The Ultra Right of Center Leftist Capitalistic Fascism view of Abortion
I was discussing Fake Crisis Pregnancy Centers with Shadoe earlier today and I realized that even those who know me pretty well don’t really understand where I stand on much of anything. Leading me to believe that no one really knows me very well. Is that because I’m elite and above the masses? Probably not. Does that mean I’m an elitist? Nope. It just means that my views don’t hold to any one historical or popular doctrine. Instead, my views and positions on issues and the world in general are most definitely a la carte.
When my widely scattered and sometime apparently contradicting views are considered with my staunch often stubborn hardnosed take on issues I can think of only one title which fits my “political stance” well: Ultra Right of Center Leftist Capitalistic Fascism. I’m sure of course that others will think of a few of their own. 
To explain further I’ll cover a few examples. I’ll start with one now and add others over the next few weeks. Let’s start with the subject of Abortion…
Abortion - I believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion in all cases where the woman is deemed sound of mind and legally capable of making such a choice. However, I also believe that the existence of a right does not constitute right. By that I mean, just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean that doing so is necessarily right. So yes, a woman does and should have the ability to have an abortion is they so choose, but I don’t believe that doing so is the right thing to do. That statement is of course former fact and latter opinion. In my way of thinking, such a statement is perfectly acceptable.
Being a male obviously makes it impossible for me to fully understand the female point of view on this subject. Just further proof that males and females of the species are intrinsically different animals, different but equal animals in a perfect world. However, in thinking through this issue I have striven to take the female point of view into account as much as I am capable of.
My main concern where the choice for abortion is concerned is this: If carrying the fetus to full term and giving birth does not pose a mental or physical medical issue for the woman, then choosing to abort the fetus basically comes down to a choice of convenience or inconvenience. While I can honestly say, I would not want to be responsible for a child at this point in my life; I also realize that partaking in such activities as those which generally lead to the creation of a fetus, carry some amount of responsibility. If a person chooses to have sex, they should be prepared to accept the responsibilities which such activity might carry. Sex is great. Sex is good. Sex is not all fun and games.
This is of course assuming that the sex act which led to conception was consensual. That should go without saying I think and any law or even discussion which does not assume so is flawed from the beginning.
Let me be clear. In my view, abortion comes down to acceptance of responsibility. If a woman chooses to have sex, then any fetus which might conceivably come about as a result bears a responsibility upon that woman. If the woman has sex forced upon her however, then she should be free from actual responsibility and the choice becomes purely that…a choice. If in either case the woman then logically weighs the responsibility between protection of her own being, which must come first, and that of the potential child, which must necessarily come second, she should come to a logical conclusion…to bring the child to full term or abort.
Notice that I said “bring the child to full term”, not to “raise the child”. I am a strong proponent of adoption.
If the choice to have sex results in conception, in my view, it is the least a mother can do to carry the child to full term and allow it a chance at life. If that life is to be with her or another matters little at this point. There is no shortage of happy, loving, stable couples out there vying for the chance to raise a child.
So then, my view on abortion in short is this: to choose to have sex, then to choose simply out of convenience to abort a child instead of giving it a chance at life with loving parents, is a deprived selfish act…it is however also a right. It is a right for which I am willing to fight because all choice ultimately comes down to freedom. Freedom is something which must always be defended.
Labels:
philosophy,
politics
2 comments:
The following two comments were left by "Shadoe" and myself back on my original blog. They are copied here to provide a little more context to the original post.
-----------------------------------
Comment by Shadoe — April 28, 2006
Being a woman, I am firmly in favor of a woman’s right to choose. It is absolutely intolerable that someone would believe they have the right to tell any human being what they can and cannot do to their own bodies, or that anyone could force upon someone else such a body-altering and potentially fatal condition as pregnancy. Taking away a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body is tantamount to slavery and must not be considered.
On the other hand, that doesn’t make an abortion the right thing to do. Even though a fetus is, when it comes right down to it, a parasite, it is still a potential human being and deserves that shot at life.
I guess if you’re going to take a side in the abortion/choice argument, you’ve got to decide which life is more important: The mother, or the child.
You’ve taken the popular route of avoiding making that choice by assuming it’s all a question of a pregnant woman taking responsibility for her actions. And while in many cases this is true, it is not so simple for most cases.
The first thing to understand is the nature of pregnancy. You can be forgiven for not understanding this point, since it’s not something you’ll ever experience at first hand. Men often get the impression that a pregnancy is a temporary inconvenience that a woman can quickly put behind her once it’s over and her body snaps back to its former condition. I cannot stress too strongly that this is never the case. A full-term pregnancy can change a woman’s body - permanently - in a number of ways. There’s the loss of abdominal tone, the weight gain and inevitable sagging in every area from the collarbone to the knees, the advent of varicose veins and hemorrhoids, the disfigurement of stretch marks from the collarbone to the knees, cavities, diabetes, scarring, depression, and possible damage to the reproductive organs. Did I mention that these things are permanent? With the exception of depression and diabetes, which can go away (but will often return), these changes are with the woman for the rest of her life.
And every one of those permanent changes are simply a part of a “normal” pregnancy. I won’t even go into the horrific things that can happen in an “abnormal” pregnancy. On average, 1500 women a year still die from pregnancy every year in the United States.
So, really, a pregnancy is much more than a mere temporary inconvenience. And so far, I’ve only discussed the physical implications.
But there are more implications in a full-term pregnancy.
First, there is age. Over 30% of women getting abortions are either teenagers or women over 35, both of which are high risk groups for pregnancy. These groups suffer more complications for both mother and child (or in the case of teenagers, child and child) than any other age groups. And by “complications,” I am also including “death.” A teenager forced to endure a pregnancy and childbirth can have enormous psychological effects, that will change her outlook for the rest of her life. For these women, carrying a child to term could be much more than a mere inconvenience.
Next, there is income. The most frequently given reason for an abortion is that the mother could not afford a child or the pregnancy would interfere with job or school. Certainly a child could be put up for adoption, but that doesn’t negate the necessary - and tremendous - medical expenses a woman incurs from a pregnancy, as well as the loss of income. Almost 80% of the women getting abortions are unmarried. Since there is no partner to provide a source of income during the recovery (and possibly during the pregnancy as well), this could cause severe financial hardship at a time when the woman would be unable to do anything about it. And while a pregnant and unmarried woman doesn’t carry the stigma it used to, all too often the woman will risk the loss of her job due to her pregnancy. Since the largest group of women seeking abortions is in the 20-24 age group (over 30% - followed closely by the 25-29 and 15-19 groups), they are least likely to be assured of keeping their job by continuing their pregnancy due to being less established in their careers. For many women, these situations could cause irrecoverable financial hardship.
I could bring up several other points to make you understand that a full-term pregnancy is very much more than a temporary inconvenience, but I think you’ve got that message.
So now we can move on to the topic of responsibility. There are two points of responsibility here: The responsibility of the ones creating a life and then choosing what to do with it, and the responsibility of preventing that life in the first place.
Yes, a woman should take responsibility for her actions. If she chooses to have sex when she is at risk of becoming pregnant, then she should take responsibility for the results. She should, yes, give that child a chance to live. But the question, again, is where does that responsibility end? Should she give this child a chance to live at the expense of her own life? Should she destroy her health for the child? Destroy the life she’s built for that child?
My thought would be that it’s better to avoid the question in the first place. Which brings us to the second point of responsibility.
Any woman who is at risk of becoming pregnant should take responsibility for that activity by providing herself with adequate birth control. It’s a popular misconception that women who get abortions are simply using an abortion as a means of birth control. Nothing could be further from the truth. While it’s true that some women do get repeated abortions, the fact is, most of the adult women who seek an abortion were practicing some form of contraception when they became pregnant. This is due to many factors. It’s important to understand that even with perfect use, every contraceptive method fails at some point. This is something that most women simply do not understand. And most contraceptive users do not understand the proper use of their contraceptive.
And this is where my personal pet peeve regarding abortion comes in. We could, easily, cut the number of abortions in this country by at least 80% if we would simply do better with birth control. First, by making birth control easier to get, especially by sexually active young people. Since young people hold the firm belief that nothing bad can happen to them no matter what risks they take, they are, by far, the biggest risk for an unintended pregnancy that ends in abortion. If they were able to find and afford the different methods of effective birth control easily, they would be more apt to use it than they are now.
Second, we have got to start educating people better in how to use birth control. The current administration is pushing the “abstinence-only sex education,” and claiming that it’s better to teach young people to abstain from sex and avoid teaching them about birth control. The result: a 79% rise in the pregnancy and STD rate among those affected by this “education.” The majority of the unintended pregnancies in the United States are caused by failed contraceptives - usually because the woman did not know the proper use of the contraceptive. The most ineffective contraceptive method available - condoms - still has a very high success rate (85%) if just used properly. But amazingly, most sexually active people do not know the proper way to use one. Other methods with higher success rates, such as the Pill, are also used incorrectly. Proper education in this area, especially for young people, could cut down the abortion rate by at least 50%.
So even if the woman does take responsibility for her own body, she could still end up having to decide the all-important question: Who’s life is more important, mine or the fetus?
Startling abortion facts:
There are about 20,000 abortions a year for women less than 16 years old.
Almost half of abortions worldwide are in countries where it is restricted or prohibited by law. Making abortions illegal will not make them go away, it will just make them more dangerous.
The number of annual abortions has been falling since 1990 and is now about half what it was at that time.
Almost 70% of women seeking abortions are Christians - 18% are “Born-again/Evangelical”. Only 20% are from women with no religious affiliation.
Approximately 6 million women in the U.S. become pregnant every year. About half of those pregnancies are unintended.
-----------------------------------
Comment by chris — April 29, 2006
I should clarify a few things. (Thanks for finding some of the holes in my assumptions.)
First, education...
I strongly believe that teens should have detailed, if not graphic, sex education at an early age. They are going to get similar material in any case, much better it be in the form of valid professional information from a caring adult.
Of course, proper sex education doesn't happen in most cases. This may be due to religion tainted government policies barring school systems from teaching such material, or the simple fact that their own parents are too puritan to broach the subject in the home. Regardless of the reason, the vast majority of teens enter into sexual activity with very little understanding of the subject.
In the case of teen pregnancy, it is this lack of preparation by guardians which I would say is at least as bad as an actual abortion. By not fulfilling their responsibilities to their children, they are in effect destroying their child's life as well as that of the fetus or unborn child.
Americans are still so put off by the open frank discussion of sex and sexuality that this lack of education continues well past the teen years. Lack of sexual knowledge and understanding is at least in part behind many of the social ills affecting the U.S. today. Childhood pregnancy, abortion, rises in STD transmission, rape and domestic abuse just to name a few.
The powers that be would prefer we tell our children to simply not have sex, something that most adults are not capable of themselves even well after their raging hormones have subsided. To tell a child, who by the very definition of the term is incapable of making rational decisions, to make a decision that an adult is not typically capable of making, is pure idiocy.
We are all slaves to our chemistries. As much as we may not like to think so, it can't be denied. While it may be possible to learn to harness the power of the mind to control these bodily processes, we are in large part, still a slave to our millions of years of programming. This is never so much so as during puberty. With hormones impairing judgment as bad as any bag of weed ever could, to arm our children with nothing more than a mantra, is criminal.
Now on to the price paid by a woman who chooses to carry a child full term...
As a male I will never personally be capable of understand the repercussions of carrying a child full term, however, I do see similarities in my male place in the world.
It is true that making the choice to not abort a fetus may be making the choice to cause yourself serious, permanent, even life threatening harm. I do not in any way dispute that. However, I do dispute that this should preclude a woman from accepting personal responsibility for that child.
As a male, I am, at least in my own mind, very much responsible for the health and well being of all those who depend on me. I am expected to be their protector. Their champion. Their hero. If a situation arises where I have the opportunity to trade my life for theirs, I would have failed in my responsibilities if I were not to do so.
If for instance my fiance' and I were attacked, I would be expected to do everything in my power to keep her from harm. If that meant giving my life to do so, then so be it. To do less would likely have me branded a coward...rightly so I think. If I were to witness a child about to be struck by a car, I would be expected to try to save that child. If it meant pushing the child out of the way and being struck myself, then that is what it would take. To do less would again be to brand myself a coward. If someone were about to shoot a member of my family, a friend, a loved one, or even an unknown innocent woman or child, society would expect me to step in and take that bullet if at all possible. I accept such things as simple fact. It is my role as a male.
That's very simplistic of course. I can't say for sure how I would react if such a situation presented itself, but I do know what society would expect of me. I know what civilization would require of me. I know what I would demand of me.
Now naturally, a female could put herself in any of these situations and have the same expectations placed upon her by her own personal code, or possibly even society. However, civilization, or the survival instinct of the species, in such cases falls more on the male. We are expected to be the protector. As someone who holds personal responsibility and duty to society with such high regard as I do, this expectation becomes an absolute requirement.
Now take that perspective, apply it to abortion and what do you have?
A man has a chance to save the life of his child. To do so will mean putting themselves at great personal risk, even the possibility of death. No matter how good the outcome, the choice will include life long physical and mental costs which may be great and cannot be determined before hand. The man can either choose to save the life of his child, or he can choose to destroy that child's life to protect his own. How would society view a man who chooses to destroy his child's life to protect his own? How does society view a woman who chooses to have an abortion?
A matter of perspective? Maybe. A matter of rights? Definitely. But also a matter of responsibility?
This comment, and the previous one, were left by "Shadoe" and myself back on my original blog. They are copied here to provide a little more context to the original post.
-----------------------------------
Comment by chris — April 29, 2006
I should clarify a few things. (Thanks for finding some of the holes in my assumptions.)
First, education...
I strongly believe that teens should have detailed, if not graphic, sex education at an early age. They are going to get similar material in any case, much better it be in the form of valid professional information from a caring adult.
Of course, proper sex education doesn't happen in most cases. This may be due to religion tainted government policies barring school systems from teaching such material, or the simple fact that their own parents are too puritan to broach the subject in the home. Regardless of the reason, the vast majority of teens enter into sexual activity with very little understanding of the subject.
In the case of teen pregnancy, it is this lack of preparation by guardians which I would say is at least as bad as an actual abortion. By not fulfilling their responsibilities to their children, they are in effect destroying their child's life as well as that of the fetus or unborn child.
Americans are still so put off by the open frank discussion of sex and sexuality that this lack of education continues well past the teen years. Lack of sexual knowledge and understanding is at least in part behind many of the social ills affecting the U.S. today. Childhood pregnancy, abortion, rises in STD transmission, rape and domestic abuse just to name a few.
The powers that be would prefer we tell our children to simply not have sex, something that most adults are not capable of themselves even well after their raging hormones have subsided. To tell a child, who by the very definition of the term is incapable of making rational decisions, to make a decision that an adult is not typically capable of making, is pure idiocy.
We are all slaves to our chemistries. As much as we may not like to think so, it can't be denied. While it may be possible to learn to harness the power of the mind to control these bodily processes, we are in large part, still a slave to our millions of years of programming. This is never so much so as during puberty. With hormones impairing judgment as bad as any bag of weed ever could, to arm our children with nothing more than a mantra, is criminal.
Now on to the price paid by a woman who chooses to carry a child full term...
As a male I will never personally be capable of understand the repercussions of carrying a child full term, however, I do see similarities in my male place in the world.
It is true that making the choice to not abort a fetus may be making the choice to cause yourself serious, permanent, even life threatening harm. I do not in any way dispute that. However, I do dispute that this should preclude a woman from accepting personal responsibility for that child.
As a male, I am, at least in my own mind, very much responsible for the health and well being of all those who depend on me. I am expected to be their protector. Their champion. Their hero. If a situation arises where I have the opportunity to trade my life for theirs, I would have failed in my responsibilities if I were not to do so.
If for instance my fiance' and I were attacked, I would be expected to do everything in my power to keep her from harm. If that meant giving my life to do so, then so be it. To do less would likely have me branded a coward...rightly so I think. If I were to witness a child about to be struck by a car, I would be expected to try to save that child. If it meant pushing the child out of the way and being struck myself, then that is what it would take. To do less would again be to brand myself a coward. If someone were about to shoot a member of my family, a friend, a loved one, or even an unknown innocent woman or child, society would expect me to step in and take that bullet if at all possible. I accept such things as simple fact. It is my role as a male.
That's very simplistic of course. I can't say for sure how I would react if such a situation presented itself, but I do know what society would expect of me. I know what civilization would require of me. I know what I would demand of me.
Now naturally, a female could put herself in any of these situations and have the same expectations placed upon her by her own personal code, or possibly even society. However, civilization, or the survival instinct of the species, in such cases falls more on the male. We are expected to be the protector. As someone who holds personal responsibility and duty to society with such high regard as I do, this expectation becomes an absolute requirement.
Now take that perspective, apply it to abortion and what do you have?
A man has a chance to save the life of his child. To do so will mean putting themselves at great personal risk, even the possibility of death. No matter how good the outcome, the choice will include life long physical and mental costs which may be great and cannot be determined before hand. The man can either choose to save the life of his child, or he can choose to destroy that child's life to protect his own. How would society view a man who chooses to destroy his child's life to protect his own? How does society view a woman who chooses to have an abortion?
A matter of perspective? Maybe. A matter of rights? Definitely. But also a matter of responsibility?
Post a Comment