Giving Thanks For Abortion

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bethany-blankley/abortion-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do_b_1102198.html?ref=religion

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-backman/abortion-stalemate_b_1021839.html

This post is a bit late for the actual Thanksgiving holiday, at least the traditional day, but after Black Friday’s commercialism and shopaholic excess, I think I should talk about a topic rife with problems that are more practical in scope and less self serving in the goals it seeks to advance.  What I speak of is abortion. I’ve talked about consistency of terms and whether pro life people are actuallypro life instead of anti abortion,  amongst other varieties of this topic. Heck, my very first blog post was on the subject with Tim Tebow and his mom in a pro life/pro choice commercial that was ambivalent as to whether it actually supported choices about reproductive health or just choices towards life. Clearly the issue is important to me, and not because of the anti abortion kernel of “wisdom” that all pro choice people are already born. That goes without saying: a fetus can’t make the choice that abortion is or recognize the process for what it is in any sense until a certain point in development anyway. At most it makes very basic choices as any organic being that is conscious of its own existence will do, even if by pure instinct at first.  But I haven’t had family members or even friends that have directly had to face the issue of abortion. In the South, I’ve noticed that abortion is never seen as anything beneficial and is rarely an option at all. It’s not that we probably don’t have abortion clinics, but they’re either isolated in big cities or otherwise difficult in terms of access, though I admit I’m just speculating on a sub area of the abortion issue I’m not familiar with. I have heard enough and learned enough so far that my general position on abortion has been and always will be pro-choice, which in no way is pro-abortion, contrary to what political pundits would tell you. In the wake of a season that speaks of being thankful for people, I think we should be thankful for something that allows people to give themselves a better future for the family they are more ready for, even if not everyone does it.

I’m well aware of the argument and agree with its premise that abortion shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control, or any sort of procedure done merely for convenience when you are perfectly capable of taking care of a child. Admittedly abortions are probably done for that reason, though I imagine statistics aren’t going to help a lot in a situation where the practitioner doesn’t get such a straight answer from women who are feeling so much anxiety and pressure from their family, friends and society. But abortion is not something you should seek to illegalize or eliminate completely, since it has medical benefits, albeit those are more isolated to ectopic pregnancies and other situations where a woman’s life is in danger and, as heartless as it sounds, sacrifices must be made. Bringing up numbers of how many fetuses have been aborted seems to be easily countered by stats concerning birth rates in the U.S., which by a quick check are not going down excessively, but only in response to economic difficulties many people are having, postponing children until they’re slightly more stable in their finances. It’s different than it was a century ago when America felt it could throw around money and resources like candy without thoughts for the future. It’s not as if I see a significant downturn in birth rate in relation to my own general family, for instance. The number of kids range from anywhere to the minimum expected 2 kids, making an even 4, to 5 or 6 kids, making double that number for a single family from a couple. I myself would be happy with just one, but parenting is the last thing on my mind. Moves to illegalize abortion forget that it is an elective procedure and is not mandatory upon all pregnant women at all. Eliminating it completely would negate the value it possesses in situations that would still be dangerous even if we had technology that would allow for zygotes, embryos, etc to be transplanted or preserved after attachment to the uterine wall. This would reduce abortions to a very small percentage, which, from what I’ve said before, is an unofficial (or official?) position of many pro choice advocates, “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare,”

An irony people could observe with the movement of anti abortion is that it is composed in great or significant part of women who have already had abortions and either regretted it or seem to think that you should only follow their example in every other instance except abortion and not see the hypocrisy they exude in being overzealous for a cause they only fight against after the fact of seeing it as wrong. The view is that abortion is primarily a communal and emotional issue instead of a personal and rational one that it is much of the time, even if it also does have communal and emotional effects on those involved directly and indirectly. The best saying in response to these people that strive to control people’s sex lives and decisions they make with their body is “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one,” It shouldn’t be a matter of popular opinion, it should be an informed decision without pressure from parents, partners or even medical professionals without justifiable reasons, such as economic or psychological considerations.

One of the biggest things that drive the abortion debate is the personhood vs. humanity idea that people constantly bring up. A zygote is argued to be a person because it is genetically unique. But this doesn’t hold water because it is only technically genetically human. Personhood is a bit more complicated than simply having human DNA, since that could apply to any cell. The response is that a zygote, when left alone, will develop naturally. This is based on possibility, which seems to be a big line of argument in conservative positions on these issues. Gay people will make marriage slide further into immorality, and abortion will target racial groups or particular genders as it becomes more and more acceptable. Mississippi brought up an attempted amendment to its constitution that would have made a fertilized egg a person, but it was thankfully struck down, by anti abortion and pro choice people alike no doubt. The goal of the amendment was to challenge something many find fundamentally egregious in the Roe v. Wade decision over 50 years ago: that a zygote, blastocyst or embryo (for the most part) are not considered a person and thus not protected by the 14th amendment. It was decided, from what I recall, that at the 5th month or roughly around 20-22 weeks when a fetus reaches viability, it is considered a person philosophically, medically and legally to an extent. If the state had changed the definition of person to a fertilized egg, anti abortion pundits thought they could overturn the decision through pushing a vote to repeal the decision by the people. Unfortunately, like gay marriage, some things are not solved by a democratic vote, but by a legislative decision that says certain things are included in the inalienable rights the Constitution enumerates or are of such a morally contentious nature that democratic decisions do not reflect the morality or immorality of whatever issue is voted on. An obvious historical example was slavery. It might have been voted otherwise by the American people in each state, so the government wrote a fundamental amendment to the Constitution that made slavery illegal. Personhood is not something we can all agree on and that’s fine. If you either agree to disagree or, more reasonably, remain uncertain as to exactly and precisely when a fetus becomes a person, or when an embryo becomes a person, etc, then you make the discussion that much smoother in that you aren’t touting your position as unquestionable. If we all had a reasonable discussion without bringing personal emotional experiences into it as primary evidence, then perhaps we’d be able to start talking about these philosophically complex issues in a more civil, mature and reasonable way.

Anti abortion, so called pro life advocates, should be thankful (emphasis intended) that people make the choice to not have an abortion instead of pressuring others to choose life and condemn those who make a less popular choice for a better future life. If you think you can provide for your family with a limited budget and are willing to put children in a situation they did not ask for where they are given a lower quality of life instead of sacrificed for a better future life of siblings, so be it. I’m not going to advocate forcing people to have abortions, and that’s where I think I have a moral high ground of sorts. I am not doing anything more than advising people about their possible options and not saying that they should do it because I say so, but because my argument is sensible. If they disagree, it’s out of my hands for the most part, unless there is some explicit relation to myself. And that’s why I’m thankful for abortion, since it is a choice people can make, but also a choice people can decide to not make and bring life into the world. Regardless, life goes on and I’m thankful especially for that. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Politics and Pro Life

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/my-take-rethinking-the-pro-life-label/

I’ve already blogged on this a bit, mostly in relation to a blog post of a college acquaintance who runs , a political blog of good quality, where he noted the relation of ‘pro-life” beliefs to libertarian values of freedom. In that post, “Abortion Terms Revisited”, I actually suggested a solution to this problem I’ll visit later in this post, albeit not necessarily solving what to do about the pro-life position itself.
Again, I rail on politics and its complexity, though both Democrats and Republicans could be inconsistent on the issue that divides even families sometimes. There’s always some variation on the general anti-abortion field, so as to distinguish this from the pro life issue for the moment. Some permit abortions in extreme cases, others forbid it in all situations and others are somewhat in the middle, resonating with pro choice and pro life in that they would like people to choose life, but they also respect people’s choices, as long as they don’t become abortions on demand for any situation. Of course, the pro choice thing is equally as polarizing. A side comment would enable me to transition more smoothly into what pro life would be more consistently across policies. Pro choice is not something Republicans are necessarily against. They value privatization, free market economy, freedom to choose a number of things out of various alternatives (like guns?). Their exclusion of abortion, but acceptance of the death penalty is just one of the inconsistencies many politically minded people observe about the Republican Party these days on their so called “pro life” platform.

To be truly pro life, many have begun to argue, you cannot suggest the budget for allaying the economic troubles we remain in. To cut benefits and aid to the poor is against many people’s deeply held religious beliefs. And even without religious beliefs based in the supernatural, one can argue there is still a strong compulsion for those who have plenty to give to those who have little or none. The basics of charity, generosity, and helping people live a fulfilling and satisfactory life can be said to be just as integral to a pro-life position as the commonly affirmed position of what I would call counter or anti-abortion. Pro-life is not the same as anti or counter abortion for the same reason that a counter/anti-abortion advocate can also be pro-death penalty/capital punishment or say the use of torture to advance the cause of peace is justified, among other more explicitly ‘anti-life’ positions. Of course, even the use of aggressive and excessive military strength that ignores the roles of noncombatants would appear on its face to be spitting on those lives as if they are expendable as accepted losses or collateral damage. Even soldiers, willingly putting their lives on the line, make such twisted choices in order to justify their own warped psyche’s perspective, radically changed by experiencing threats from every side and trained not to have mercy on the enemy. How does this ensure any kind of pro-life position in the general sense: that is, protecting life at all stages, whatever that might specifically be, whether it starts at birth or at conception (however questionable the latter may be). Even if I might disagree with such a a pro lifer on the abortion issue, I am more than amiable to the anti-war and anti-capital punishment positions we may both hold nonetheless.

One might say, with some backing to the argument, that Democrats are fast becoming one of the more consistent on the pro-life platform. It’s hard to find many Republicans that advocate the many things that reflect an overall pro-life policy that no doubt has cemented the appeal of the Democratic party in the wake of what might have been considered one of their weaknesses: the issue of religion and values in politics. With Democrats supposedly leaning more towards privatization of religion and separation of church and state, one might have seen them as an anti-God party, or to be fairer, a pan-religious party in that they welcomed everyone moreso than Republicans who tolerated Jews and reluctantly allowed Catholics and eventually Mormons into their fold, mostly because of shared values. But Catholics might be said to be an interesting balancer for politics and religion for Republicans against Democrats in that they were among those who criticized the Republican budget as not being truly pro-life and protecting life at all stages. The fixation on the abortion issue might be said to have hurt the present Republican Party’s support from Catholics, not to mention the fixation on fiscal policy over more imminent social issues that plague the country and the world. Then you throw in the issue of the war in the Middle East and you have a group that slowly appears to be more pro fear as opposed to pro life.

You make people afraid they’d abort a world leader or a great scientist, paranoid they’ll lose their freedoms to gun control stealing their weapons, hostile to the terrorist and motivating people to fight in wars. All this really focuses on guilt and regret over everything one does and never really affirms that we make choices, for better or worse, and that as long as we reflect on those choices, we can improve. If a woman decides to abort and then later thinks it was a bad idea, she can share her story without being obnoxious to all women who have to make those difficult decisions in those situations. If a soldier is patriotic, he can salute the flag, but he has no right to condemn someone who uses their Constitutional right to burn it just because it offends them and makes them afraid there are terrorists in their midst. And even the control of guns doesn’t mean that everyone is trying to take away all your force, but merely moderate it so we don’t have backwoods hicks using military grade equipment, thinking that martial law will be instated in 2012 or some such nonsense. If we are to be pro life, we should also be pro choice to a great extent, even if those are still polarized in popular mediums as being polar opposites. Luckily, as I blogged previously, TV stations have at least been trying to use more precise language, saying pro or anti abortion rights instead of pro choice and pro life, as if the inverse applies to each opposite. But in fact not every pro choice is pro death, and pro life is not anti choice, though sometimes it can imply anti choice in that people are afraid of the liberties people have or are afraid of them going into excess. And that’s not an unjustified fear, if you try to moderate choices yourself instead of outright suppressing everyone else’s. So pro life and pro choice people may have more in common than pundits and talking points make them think. Think for yourself, like a skeptical American should. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Abortion Terms Revisited

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/19/pro-life-or-anti-abortion-rights-journalists-abortion-and-why-word-choice-matters.aspx

http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2010/03/in_the_abortion_debate_words_m_1.html?ft=1&f=17370252

While I have already confronted this issue in a rambling form before, I have now discovered an article that confronted the difficulty of associating terms with the spectrum of the abortion topic. It seems NPR is one of the only news organizations (besides Fox News quite likely) that uses the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. The counterparts in the majority of other news stations are “anti-abortion” in exchange for “pro-life” and “abortion rights advocates” in exchange for “pro-choice”. While there are some difficulties I find even with this specification by CBS, NBC and CNN among others, such as the allegation by many in article comments that the term “abortion rights” presumes that there is a right to abortion. And I suppose one could also object to the term anti-abortion, since many conscientious opponents of abortion are not 100% against it, since they recognize there are points where abortion would line up with their position that is so commonly called “pro life”. If the mother’s life is in danger or the embryo/fetus will suffer crippling and life threatening birth defects, many would grant that abortion is justified in those circumstances. But even if we changed it to “abortion rights opponents” the difficulty would still remain with the objection of a supposed innate right to abortion by Constitutional interpretation.

There is a blog I glance at of a college acquaintance (indefenseoftheconstitution.blogspot.com) who covers mostly political/economic issues in relation to a very strict Constitutionalist Libertarian position along with Reformed Calvinist Christianity (a surprising combination, I know). And he put forth a note in an article probably a year ago or so that confronts the issue that comes with the labels of pro-choice and pro-life, though this may have been unintended. His main thrust was that liberty and choice by association are contingent to life itself, which in his argument was why life was put before liberty in the trio found early on in the Constitution. The syllogistic argument might go something like this:

1) Liberty is dependent on life to exist
2) Pro choice values liberty over life.
3) Pro life values life over liberty.
C) Therefore pro life advocates liberty better than pro choice.

Syllogistic arguments can become problematic in that they are more prone to logical fallacies and much easier objections to the premises within the argument; but they do get the point across expediently. I imagine that my acquaintance has a nuanced understanding of his position on abortion, and that he probably wouldn’t appreciate being described as valuing life over liberty, since it would no doubt make him appear to be a totalitarian that enforces their authority on others (and he is definitely a limited govt. kind of guy). So his response could come in the form of clarifying that pro life or associated positions do not value life over liberty, but inform others of their liberty and the better choice to “live and let live” instead of taking away the future liberty of a future child. Having had a number of informal debates online with abortion opponents, the arguments are not all faulty. And yet these people also insist on using the title pro life still, which reduces the argument on either side to creating strawmen of either side. Not to mention the issue of assuming every zygote and embryo is identical to a fetus and that a fetus is identical to a child, but the point still stands.

Pro-life is not by necessity Anti-choice, and contrariwise, Pro-choice is not Anti-life. Pro and Anti Abortion would be a good start to changing how the sides are presented, but perhaps instead of Anti-abortion, Contra or Counter-abortion might make more sense, since the prefix Contra/Counter implies opposition in the sense of more civil disagreements. Anti abortion makes the side opposing abortion generalized to the minority that choose to bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors in their churches. I seriously doubt most people opposing abortion choose such methods to make their case or argue their position, so it would probably be best to meet somewhere in the middle on the argument. So “pro-lifers” shouldn’t call abortion advocates murderers or imply they are anti life by using the term “pro life” and maybe “pro-choicers” won’t call you anti-choice or imply you are fascists or totalitarians wanting to control people’s actions. I know the way of moderation and compromise is difficult in politically charged discussions, but I imagine you could forgive my Buddhist way of thinking in trying to live the Middle Path in all areas of life. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha

Being Pro "Life" or "Anti" Abortion

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em

While I consider myself a general moderate on issues of abortion and valuing a combination of liberty and affirmation of life, it can be frustrating to hear the same people who complain about how "abortion is murder" or how homosexual activity is "destroying the family values" or some such drivel will also support war in any form or force people to go through grueling anguish and suffering to bring children into the world that will not survive beyond their 5th year or more. It's that combination of willful hypocrisy and self imposed compartmentalization that makes me think it's just a matter of clever labels that avoid implied positions like "anti abortion" or "anti GLBT". Instead they call themselves "pro life" and "pro family" to avoid the fact that there is little connection of pro life to valuing the death penalty or waging war in lieu of nonviolent means; and similarly that being pro family does not involve denying gay couples the right to adopt children and give them a family they'd otherwise be without because of the red tape and waiting lists that come with adoption agencies simply because they are two men or two women.

With pro life, it seems like it should be affirming life as a valuable thing in and of itself. Not just in the context of a potential life or the preservation of it to the detriment of other lives interconnected with it (maternal death due to poor medical care for instance or the demonization of abortion only pushing women to get back alley procedures that only cause them more suffering than necessary). Pro life should reasonably say that even a murderer should be given life in prison to ruminate on their crimes and misdeeds instead of saying that we can take their life in our hands and use it in whatever way we see fit to fulfill a twisted sense of justice. And instead of trying to force abstinence only education on children, perhaps it would be best to approach sex as a natural process that leads to life, but also teach teens responsibility for such an act that carries that value. Pro life in short, has to be expanded beyond what is a thinly veiled hatred of abortion that spreads misinformation or general bigotry towards a procedure that while objectionable in some theological manner, does not automatically become the ethical equivalent of me pulling a gun on a stranger and repeatedly shooting them. Especially considering the so called "child" is commonly a child only in the eyes of parents who love it, not every woman who happens to be pregnant and in many cases scared beyond imagination.

And with pro family, there is a parallel need for expansion of the position beyond saying that gays and lesbians cannot adopt because two men or two women can't bring up a child with distinct gender roles and also a clarification that sex is only part of a meaningful relationship of people who love each other. It could stand to expand the idea of family to transgendered individuals as well, though one might have you believe they're confused or trying to play God with their biology. Not to mention the idea that any family that isn’t a male and a female seems doomed to failure in the eyes of this position. Not even a single parent is as esteemed as two people who only feel obligated to stay together because of divorce being anathema to them or a so called duty to society that overrides keeping their children happy and well cared for. But as long as people insist on keeping ideas of life or family within narrow and purposely ignorant constraints that keep out minorities of one stripe or another, the real essence of their message is mangled beyond recognition. Not unlike tearing me apart and saying that I'm only a valuable person because of the part of my brain allowing me to think critically on topics such as this. But I kind of need my hands and arms and torso and eyes to sit at this laptop and put this together, don't I?