Opposition to abortion exists under the title, "Pro-Life." But I think that this slogan, like most slogans, fails to express the full complexity of what it represents.
Taking the slogan at face value, pro-choice believers are often confused by an apparent contradiction: How can someone be "pro-life" yet pro-capital punishment?
I believe this contradiction is an illusion, and the term "pro-life" is the reason for the confusion. Opposing abortion and supporting capital punishment can both stem from a natural philosophy: Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. On this issue of capital punishment, this belief can be very clear -- when someone is guilty of a heinous sin, society metes out the ultimate punishment, death.
How does this same philosophy lead us to oppose abortion? If you believe that pre-marital sex is a sin, then it should be punished. "Protect the innocent, punish the guilty" becomes "Protect the innocent child, punish the guilty mother." As part of the mother's punishment, she must reap what she has sown -- an unintended child.
This philosophical connection exists consciously for some people, though not for everyone. For example, ThePillKills.com, a group strongly opposed to abortion and birth control, offers prayers to "the many uninformed patrons who come asking the staff of Planned Parenthood to provide chemicals, hormones, and sex-education as an answer to their problems with the natural consequences of abuse of sex."
For many who oppose abortion, however, I believe a legacy of this philosophy does exist, though it has largely been buried beneath an acceptance of birth control as a part of modern life, and the debate has shifted from a focus on "punishing the guilty" to "protecting the innocent."
The entire abortion debate cannot simplify down to this one difference in beliefs, but I do believe it is an important part of the philosophical split that exists today. I only hope that in investigating why we believe what we believe, we can better understand those we disagree with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Very thought-provoking. Personally, I have generally resolved the apparent contradiction by plugging a silent "innocent" in between "pro" and "life," skipping over the "punishment" aspect you discuss here.
I have to say I am much more sympathetic (and empathetic) to the notion of opposing abortion to protect an innocent life than I am to the idea that abortion should be made unlawful in order to punish women who may have a different conception (pardon the pun) of sin.
I also am troubled (though perhaps I am being a bit of a pollyanna here) by the characterization of a child as its mother's "punishment".
Great article, Kitt.
For perhaps, one mistake of unprotected sex not only are you punishing the mother for life w/ an unwanted child, you are punishing the child who is unwanted.
The problem of whipping people up w/ simplistic (and often inaccurate) slogans is that the complexities and truth of an issue are lost in the maelstrom.
Thanks so much for the comments!
I agree that there's a fine line between "punishment" and "fate" -- but when your fate is enforced by society, I think that's where it crosses the line to punishment.
And Alison, you're right, the child's fate is critical to understanding the perspectives as well -- when a mother is not allowed to have an abortion, what should society owe to her and her child, if anything?
And I also agree that most people don't think about the issue this way, it's not the part people focus on. But I think ignoring the history and philosophical roots is akin to ignoring, say, the legacy of slavery when talking about black-white race relations in America. It's not the current issue, and it shouldn't control one's thinking, but it sure yields a lot of insight into the bigger problem.
First of all, premarital sex does not qualify as a "heinous" sin. Thus, the comparison is moot.
Second, society has always provided an acceptable option for managing the consequences of unwanted pregnancies: adoption. The mother can essentially "walk away" after nine months. The guilt of ending a baby's life for the sake of convenience may haunt a woman, forever.
One of the selling points for abortion rights is that it protects the mother from humiliation of being an unwed mother. In today's society, being an unwed mother is neither shocking nor justification for being branded with a scarlet "A". Enduring 9 months of "morning sickness" should not justify ending a baby's life.
Pro-choice refuses to translate "unwanted pregnancy" to "unwanted child". Semantics is unavoidable due to the ramifications of rejection by those riding the fence and the intervention of the legal system. The final solution translates "unwanted pregnancy" into "unwanted child". So, why not say it for what it is. "Unwanted pregnancy" is the illusion propagated by pro-choice.
Adoption is not automatically an acceptable option for managing the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. If it was we wouldn't have orphanages.
I doubt most abortions happen because of the 9 months of inconvenience. It's for the 18 + years of responsibility after the 9 months. Even if you find someone to adopt your child you still brought a child into the world that you can't take care of and you don't really know what kind of home that child went to.
This blog is public, though very seldom viewed. Sleazypleaseme, do we know each other? I'm happy to have you read and comment, I was just curious.
Orphanages are not an abomination and provide more care than many children in "families" (if you can even call them that) receive.
Being unwanted at some point is a part of life for all of us. Life is far from perfect. Why should society be obligated to permit one to shun the consequences of irresponsible behavior at the ultimate sacrifice of another? Reincarnation is not guarantied.
Even worse, given the current political climate, why should my tax dollars be spent to facilitate this?
Promoting abstinence does not adequately address the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence requires a rearrangement of priorities to place self control and responsibility on a pedestal. The fact that abortion is even legal supports the fact that abstinance is an unrealistic expectation.
Birth control is far cheaper than 18+ years of responsibility. It should be strongly encouraged. I would be more than happy to allow my tax dollars to be utilized to pay for this type of "family planning" (another misnomer).
Kitt...we have crossed paths.
Post a Comment