Name:
Location: Southeastern, United States

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Random Politicsat the end of a long Marxy weekend.

There is one, and exactly one, completely pro-life and anti-choice argument that I feel is morally admissible: abortion is bad because a fetus at whatever stage is a child and its life is therefore sacrosanct.

If people hold this position, this is all they should be allowed to say.

Not, "women get abortions as a way to weasle out of the consequences of promiscuity". (Married women with children get abortions.) Not "abortion providers are immoral bloody money-weasles". (Abortion providers feel that what they are doing is right. If the clinical details of being face-to-fetus with abortion doesn't raise moral qualms in them, all your yelling will not.) Not "legal abortion is medically unsafe" (it isn't).

And one more time, not "that specific woman should have MADE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CHOICES up to this point." I don't think a pro-life legal stance is morally tenable, but a pro- dictating the rest of women's lives too legal stance is unacceptable outside of a totalitarian society. Is your moral stance just pro-life? If you don't spend at least as much time advocating multi-racial adoption, or working in women's shelters, or campaigning in the government and church for complete social supports for single mothers, or providing foster care, then this applies to you: You are JUST pro-live-birth. You care about getting that baby through six to nine months of gestation and making sure it is shoved down the birth canal or surgically removed. FROM NOW ON, I want you to say this. You are rhetorically disallowed from saying that the mother "should just give it up for adoption" or "should go to the church for help" or anything else. What you get to say is: We are very much in favor of the baby gestating all the way and going down the birth canal. That IS ALL.

love,
alex

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home