Human Nature: The Pro-Life Case for Contraception
There are other steps that both parties ought to be able to agree on that could help reduce the number of abortions in this country. I'm not suggesting federal programs for all of these, but even at the local level:
-- Better provisions for maternity/paternity leave.
-- Better childcare options.
-- Less stigma to single/unwed parents.
-- Better sex education, and better recognition of the fact that young people, in particular, are sexual beings. Telling them not to do it ain't enough.
And so forth. It seems like a lot of people are far more interested in yelling back and forth at each other about first principles.
I'm not sure the choice is quite so stark as Saletan implies at the end of the article. It seems to me there could be all sorts of morally justifiable arguments for thinking that certain circumstances for abortion/forms of birth control are preferable to others, and thus to have complicated reactions to various policy issues.
[Supposedly this article is also in the Outlook Section of the Post. I didn't see it, but I did find a good piece on torture. That's something else I'd think we could work together to reduce.]
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The problem, as I see it, with the idea of compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice factions is that in order to understand the arguments, you have to understand the driving philosophy behind them.
The pro-choice side may be summed up with "none of your damn business what I do with my body" while the pro-life side may be summed up with "every sperm is sacred".
The argument isn't, nor has it ever been about the act of abortion itself, but a wide range of lifestyle choices toward a specific social end. If it were true that it was about abortion, one could make the argument that one can be pro-life and still have no moral qualms about extramarital sex, single parenthood, or contraception, all at the same time.
There is certainly nothing about such a position that is contradictory: have all the sex you want, but if you get pregnant or make someone pregnant, you have no choice how to proceed.
But please point out a real-life example of such a person... I'm having trouble, myself.
The pro-life stance is about adopting, through the force of law, a moralistic regimentation of lifestyle where such decisions such as whether or not to participate in sex for its own sake, rather than as a procreative act, is no longer of issue.
You suggest:
Better provisions for maternity/paternity leave and better childcare options
On its face, this is good, but the lifestyle we're talking about is rooted in archaic conservatism, which seems to suggest that these things would not be necessary if the woman would just stay home.
Less stigma to single/unwed parents.
A similar argument, sex is for making babies and only when sanctified by religion through (ostensibly) the sacrament of matrimony. Single/unwed parents, lest they be widows/widowers, are, in this moralistic view, deserving of more stigma, not less.
Better sex education, and better recognition of the fact that young people, in particular, are sexual beings. Telling them not to do it ain't enough.
Again, in the viewpoint being espoused in general by the pro-life stance, no amount of sex outside of wedlock is tolerable, therefore, any stance but telling them not to do it and stigmatizing them if they do is the only real option available.
Contraception, then, falls under the same blade of admonition: "You shouldn't be having sex without an intent to have children inside a marriage, and never for any reason outside, therefore, contraception, abortion, and an informative sex education are neither proper or necessary."
The pro-life stance is nothing if not the sounding board for an overarching social order, not just a statement of morality over a single issue.
"You want to have sex? Then you will do so without contraception. If you get VD, it's because you are wicked and are deserving of no sympathy. That is a scarlet letter indicating an impious soul. If you get pregnant or make someone pregnant, you can forget about that future you had planned, because you're going straight to mother/fatherhood. Your life will be hard and you deserve it. All because you didn't listen and you make Jesus cry."
Compromise. Meh. If moralists were interested in compromise, we'd have to redefine our terms. The goal of the pro-life movement is simply to make sex so chancy, so dangerous, so life changing, and so rife with taboo such that people will not indulge in it except in the most sanctified of circumstances and for one ostensible purpose.
Sorry for the demagoguery, but if I could find one pro-life argument that was sensible, motivated from real concerns other than personal moralism, and didn't attempt to impose, through the force of law, the religious views of one group upon another, I'd be a little kinder.
one could make the argument that one can be pro-life and still have no moral qualms about extramarital sex, single parenthood, or contraception, all at the same time.
There is certainly nothing about such a position that is contradictory: have all the sex you want, but if you get pregnant or make someone pregnant, you have no choice how to proceed.
But please point out a real-life example of such a person... I'm having trouble, myself.
I'm one.
Now, I'm not going to grant moral approval to adultery, extramarital sex, and contraception, but I'm not going to try to criminalize it, either.
The goal of the pro-life movement is simply to make sex so chancy, so dangerous, so life changing, and so rife with taboo such that people will not indulge in it except in the most sanctified of circumstances and for one ostensible purpose.
Sex is life-changing, and we construct abortion and contraception to mostly unsuccessfully pretend it is not so.
I remember the debates after Dale Earnhardt's death? Did he die because the car was faulty? his brace? his helmet?
No, he died because he hit a wall at 200 MPH. That's dangerous to do, regardless of how much safety equipment we put in there.
Sex is life-changing and dangerous. And throwing condoms and pills at kids isn't going to change that.
Sex is life-changing and dangerous. And throwing condoms and pills at kids isn't going to change that.
So John, you're arguing that the use of contraception and appropriate protection, along with a real (non-abstinence, informationally based) sex education doesn't reduce the danger to manageable levels? There is a far cry difference from doing something stupidly dangerous, like going 200 MPH in a big metal box on wheels in a circle with 50 others doing likewise, and something as manageably dangerous as following your sex drive.
As far as life-changing, it need not be so fatalist, as it is currently viewed. The pro-life stance adds a punitive cultural component to something which is otherwise a practical matter. This is a cultural choice to make, and the pro-life stance is notoriously culturally biased against "non-traditional" human interaction and situations.
Besides, John. I categorically reject any cultural agenda that uses fear and the promotion of ignorance to keep people in line and coerce desired behaviors. Sounds vaguely fascist to me.
August, I truly wish I could believe in the idea of a whole reframe of the debate to manageable levels.
Post a Comment