Search blog.co.uk

Pro-Life v Pro-Choice (Extract from Helium Debate)

by GSmudger @ 2008-02-26 - 18:14:55

A society in which a woman has no right to choose abortion would be a morally stunted one, fit to take its place with those patriarchal, medievalist theocracies where women remain the chattels of men and bigotry is law.

As a devoutly secular Brit, I resent and reject the assumption that faith and morality are synonymous. I therefore believe that the pro-choice position is not a loosening of morals; it is rather a moral position founded in human reality rather than unthinking religious dogma.

Human fertility is a gift, a gift that by fluke of biology some decent people of my acquaintance were denied. Yet my day job has brought me into contact with the worst society has to offer, third generation drunks, thieves, robbers and junkies, most of whom are amazingly fertile. Conceived with all the care and thought that would go into a sneeze, I met many screaming infants who, to paraphrase Dickens, would have screamed all the louder had they known what life had in store for them. Most of these tots were doomed to follow their parents into lives of misery, crime, social alienation and early deaths. Mysterious ways indeed.

I’m not for a second suggesting termination on the basis of a parent’s social status. I do however believe that quality of life matters more than life alone. If a young woman without the means or desire to raise a child sought an abortion at an early stage, which is better for the woman and her society? An unwanted child that might have a miserable life while ruining hers and making both a burden to society; or the termination of a being that is certainly alive but a long way from being a sentient human.

The debate on how and where human life begins is a tangled one, and even within the pro-life movement there are those who favour early term abortions. Yet organised religion has always found it easy to sand the rough edges off difficult moral questions and the view that a human life is created at the point of conception still holds sway for millions.

Unflinching devotion to dogma so often leads to great cruelty. The Catholic Church hasn’t been persuaded to deviate from its pro-life prohibition of contraception by the deaths of tens of millions of Africans from HIV. Can it really be the case that those who fail to practice abstinence deserve agonising death? Does a 21st century pontiff really still believe that we should be controlled by our fertility and not vice versa, however appalling the cost? Would those sufficiently devoted to this principle to target abortion clinics accept that they’re placing more value on the life of a Western foetus than on an adult HIV-sufferer in South Africa?

Curtailing the right to abortion wouldn’t prevent unwanted pregnancies and enforce sexual abstinence any more than prohibition slaked the USA’s thirst for liquor. A society can’t be that easily reshaped by a minority whose views are so at odds with the views and inclinations of the majority. Yet this minority would doubtless be happy to see young women bear the burden of their principles, either by gambling with their lives in backstreet clinics, languishing in jails for the sin of being human, or giving up their aspirations for an unwanted child, regardless of whether the child is severely disabled or the product of rape.

Why does the pro-life cause entail such tunnel-vision? Artificial termination is not without a natural precedent: Miscarriages occur when the body makes its own brutal decision that a foetus isn’t viable. Is that life more or less sacred for the lack of human choice? Should it be seen as God’s will and therefore beyond question? If human life is so sacred, what of pro-lifers who serve in the armed forces, own guns or drive cars? They are after all gambling with their own lives and the lives of others.

Shouldn’t pro-lifers spend a bit more time protesting outside army bases, munitions factories or the Vatican? It is telling that their supposed concern for human life doesn’t extend beyond spitting biblical venom at desperate young women and the medical practitioners who brave harassment and violence to help them.


 
 

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

FlamingCrossFlamingCross [Member]
2008-03-23 @ 12:52

My dear Smudger,

Once again an interesting and thought provoking piece. However, I don't think it's particularly helpful to divide the argument into "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice".
We live in times where the cult of the individual reigns supreme, where one's human rights are to be exercised at all costs, regardless of the impact on others, the unborn child for instance.
If one supports a woman's right to chose, where's the choice for unborn child? Who champions their rights?
The trouble with lumping people into the Pro-Life camp, is that you immediately brand them as a religious zealot or some kind of abortion clinic bomber and that's not particularly helpful for advancing the debate.
The Abortion Act was formulated to prevent young, vulnerable women from being forced into visiting the back street abortionist. However, at the time the government specifically stated that this did not mean abortion on demand. Fast forward forty years and we now have a situation where abortion is used as an means of contraception. You've wrote at length about personal responsibility or the lack of it. I find it truly grotesque that we now abort as many foetuses, annually, in the UK, as the number of troops lost each year in the Great War. A sickening statistic.
You're right that many of those children would have grown up with little if any prospects or meaningful parenting, however, this is not really an argument in favour of abortion, more a call for more robust social policy, to actually force parents to accept their responsibilties. Abortion often provides the feckless with yet another opportunity to f**k with abandon, free from any consequences.
There are also alternatives, in the form of adoption. In the 1970's there were somewhere in the region of thirty thousand adoptions a year, however, this has now fallen to approximately two thousand annually, due in part to the ever tightening criteria which potential adoptive parents must satisfy.

GSmudgerGSmudger [Member]
2008-04-12 @ 21:46

It's fair to say that polarising an issue is more a means of stoking up a debate than getting to the complex truth of the matter. And as with many clinical debates, this one leads to such philosophically fraught questions as whether life at any cost is more important than quality of life.
To put my subjective cards on the table, I can't help but feel that calling for robust social policies on good parenting as an alternative to birth control is on a par with preferring rehabilitative, community punishments to imprisonment. Both are laudable in principle, but very difficult to apply in reality. Has it been your experience that community orders prevent burglaries as well as locking burglars away?
In the airport bookshop classic, 'Freakonomics', an economist points out an unpalatable truth. A sharp drop in US crime figures occurred about 16 years after abortion was widely legalised.
As a cynical, depressive, virtually ex-copper with fertility difficulties, I'll admit my prejudices have a lot to do with seeing socially cancerous scum breeding like rabbits and transmitting their misery to future generations while we, decent, intelligent, law-abiding and loving people, tried and tried and failed to conceive.
I find it hard not to find pro-lifers and their ilk so worthy of disdain because they're less in love with human life than they are with spiritually self-serving, unthinking dogma. Zealots wedded to obscure desert superstitions can hardly be depended upon to lead us into enlightenment. To paraphrase GK Chesterton, it's not so much that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it is more that it has been found difficult and not tried.
I just don't think life at any price can be more important than the overall good of society.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).

Footer

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.