|
|
Saturday, February 19, 2005
|
|
WHEREIN skippy RESPONDS TO A COMMENTER AND LOSES RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT TO LIFE MOVEMENT
On Thursday, I posted about abortion. Sure, it was full of spelling and grammatical errors, but what are you going to do? I figure that it adds to the charm of the blog. Besides, I'm a horrible typist and a very lazy editor. So there.
The post was worthwhile for it brought a comment from my friend, Francis the Great. It was fascinating and extremely enlightening. In fact, it shaped the way I feel about the Right to Life movement. Previously, I actually believed that the anti-abortion forces were acting out of some sort of moral conviction. Francis is the first person that I've ever heard come right out and say - out loud - that this isn't the case.
In fairness, I'll reprint the entire comment and then answer it point by point.
Hey, in my own defense, the only reason I mentioned abortion is because it's pretty much the only large disagreement I had with that post, and you mentioned it in at least two sentances, so there
My stance on abortion isn't religious, and I support the death penalty and don't really care about euthanasia. Basically, everybody has a right to life until they prove themselves too stupid to properly exercise that right; then it gets taken away from them. I guess if somebody wants to off themselves, they can go for it. But if you have been proven beyond a doubt to have killed another person, it's time to ride the lightining. That goes for people that kill abortion docs, too.
The "don't prosecute the mother" and "not for rape and incest" arguments are political concessions with the idea of "something is better than nothing". Would it be better, from a (honest) pro-lifer's point of view, to eliminate abortion entirely? Yes. Is it going to happen? No. It isn't It isn't intellectually dishonest to compromise when you know that you won't get everything you want but you can get at least some of it. Although, compromising on something you consider tantamount to murder dosen't say a whole hell of alot about a person either.
The other place where I guess we disagree is where the benefit of the doubt should fall when proof of life is in doubt. You said, benefit of the doubt to the person most immediatly affected, the mother. I would say, benefit of doubt to the person most severly affected: the mother has to put up with having a kid, certainly no small price to pay; but with the alternative the (potential, theoretical, inconclusive) child is dead. In that case, I have to go with the kid.
So here we go.
My stance on abortion isn't religious, and I support the death penalty and don't really care about euthanasia. Basically, everybody has a right to life until they prove themselves too stupid to properly exercise that right; then it gets taken away from them.
There are some logical problems with this point. Francis points out that "everybody has a right to life until they prove themselves too stupid to properly exercise that right." Fetuses and the brain dead (those most likely to euthanized) aren't famous for their intelligence. In one case, no brain has developed in any recognizable fashion, and in the other, it has been destroyed.
Oddly enough, I agree with Francis' general point, a right exists contingent only on the individual's right to exercise it. "Pro-Life" forces like to compare their movement to the anti-slavery movement of the nineteenth century. But there is a considerable difference. A slave is completely competant to exercise the same rights as everyone else, but for his bondage. This is not true of a fetus. A fetus cannot exercise any rights seperate from the mother.
And if I might, I'd like to point out how the conservative movement isn't even entirely consistent with "children's" rights when it comes to they death penalty. They have argued successfully that children as young as 12 may be subject to the death penalty. In at least one case, that of Rickey Ray Rector, his functional intelligence of a 7 year old didn't spare him.
Accordingly, it would appear that that there is a VERY narrow window in which life is "innocent." It becomes narrower still when one factors in conservative support for the admission of evidence that PROVES innocence after conviction. The admission of such evidence is limited to 30 days in the state of Texas. For example, if you were convicted of murder in Texas, I could produce a videotape of someone else committing the murder, but if I did so 31 days after your conviction, that tape would be inadmissable.
Sure, you can argue that such circumstances would warant a commutation from the governor. Consider this; as governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed 173 death warrants. He granted ONE commutation. That was to Henry Lee Lucas.
Shit, I love the death penalty. I'd just like to be good and goddamn sure that I've iced the right fella first. If most modern conservatives had their way, they'd skip the trial. Christ, in the case of HAMDI v. RUMSFELD (2004), they actually tried to.
So please, spare me the "right to life." I find the inconsistency offensive. There either is a standard of "innocent" life that can be taken, or there isn't. And, just perhaps, that should be addressed before the "life" part is adressed. And remember, this is from coming from a guy who supports abortion, euthenasia AND the death penalty. I just tend to be picky on the details. As a matter of fact, I'm so pro-death penalty, that I'll spare no expense to make sure that ONLY the guilty get snuffed! Wanna see what a fiscal conservative I am? Elect me governor of your state (and keep in mind that Michigan already has a hot, Canadian governor. You can, too), and I'll smother the condemed with a fucking pillow myself to save some coin on the back end. Beat THAT for fiscal discipline!
This is where Francis' arguement gets very, very interesting and exposes the "Right to Life" movement as being political, as opposed to moral.
The "don't prosecute the mother" and "not for rape and incest" arguments are political concessions with the idea of "something is better than nothing". Would it be better, from a (honest) pro-lifer's point of view, to eliminate abortion entirely? Yes. Is it going to happen? No. It isn't It isn't intellectually dishonest to compromise when you know that you won't get everything you want but you can get at least some of it.
Maybe I'm just I'm just a really weird guy, but it seems to me that you don't go for "half a loaf" on moral issues of life and death. Again, the American experience with slavery is instructive. The American government tried several compromises in regard to the moral issue of slavery. The one in Missouri was particularly famous. All this lead to was the Civil War.
Once the Civil War began, President Lincoln had determined that slavery must end. I should note that his methods were not particularly savoury. In fact, emancipation wasn't his first option, deportation was. He first shipped an exploratory group to Haiti, but they were eaten. He then sent another to what became Liberia, but they all died of malaria. It was only then that the Emancipation Proclomation was signed. The process may have been ugly, but it was a moral absolute; one way or another, slavery was to end.
But what Francis describes is political bartering with what they believe to be human life itself. I've always known this to be the case, but I've never heard it said out loud and in public before. This line of reasoning demeans what they consider "the most innocent victims of all" to be on par with a resevoir or a dam in their congressional district.
Trust me, I know how the nuts and bolts of political mechanics work. And even I, someone who thinks that abortion is the greatest thing ever, is given to compromise. For example, I believe that parental notification isn't unreasonable. If a 16 year old can't get her clit pierced or appendix removed, or whatever the fad is these days, I see no reason why she shouldn't get a note from a competant guardian saying that she can get her uterus scraped out. Notice the consistency in the argument? It is one based in logic and existing law. Not on moral wishfull thinking.
But to say that you want to spare what you consider innocent human life EXCEPT in the cases of rape and incest - cases where said life can be arguably the most vulnerable - is morally unforgivable. What's next, accepting abortion if the preganancy isn't convienent?
I'm prepared to be damned for all eternity for accepting that the unborn can be sacrificed. I can only hope the the "Right to Life" crowd accept a lower tenement in Hell for suggesting that only a certain class of the unborn be so sacrificed.
In response to Francis' final point, if the "conservative" cause is willing to make those compromises on the unborn, I think that they forfeit any right to decide who gets the "benefit of the doubt" on when life is determined and where the rights thereof should acrue.
Holy fuck, am I adorable or what?
Permalink
|
|
|
| |
