%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |
Many perspectives. Some insightful, most, not so much. It is the individual to decide. |
The Abortion Paradox - Segment III ~ Conventional Wisdom ~ ****************************** Actually, I don’t really even want to talk about the concept of abortion, per se, but rather, the underlying morality that pervades our society and defines most of our ideologies, our philosophies (almost the same thing) and our politics, again, closely related. I find it incomprehensible that it is considered a reasonable and legitimate topic of conversation and rational argument to debate the extinction of another human being so callously, with a total disregard as to the way we treat the concept of life itself. It comes across as surreal and self-destructive, and it reflects badly on the individuals involved as well as the emotional and intellectual well-being of our entire species. It is a horrible perspective of what morality and ethical behaviour represents to some, when we simultaneously talk of justice, peace, consideration of the most vulnerable among us, the treatment of prisoners and those mired in our healthcare system, and all the benefits and opportunities that are somehow lost to so many, while others enjoy and gain advantage because of what, privilege? How can we debate such things as these, and then turn around and demand the authority and right to exterminate another human being for what seems to constitute nothing more than a matter of convenience, discomfort and possibly guilt? Something simply does not make sense in the argument, and I have been hopelessly searching for a definitive answer, and have yet to find one. From my perspective, the issues are minimal and quite specific, primarily being if anyone, for any reason, has the ability and ‘autonomous’ right to take a life, ultimately any life, and extinguish it from existence, based on a personal and emotional basis. I understand the issue of the health of the mother, and I cannot deny that this is a reasonable claim, but we quickly devolve into a morass of undefinable reasons, other than the right to one’s own life and existence itself. It reeks of an irrational self-interest, the epitome of what can be called selfish, in the most horrible definition imaginable. I find it tragic, and yet somewhat philosophically amusing (not sure if that is the right word) to see those same individuals that condemn and vilify Ayn Rand and objectivism as ‘selfish’, but who are capable of embracing a concept such as abortion on demand, for any reason, and at any time, with the only ‘choice’ being that demonstrated by the host mother. No one else is involved in the decision-making process. Not the father, not the ‘grand-parents’, especially not the politicians and even the everyday citizens of the society in which the ‘autonomous’ individuals reside. The superficial mention of the ‘doctor’ being a part of the decision is laughable, since, if they do not agree, they are replaced by someone else, until the ultimate desires of the individual are met. Do we even have a consistent relationship with our doctors anymore? By design, we are being ‘weaned’ from the concept, instead accepting whoever is available when we need professional help, one doctor being as good as any other. I vehemently disagree, and yet, find it impossible to see ‘my own' doctor without an interminable wait between ‘visits’ . I think it important to make it quite clear that everything that is talked about in this essay will be in the context of the objectivist paradigm, for a number of reasons. Primarily, it is a result of the oppressive criticisms that I have been watching over the last fifty years as they pertain to Ayn Rand and objectivism. Not unlike the conversation on abortion, the specifics of these criticisms have been difficult to define and clarify. I have set out upon a course that wishes to put most issues in the framework of the social argument ‘against’ Rand and objectivism, for personal reasons. I wish to present a clarification of my own perspective in relation to that controversial onslaught of inuendo and a highly biased perspective. I thought it was appropriate to furnish a legitimate refutation of the commentary leveled against objectivism. For the most part, the bulk of the oppositional observations come across as fairly ignorant and highly prejudicial. I would like to see if some form of argument or response can be directed towards the narrative, at the very least, so as to allow those that desire to learn more about Rand and objectivism the freedom to hear what I deem to be more legitimate and representative of what was actually said or meant over the years. To that end, I hope to incorporate not just my interpretations but specifically her (Rand’s) own words, where possible, to present a more valuable and verifiable version of what she produced over a well-defined time frame, and with a specificity that is rarely, if ever, acknowledge or referenced. Even when it is given exposure, it is done out of context and parsed in such a way, that her intent and specificity is lost in translation due to a lack of comprehension. Her work loses the strength and passion when it is not experienced in its totality. And, of course, in the reality that exists today in our politics and our morality, the less said is better, so then interpretation and bias controls the dialogue, and everything seems to lose value and substance, and they can then proclaim victory, all without the need to actually say anything at all. This needs to stop, for the sake of clarity and legitimacy, and in my own inimitable way, I will attempt to do so. In any case, we are here to have a conversation about the intrinsically important concept of abortion. I passionately believe that it is a fundamental component of our social inability to accept authority, the lack of respect for any form of life on the planet, the loss of morality and ethics across the board, and the need for anything but what may just be able to fix the insurmountable tsunami of problems and challenges that we experience today. I find that they are all directly relatable to the concerns and ramifications of our misplaced focus on the individual (ironic as it may seem) and the ability and opportunity for one single individual to have the power to coerce the demise of another human being for no reason except for the matter of inconvenience, discomfort or guilt. We find ourselves at the beginning of a long and arduous journey into a concept that has provided more than its share of conflict over the last 50 years (at least from the event known as Roe vs. Wade). We need to look at a number of issues before we get down to the actual process of human development to look at the reality of these questions concerned with life and our own humanity that lay before us. This is not an issue that I consider political or even ideological, but is more about personal and emotional aspects of the same argument. It is a matter of deep philosophical intent and motivation. We need to look at the issues dispassionately and with specificity and detail to ever hope to get at the fundamental underlying controversy. It is imperative that we discover the ramifications and consequences of these disturbing and significant actions taken in the name of personal freedom. Even though they contradict the essence of freedom and the concept of the ‘personal’ with the actions themselves. I won’t say that these issues are obvious and easy by any means, but they are not as complicated as many would have you believe as well. We need to determine, without ambiguity, an appropriate set of thought and action that can resolve the conflict, and this will not be accomplished through emotion and confrontation, but will happen only through an open discussion based on respect, consideration for ‘all’ others, and an intent to do the right thing. That is the objective, is it not, to do the right thing? There needs to be more insight and comprehension of what it means to make moral and ethical interpretations of what is under consideration. It is a matter of character and integrity, and we have to identify and analyze exactly what these concepts mean. This should not be a matter of selfish self-indulgence and regret, but an affirmation of an appropriate and legitimate action taken through reasonable and substantive thought and consideration. The conversation can never be dismissed or rejected outright because of peripheral issues. The necessity exists that we have a consistent and continuous narrative that continues even when it is difficult to do so. There needs to be a real intent to persuade through valid arguments and legitimate evidence and information to create and develop valid arguments. This is not a game, and it is not meant to be determined by opinion and rhetoric. Nothing can be gained by mindless argument and emotional outbursts. We need to think, to deeply consider, to analyze the data offered, and to make decisions and come to conclusions that give some light to the discussion taking place. I hope that this is possible. It is actually a rare thing, and that is disappointing and discouraging. It is certainly a challenge, but the down side is that nothing gets resolved, individuals only get frustrated and angry, and nothing is accomplished besides escalating a contentious discussion into inappropriate behaviour and speech. Not what I am looking for, and not what I hope to bring to the table. Everything I offer is but the perspective of a single individual who is desperately trying to find simple answers to complicated questions. Emotion is without a doubt a part of the conversation, and yet it is an obstacle to understanding and cooperation between individuals. The need for an open and respectful discussion has never been more important than it is today. Perhaps we need to listen more than talk, and to think more than argue. Insight and understanding are integral to the objective. So too empathy and understanding. I don’t even know if that is possible any more. ************************************** Roe vs. Wade ********************** This seems like a good place to start, since it has been the focus of the argument now for half a century, when it should never have taken place to begin with. I know that those that agree with the original findings in Roe will find no reason to rescind or overturn the decision, but the Supreme Court had no real jurisdiction or authority to rule in such a fashion to begin with. They ‘rightly’ ruled that the government had no right to limit abortion, and voted 7-2 against the Texas law under consideration, but that was not an absolute. That should have been the end of it, and Congress and the state legislatures should have focused on fixing the issues once and for all, but they (SCOTUS) insinuated their ‘opinion’ into the argument and brought in concepts that did not, and still do not, exist within the strict letter of the law in the Constitution itself. It was always meant to be a matter for the legislatures, both state and federal, to consider and to fashion legal precedence that would exist well into the future. Not the Supreme Court. They started interpreting and creating precedence without the legality of legislation. The jump to some right to privacy was neither their authority nor their mandate. It should have been returned to the legislatures for consideration and the creation of legislative bills as to these other concepts. It was not for the Court to decide. If they had done so, perhaps we would have significant and legitimate legal precedence today, instead of the incessant conflict that has resulted from illegitimate and ‘wrongly’ decided activity. This is fundamentally what all ‘law’ is meant to do, reflect the will of the people, for good or bad. The Court gives a stamp of approval, based solely on the Constitution itself, or it instructs our representatives on the objectives they need to consider going forward. Not create law, but affirm or reject what has already been voted upon. Nothing else. At least that is my interpretation of the division of powers as enumerated within the Constitution. The Legislative branch ‘creates’ or ‘makes’ law, the Executive branch enforces law, or is supposed to, with no exceptions, and the Judicial branch interprets the laws passed, but does not rewrite them, but only pronounces judgment on the veracity and legitimacy of said laws. The problem was, and is, that the Supreme Court’s sole focus is, and was supposed to be, if the law was constitutional and valid. If the court decides for the legislation, it is enshrined as law, and as precedent, with standing in the future as a well-founded document. The Court is not supposed to create law or to even improve it, without exception. If it is valid, it is so affirmed, but if not, then it is returned to the appropriate branch of government, the Legislative branch, to be revamped, improved or rewritten, then to be reintroduced and voted on as law, and eventually determined by that same Supreme Court (if necessary) as to the constitutionality and appropriateness of said legislation. They did not do that in 1975, and we are today paying the price for that incompetence. This overturning of Roe vs. Wade was not a negation or a political comment of any kind on the legitimacy of the legislation, it was only finally doing what should have been done in response to the initial legislation, which was something that never should have come to pass to begin with. There is argument on all of this, but the founding fathers, I believe, were quite specific about the balance of power within the Court, and if this were not true, the courts would be creating and changing laws on a daily basis, and that would beg the question of why do we even need the Congress at all if not to do the job dictated by our own political reality. The Court overstepped its bounds, and did not have the courage or the ‘cojones’ (sorry ladies) to do the job entrusted to them. Until recently. Nothing has changed, and now the states and the legislatures have the right, the authority and the obligation to revisit and craft and pass new laws that are significant, legitimate and appropriate. If the legislatures, both federal and state, had done their duty back in 1975 this would not even be an issue in todays paradigm. It would have been settled and we could have moved on to other issues, but they didn’t and we have had dissention and distractions for over almost fifty years. One party has used this to its advantage, to the detriment of the country, and to the detriment of all involved, at every level. I will leave it to the reader to determine who that was, and if it was a legitimate action. ************************************** THE AUTONOMY OF THE INDIVIDUAL ************************************************* This idea of autonomy certainly sounds legitimate, at least superficially, if you don’t put too much thought into the fallacies and misinformation that is a part and parcel of the argument. Autonomy means many things to many individuals, but the meaning is quite specific and demands an ability to use reason and objectivity to come to conclusions as to the governance of self. Kant describes it as an objective morality as opposed to a personal desire that could be described as selfishness. I find the perspective highly interesting since this is a fundamental of objectivism, and has been used as the basis for accusations of selfishness on the part of the philosophy itself when it is quite the opposite, since objective morality would be something that is not personal opinion but a more comprehensive determination by society. A consensus, if you will. But the autonomy as dictated by those in favor of abortion is a very personal and intimate decision made without any desire for outside influence or authority being involved. Which is fascinating since the original determinations concerning Roe vs. Wade back in 1975, made by the Supreme Court, was an ‘instrument’ of government that rejected an abortion law in Texas. Those that favor abortion were fine with the government intruding in their personal lives when it was a desirable resolution, but they reject government in any other circumstance. Not reasonable, and not legitimate. It is anarchistic in nature (I believe that I mentioned this earlier) and inarguably selfish to a large degree. I find that a significant conflict exists when the expectation of autonomy for the individual comes at the expense (the termination) of the other individual in the scenario, which would be the fetus. We will talk more about this later. Autonomy not only means the ability for the individual to make their own decisions, determined by their own abilities from a moral and ethical point of view. The problem I find with this is that nothing is ever mentioned about the responsibilities and obligations that are inherent with the right or privilege of this autonomy. Which inevitably gives the authority to end the existence of another human being to a single individual, with a high conflict of interest in the outcome. There can be no legitimacy when the resolution is emotionally based with a strongly selfish component and motivation. I have always thought that autonomy demanded certain commitment and accountability from the individual exhibiting said autonomy. A certain amount of ability to comprehend the situation and make valid and legitimate decisions in relation to the circumstances. I believe it would be taking ‘ownership’ of the events in today’s contemporary vernacular. It all has to be done within the context of the social environment we live in, which demands that the government, as well as other individuals who may be impacted by said behaviour, are represented and protected from harm. Otherwise, it remains nothing but anarchistic and irrational selfishness. The question demands to be asked (and it is never asked or answered) where that responsibility was during all the events leading up to the eventual act that resulted in this need to terminate an innocent and vulnerable individual to begin with. This is a human being that we are talking about. What about the decisions made as to where to go and when, the choices made as to who they would engage with, and the actions taken and the circumstances that could have prevented this unwanted and inconvenient situation which has resulted in the feeling (not a necessity) to remove this developing individual from existence? I know people make mistakes, but does not autonomy infer a ‘greater’ level of culpability for our own actions? It seems that all the mistakes made leading up to the unwanted consequences of said actions (the unwanted pregnancy) are to be dismissed as unimportant. Is that realistic or legitimate in any real sense? The ramifications of the behaviour is evident especially since they resulted in something less than a responsible or appropriate aftermath. I am all for this anarchistic tendency (autonomy) that we all wish for ourselves but where is the acceptance for actions taken, for mistakes made? Is the only real alternative to dispose of the evidence of our mistakes, or can we come up with some other appropriate options? It doesn’t look like that is a part of the sexual paradigm that our social environment is willing to entertain. I know that this behaviour has been around for centuries, but when are we actually going to evolve into something more mature and enlightened? This is not something that happens during the blue moon, but is something that happens every minute of every day on this planet. I am uncomfortable with bringing up factual evidence, but according to the WHO (World Health Organization) and the UN (United Nations), the incidence of abortion world-wide is over fifty million ‘performed’ abortions each and every year. That is a lot of mistakes that demand autonomy. All of the deaths on the planet from natural death, catastrophes, war and criminality is only slightly higher on a yearly basis, in the neighborhood of 56 million. But that is not even the worst of the scenario. I find it impossible to find the information that I would like, but the ease and ability to find abortifacients in todays reality is overwhelming. Many if not most women are taking them on a daily basis and I find it hard to believe that this does not at least double the number already mentioned. Add to that the normal incidence of natural reasons for abortion and the total number must be at least 150 million lost souls every year to abortion and possibly much more. This is not preventing conception, but occurs only after the process of human development has begun. This is a number that is difficult to process. And yet nothing is done to prevent this reality, and it is not mentioned in any conversation I have ever experienced or seen on the internet, through the social media, broadcast media or print of any kind. Does anyone think this is a responsible resolution to the question of abortion, just give these individuals complete autonomy over the problem, and let them exterminate other human beings on a whim? It’s like allowing a child to determine their own bedtime, what they will eat for supper, or how much candy they can consume. It stretches the imagination. It is incomprehensible. ************************************** DEATH ************** Please try to understand. I am concerned with the number of human beings populating the planet as it is, somewhere near 8 billion souls, and if abortion was not a reality, it could easily be 15 or 20 billion. Not good for the planet, and not good for those trying to live in so many places that cannot support the numbers that already exist. I don’t argue the numbers but question the legitimacy of allowing such a waste of humanity to be ignored and dismissed as something that is not even alive, or human. I find it impossible to ignore the level of psychopathy in our societies around the world. People who are numb to the reality of death, imprisonment, authority and even simple common decency. I cannot dismiss at least the possibility that our disdain for the living, on so many levels, is not a significant aspect in the creation and development of these damaged individuals, and the numbers seem to grow exponentially with each passing year. When does it stop? Especially when no one seems to even acknowledge that the problem exists. It does not bode well for the future. There is no reasonable argument for this belief that the unborn have no life and no humanity. When one investigates and understands the process that creates human life in our species, it is virtually impossible to reject the idea that both life and humanity are intrinsic in the zygote from the moment of conception, through the developmental stages leading up to the actual birth and the continuation of growth and maturation though the next hundred years. It is truly not a matter of ‘if’ the fetus is human or alive, because everything you may learn about the inevitability of evolution is self-evident at every stage. The ability for the cells to divide and multiply can only be explained by the concept of life. Where else do cells do this and are not considered living? It is human due to the only way we can determine and define humanity, by the number of chromosomes that exists within only a human being. 23 sets of these chromosomes, comprised of over 3 billion base pairs that exist in each and every cell in the body, no matter how large or small. Chimpanzees and gorillas also have 23 sets of these chromosomes, and we share 98% of our DNA with them, but that 2% is significant in relation to the evolution between us. Thus all begins at conception only. Not before and not after. It is conception that defines the singular event that distinguishes the beginning of the miracle of human life, and it is abortion that terminates that miracle. It is not a matter of choice or opinion. It is etched in stone, as it were. It is irrefutable and inevitable what happens after conception. To think otherwise is to abdicate one’s reason and logic, and one’s own humanity. This does not mean you cannot end the existence of another human being, only that you should own the decision to do so, just like everything else we do in life. The termination of life is a personal ‘choice’, for want of a better term. It is morality and ethics that direct our thoughts and our actions. If not, then that seems to me to be a denial of our species, our self, of reality, and of existence. It is indeed the most selfish act an individual can perform. I am not here to talk of laws and politics because I have no control over what people do, but I do have the ability and the obligation and responsibility to make whatever rational argument I can to clarify what I deem to be an appropriate and legitimate set of philosophical and reasoned actions. If society wishes to allow an individual to terminate the existence of another, I am powerless to prevent it, but that does not mean it is a valid decision. I cannot in good conscious simply condone and allow it by my silence. I assume that I still have the right to the nebulous freedom of speech that so many talk about, but don’t really believe in. My focus is on the philosophical and practical consequences of behaviour that harms another human being, for whatever reason, and it seems quite obvious to me that this is what happens in the commission of an abortion. I have mentioned objectivism in passing, and one of the fundamental tenets of the philosophy is that no harm should come to another person from my actions on any social level, and this includes actions within the framework of capitalism. If this is so, then I have no recourse but to reject the harming of another human being through the action of abortion. Can we not come up with alternatives to such an act? Is it not our duty, to not just protect the animals that co-exist with us on this planet but all of humankind as well? I think it prudent to prevent the occasion of conception if it is not a reasonable and logical extension of the individuals involved in the activities leading up to the conception of another member of our species. While I accept and condone the necessity to take the life of those that simply refuse to live together in peace with others in very specific circumstances, the wanton and unnecessary destruction of life is reprehensible and irrefutably wrong. It should not be a matter of inconvenience or regret, and should certainly not be one of emotional dysfunction. ************************************** LIFE ************ I have always thought that mankind was of like mind to have some level of reverence of respect and compassion for life in general, and empathy and a willingness to help others, whether another individual or any number of living creatures that inhabit this planet with us. The Bible has many lessons that possess value and substance for us, and it is accepted that it was in Genesis that mankind was tasked with taking care of the earth in a responsible, sympathetic and loving way. Whatever one’s religious beliefs, if life is not of value, I find it hard to understand what can be. I am not Christian, although I was brought up in a Catholic environment. I like to think of myself as spiritual, but more as an independent than as a member of any group, but I find it hard to find something more basic and profound than the sentiment illustrated in Genesis. Sometimes, even the Christian god gets it right. The point being, we have an intrinsic ‘choice’ in our thoughts and our actions. We can treat others with disdain and contempt, or we can deal with them with respect and civility. With compassion and empathy. With love and affection. Or we can treat them as something beneath our concern, less than valuable, less than human. Our philosophy, our morality, our integrity, these things define who and what we are, and we exhibit these attributes through our thoughts, but more visibly and distinctly through our actions and our personal philosophy and morality. I ‘choose’ to treat life with respect when applicable, and with compassion and empathy when the need and opportunity arises. I am not perfect, and I make mistakes, but my intent and my motivation is to not harm another, and to not steal their stuff. While I am not infallible, I am aware of my weaknesses as well as my strengths, and my responsibility to continue to work on achieving a better ‘me’ in the future, and a better community and society moving forward. If we all felt this way, would the world not be a different place, a better place? I believe it would be, and that is my quest, my desire, my objective. Is this a problem for you? It is not for me. It is a rational and reasonable expectation and responsibility I place upon myself. I can only hope that I am worthy, some day, of being recognized as a caring and responsible individual.
|
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
