Abortion in South Dakota : the "pro-lifers"
There are a lot of euphemisms for killing.
If pet dogs get cancer, they do not get killed, they are “put down”. Soldiers who go off to war do not get killed, they “lay down their life.” Death row criminals do not get killed, they are “executed”. A young foetus who starts growing at an inconvenient time does not get killed. He gets “to choose”. He sits down with his parents and the doctor. His mother explains that she is only seventeen, that it was a dreadful accident, and that she was not using any contraception. Father, who is sixteen, was so drunk at the time that it is amazing that conception took place at all. The foetus is a decent sort, understands the power of the mother’s arguments, and his parent’s youth, and exercises his right to choose to be aborted.
Dr Crippen hates linguistic imprecision. He hates hypocrisy and he hates weasel words. Those who campaign against abortion do so from a position of honesty when they describe themselves as “pro-life”. They may be idealists. They may be in a minority. But they occupy the moral and linguistic high ground.
Those in favour of abortion seem unable to get the words out. They choose instead to use a euphemism. A euphemism that may be well-meaning, a euphemism that is undoubtedly, in common parlance “right-on”, but a euphemism that is nonetheless fraudulent. They style themselves as “pro-choice.”
We do not describe those in favour of the death penalty as being “pro-choice”. We may have some sympathy with women who kill abusive husbands but we do not describe them as being “pro-choice.” We prosecute them.
Why is it different for a foetus?
Dr Crippen has written about this before and returns to it now because, once again, it is in the news in America.
Why are there so many vehemently held disparate views in this extraordinary country? The home of born-again evangelical Christianity. Three thousand five hundred prisoners on Death Row. A strong “pro-life” lobby. The highest gun-related crime rates in the world and the NRA. What a perplexing mixture.
We do not hear much about the state of South Dakota, but we are about to. For at this very moment, their state legislature is passing what will become the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the whole of the United States.
This bill encompasses the following:
Compare this with the current law in England. Abortion is available when two independent doctors certify that one of the following conditions applies:
But very quickly, as the lawyers predicted, abortion became routine. The forms are now signed with no thought at all. It is statistically safer to have an early abortion than it is to have a baby.
Although abortion is legal in the UK up to 24 weeks, over 80% take place before 12 weeks. Many doctors will not agree to sanction late abortions. Nonetheless, we now have abortion on demand.
Dr Crippen hates abortions but, like many of his colleagues, he feels that up to a time limit of ten to twelve weeks it may be the lesser of two evils. But he is not going to attempt to lessen his discomfiture by cloaking it in a euphemism. It may be easier on the conscience to say “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion” but Dr Crippen is not going to do that.
This is nothing to do with being “pro-choice”. This is to do with sanctioning abortions.
It raises profound moral issues. In particular it raises the philosophical concept of the "moral absolute". If we postulate the moral absolute that we should never take life, and there are some who would take that stance, then morally it is straightforward. No capital punishment. No abortion. No war.
For Dr Crippen though there is no such thing as a moral absolute in this or in any other context. He would fight in defence of his family. He would have fought Hitler. He would have fought to prevent the Holocaust.
So now we derogate from the moral absolute. We are prepared to take life in certain circumstances. If we accept that we can thus compartmentalise – and you may not - we must also accept that, for each of us, the compartments will be different.
Within our personal compartments, our own beliefs are a matter of faith, rather like a religious faith. As such they are not susceptible to change by argument, however temperate and rational that argument may be. Dr Crippen was educated by the Quakers. Most of them would not have fought in a war, even to prevent the Holocaust. Their pacifist belief was an innate part of their being. It was neither productive nor appropriate to try to talk them out of it.
There is a lunatic fringe of the “pro-life” campaign. I condemn those people in the USA who, rather like the Animal Liberation movement in the UK, try to bomb others out of their views. But there is also a much larger group of rational, tolerant and sensible “pro-lifers” who will actively support the South Dakota legislation. Read their views here.
I would not insult these people by trying to argue them out of their views, any more than I would try to talk someone out of their belief in God. It would be unproductive and, worse, it would be impertinent.
Roe v Wade is once again headline news in the USA. The judgments in the case, which I have just read, are long and complex. The best and most succinct and most temperate description of Roe v Wade that Dr Crippen has read, with a brief discussion of both sides of the arguments that surround it, can be found here.
Why can Dr Crippen tolerate early abortions when he cannot tolerate the death penalty? I am not sure. It may be because I have no religious beliefs, because I am an atheist. I do not belief in souls. I do not believe that a foetus of twelve weeks gestation or less has any consciousness, has any sense of “being”. Does that mitigate the moral turpitude of abortion? It does for me. It may not for you. But note I use the word mitigate, not excuse.
Full details of the legislation that may be passed in South Dakota can be read here. I hope it is not passed. I fear it will be, and that it will be the first of many such Acts, gradually chipping away at the freedom provided by Roe v Wade. If legislation like this does pass, it may please the moral minority, but it will also be a charter for the back street abortionist. The wealthier middle class women will go out of state or abroad. That option will not be available for the poor. It was always thus.
I believe that the most helpful way forward is for the moderates on both sides of the debate to explore common ground.
We can all surely agree to try to reduce the abortion rate. And the best way to do that is to improve education about sex and contraception and to make such education a compulsory part of the school curriculum from an early age. The evidence from Holland, where the abortion rate is lower than in the UK and far lower than in the USA, supports this approach. For an explanation of why the demand for abortion is so high in the USA look no further than here in Blount County, Tenmessee.
It seems that in the USA many of the vehement “pro-lifers” are also vehemently against the provision of sex education and contraception for the young.
Strange.
"Pro-lifers" demonstrationIf pet dogs get cancer, they do not get killed, they are “put down”. Soldiers who go off to war do not get killed, they “lay down their life.” Death row criminals do not get killed, they are “executed”. A young foetus who starts growing at an inconvenient time does not get killed. He gets “to choose”. He sits down with his parents and the doctor. His mother explains that she is only seventeen, that it was a dreadful accident, and that she was not using any contraception. Father, who is sixteen, was so drunk at the time that it is amazing that conception took place at all. The foetus is a decent sort, understands the power of the mother’s arguments, and his parent’s youth, and exercises his right to choose to be aborted.
Dr Crippen hates linguistic imprecision. He hates hypocrisy and he hates weasel words. Those who campaign against abortion do so from a position of honesty when they describe themselves as “pro-life”. They may be idealists. They may be in a minority. But they occupy the moral and linguistic high ground.
Those in favour of abortion seem unable to get the words out. They choose instead to use a euphemism. A euphemism that may be well-meaning, a euphemism that is undoubtedly, in common parlance “right-on”, but a euphemism that is nonetheless fraudulent. They style themselves as “pro-choice.”
We do not describe those in favour of the death penalty as being “pro-choice”. We may have some sympathy with women who kill abusive husbands but we do not describe them as being “pro-choice.” We prosecute them.
Why is it different for a foetus?
Dr Crippen has written about this before and returns to it now because, once again, it is in the news in America.
Why are there so many vehemently held disparate views in this extraordinary country? The home of born-again evangelical Christianity. Three thousand five hundred prisoners on Death Row. A strong “pro-life” lobby. The highest gun-related crime rates in the world and the NRA. What a perplexing mixture.
We do not hear much about the state of South Dakota, but we are about to. For at this very moment, their state legislature is passing what will become the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the whole of the United States.
This bill encompasses the following:
that the State of South Dakota has a compelling and paramount interest in the preservation and protection of all human life and finds that the guarantee of due process of law…applies equally to born and unborn human beings
- that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm
- that abortion procedures impose significant risks to the health and life of the pregnant mother
- that a pregnant mother, together with the unborn human child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life under the South Dakota Bill of Rights
- that no exception shall be made for rape or incest victims.
- that doctors who perform will be charged with a felony.
Compare this with the current law in England. Abortion is available when two independent doctors certify that one of the following conditions applies:
- the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated;
- the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
- the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
- the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman;
- there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped;
But very quickly, as the lawyers predicted, abortion became routine. The forms are now signed with no thought at all. It is statistically safer to have an early abortion than it is to have a baby.
Although abortion is legal in the UK up to 24 weeks, over 80% take place before 12 weeks. Many doctors will not agree to sanction late abortions. Nonetheless, we now have abortion on demand.
Dr Crippen hates abortions but, like many of his colleagues, he feels that up to a time limit of ten to twelve weeks it may be the lesser of two evils. But he is not going to attempt to lessen his discomfiture by cloaking it in a euphemism. It may be easier on the conscience to say “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion” but Dr Crippen is not going to do that.
This is nothing to do with being “pro-choice”. This is to do with sanctioning abortions.
It raises profound moral issues. In particular it raises the philosophical concept of the "moral absolute". If we postulate the moral absolute that we should never take life, and there are some who would take that stance, then morally it is straightforward. No capital punishment. No abortion. No war.
For Dr Crippen though there is no such thing as a moral absolute in this or in any other context. He would fight in defence of his family. He would have fought Hitler. He would have fought to prevent the Holocaust.
So now we derogate from the moral absolute. We are prepared to take life in certain circumstances. If we accept that we can thus compartmentalise – and you may not - we must also accept that, for each of us, the compartments will be different.
Within our personal compartments, our own beliefs are a matter of faith, rather like a religious faith. As such they are not susceptible to change by argument, however temperate and rational that argument may be. Dr Crippen was educated by the Quakers. Most of them would not have fought in a war, even to prevent the Holocaust. Their pacifist belief was an innate part of their being. It was neither productive nor appropriate to try to talk them out of it.
There is a lunatic fringe of the “pro-life” campaign. I condemn those people in the USA who, rather like the Animal Liberation movement in the UK, try to bomb others out of their views. But there is also a much larger group of rational, tolerant and sensible “pro-lifers” who will actively support the South Dakota legislation. Read their views here.
I would not insult these people by trying to argue them out of their views, any more than I would try to talk someone out of their belief in God. It would be unproductive and, worse, it would be impertinent.
Roe v Wade is once again headline news in the USA. The judgments in the case, which I have just read, are long and complex. The best and most succinct and most temperate description of Roe v Wade that Dr Crippen has read, with a brief discussion of both sides of the arguments that surround it, can be found here.
Why can Dr Crippen tolerate early abortions when he cannot tolerate the death penalty? I am not sure. It may be because I have no religious beliefs, because I am an atheist. I do not belief in souls. I do not believe that a foetus of twelve weeks gestation or less has any consciousness, has any sense of “being”. Does that mitigate the moral turpitude of abortion? It does for me. It may not for you. But note I use the word mitigate, not excuse.
Full details of the legislation that may be passed in South Dakota can be read here. I hope it is not passed. I fear it will be, and that it will be the first of many such Acts, gradually chipping away at the freedom provided by Roe v Wade. If legislation like this does pass, it may please the moral minority, but it will also be a charter for the back street abortionist. The wealthier middle class women will go out of state or abroad. That option will not be available for the poor. It was always thus.
I believe that the most helpful way forward is for the moderates on both sides of the debate to explore common ground.
We can all surely agree to try to reduce the abortion rate. And the best way to do that is to improve education about sex and contraception and to make such education a compulsory part of the school curriculum from an early age. The evidence from Holland, where the abortion rate is lower than in the UK and far lower than in the USA, supports this approach. For an explanation of why the demand for abortion is so high in the USA look no further than here in Blount County, Tenmessee.
It seems that in the USA many of the vehement “pro-lifers” are also vehemently against the provision of sex education and contraception for the young.
Strange.
2 Comments:
Use Do Follow Links Only
South Dakota Drug Treatment
South Dakota Drug Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------
arvind
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home