I suppose when you come down to it, my position is pro-choice.
But that's largely by default.
It's not like I'm in favor of lining up women by the thousands and performing abortions en masse. For that matter, were I in possession of a uterus, I honestly don't know if I could undergo an abortion myself. I just don't believe that it's any of the government's damned business. Until a court somewhere rules that life begins when sperm meets ova, the government has no more place telling women that they cannot have an abortion than it does telling them that they can't have a face-lift.
So, the pro-life brigade was out in force on campus yesterday. I walked right past them without acknowledging their existence, which, I imagine probably pissed them off more than anything else I said in the subsequent few minutes when one of their lackeys ran up to me.
Have I ever mentioned how much it annoys me when someone I have made very clear I don't want to acknowledge forces me to pay attention to them?
Anyhow, he ran up to me, pointing at the billboards they had set up in the quad, and began to preach about how Canada had performed umpteen billion "murders" (and yes, that was the term he used), in the last year. I wasn't really paying attention to what he was actually saying, so I can't remember what the actual number was that he used. Frankly, I don't care.
He was taller than me, and broader across the shoulders; I figured he could probably beat me up, so I decided to humor him for a little while.
"Okay," I said, "let's assume that I accept your very flimsy definition of 'murder,' what do you suggest we do about it?"
"We would like Prime Minister Harper to introduce a bill immediately to render all abortion illegal within Canada," he announced, sounding all self-righteous.
I think I've mentioned before that there are very few things that piss me off more than self-righteousness. But I kept cool. "You think the bill has a chance of passing? I mean, even if every single Conservative votes in favor of it; there's no way they'll get any of the other three parties on board."
"Well, that's no reason not to try," He insisted.
"True," I conceded, "but what makes you think that outlawing abortion will actually reduce the number of occurrences?"
"Well, if it's illegal..."
"...Then that just means that women desperate enough to terminate their pregnancy will just go to Mexico to have their abortions," I finished. "Heck, that's what happened during prohibition, and all they wanted then was a drink."
"At least it won't be happening here," he said. I could almost hear a loud snap as his spine stiffened.
"Oh, so abortion is okay, as long as it's not happening in your backyard? Nice to know that your morality has a geographic limitation," I told him.
"Are you saying we should just give up?"
"No, I'm saying that you should focus your energy on a strategy that might actually have a snowball's chance in hell of actually reducing the number of Abortions. Make the Morning-after pill available in front of the counter; make the wait time to acquire birth control pills shorter; make condoms available right next to the toothpaste; educate children from the time they turn twelve on how to protect themselves. You want to reduce the number of abortions? Fine. Try something that'll actually work," I replied. "I'm not telling you to give up your ambitions, I'm telling you to try something a little less ham-handed."
"But if we make birth control available to teens, they'll start having impure thoughts." And for the record, he actually used the term impure thoughts. I hadn't heard the term impure thoughts since I was a student in Catholic school.
"You show your average teenager a socket wrench, and they'll have impure thoughts," I countered. "What are you more afraid of; abortion, or the idea that teenagers are getting laid more often than you are? Choose your battles. This can be about abortion, or this can be about sex. Pick one."
"Abstinence-only programs..."
"...Don't work," I finished. "At best, they make teenagers wait an average of two years longer before they first have sex; and then they are three times more likely not to use any kind of protection when they do."
"But..."
"Look," I said, "I'm not unsympathetic here, but you really need to do something that's going to actually work. Outlawing abortion is ham-handed, it's a solution which won't work, and until a court rules that life begins at conception, it's very likely illegal. Education will take longer to show an effect, it may offend your sensibilities, but it will reduce the number of abortions, and it will be a sustained reduction."
I walked away. He didn't follow.
I don't know if his views changed significantly in those five minutes; but I'd like to think that maybe I gave him something to think about.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am mostly pro choice as well . . . there are some issues I wonder about though, such as - what about the father's choice? Do you think the father should have a say? In some situations I think the father should also have some input . . . but how could that ever be implemented? I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that one.
Well, legally, it hangs on at which point life actually begins. When does the fetus graduate from "ball of cells" to "life?" Because, legally speaking, that is the point at which the father actually becomes a father rather than simply a sperm donor.
Now that's basically a letter-of-the-law argument; but it leads to some interesting speculation. It's also a legal quagmire if a court ever decides that life begins at conception. If a woman suffers a miscarriage is she the victim of a terrible accident, or guilty of manslaughter? Can a doctor who, for medical reasons, terminates a pregnancy be charged with murder? Will birthdays be a thing of the past, and will we now measure age at "conception days?"
Now, I'm against the idea that the father could somehow, through legal maneuvering, force the mother to bear a child to term if she's unwilling or unable to do so. At the end of the day, the biological fact is that the mother's in possession of the uterus, and if she doesn't want to undergo the pain of childbirth, it seems to me that it borders on cruelty to try to force her to do so under any circumstances. However, from a common courtesy standpoint, it would be nice if the father-to-be were in some way included in the decision process.
Now how you could make this a legal requirement without giving the father the power to force the mother to bear the child to term, I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps someone more legally savvy than I could come up with something.
Post a Comment