I off my child?" is ridiculously not even logically/ethically comprehendible whether the child is in the womb or out.
I feel I have rambled quite enough. I hope that everyone who read this found something that provoked thought or that they hadn't heard before (in other words, this wasn't a waste of time to read).
Would I be stretching too far if I suggested this:
Perhaps we all can agree, rather we are for or against abortion, that we should work hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies from ever coming about, so as to make abortion (logically) unnecessary to even argue? In other words, could we all possibly somehow work together to "solve" the problems that lead women to even consider abortion?
Ok...*steps off the soapbox*...I'd like to hear from everyone now. And if you asked me something I didn't respond to (I'm sure there is plenty I forgot) feel free to ask again...
Bryan
