Monday, January 22, 2007
On Being Pro-Life-Choice
Rather than go on at length about abortion, let me just say that since today is Blog For Choice Day (I'm only linking to where I heard about it), and nobody would dare say otherwise, I am not hard For or Against but tend to lean towards the side of Life and Freedom. That is to say, there's no Freedom without Life, and precious little Life without Freedom, so let there be Life in which every woman has the Freedom to choose whether or not to have sex with a fertile male, and if the silly thing goes ahead and does it, let her have the Humanity to Live with her Choice -- and to make that choice without being bullied by any impersonal entity (e.g. the State) butting its head into her business. As for me, I don't believe in gods or spirits, but humans evolved such that we need them anyway, and so listen to them as you will, just respect that I am essentially against abortion because I'm atheistic and favor liberty and human value, not otherwise. Here's a source of inspiration on that.
8 comments:
That Atheist post and comments look interesting. Will go back and read more later. I'm liking that so far today I haven't read any screeching on either side.
I don't see this as a religious issue, though of course I'm aware that most people do, any more than I see laws against murder or stealing as based in religion. For me it's a simple matter of the impossibility of an iron-clad definition of when it's okay to kill something because it doesn't count anyway, and when that something suddenly becomes a baby. I guess you could call that ethics, but it's not religion.
Nice.
Oh. My. Good. Sweet. Jaysus. The Atheist has gone bonkers. "my genetic, mathematical identity was set at conception". What teh fuck is that?
He is wrong in almost every specific. I just don't have time to spend on showing why. I'll stick to noting that a/ your "mathematical identity" is a certain outcome of processes that predate your conception and b/ you could argue that you "murder" a person's "genetic identity" every time you change its infant environment or, for instance, undernourish it as an infant or child. Isn't it incredible how a "rationalist" can go all gooey and mystical when it comes to human life?
...so let there be Life in which every woman has the Freedom to choose whether or not to have sex with a fertile male, and if the silly thing goes ahead and does it, let her have the Humanity to Live with her Choice...
Sorry - can't let this one go...
The silly thing? You mean, the woman who decides to have sex with a fertile male? Huh? Say wha'?
This just sounds way, way too backward for me, Don, especially coming from you.
You know how many times these alleged silly women are pushing away relentlessly pushy, yet fertile males? I'm not gonna even cover the fact that these allegedly silly women actually have *hormones* too - just like those relentlessly pushy, yet fertile males.
Wherein lies the responsibility of the fertile male in all of this hubbub? If an accident occurs, he doesn't even have to go through the pregnancy and childbirth. I'd also like to see him take FULL responsibility for the babe in arms if the allegedly silly woman doesn't want the child.
I totally agree with you, Wiggy, that the silly male shares responsibility. I just didn't mention him because his opinion is never given weight in the abortion decision. Not that it should be, but that ultimately goes to the woman pregnant. As for "silly thing", I was being silly, thing. Humorous, I hoped, employing levity in my silly way. As for those pushy rutting males, I'm presuming ideal cases where the ONLY decision at play is the woman's to have sex with him. If he's too pushy she still decides, unless it's rape, in which case my statement doesn't apply. All that said, I'm still trying to find my non-religious life and liberty loving stance, and Zen says that's impossible, but I'm not convinced.
You might try thinking about why I think it's impossible to come to a rational antichoice stance. Of course, thinking about it will lead you to agree. It's inevitable. You must surrender rationality (and sound a bit silly, as does the Atheist) or the stance, and plunge headfirst into the grey area the likes of me inhabits.
I don't know how the Atheist sounds silly. His writing could be improved. Agreed if you mean he has drawn a line in the sand and simply won't cross it. But the way we love is the same. Love is not rational because it often calls for self-sacrifice. Yet we do it.
Post a Comment