The matter of abortion has always been a topic of contention. Throughout the ages it has been brought up – accepted – and then rejected. Each period brought about a resurgence of either one or the other sphere of thought, it was either deemed to be a Godless act or a divine right of women to “do as they please with their bodies”. In the past there was a constant fixture in this debate, and that is religion. This was to say, it was primarily a question addressed by means of theological disputation. However, it is now the subject of philosophy. That's not to say that it never had an element of philosophical contemplation to it, that of course it had, at least in so far as discussions around the subject always considered it either a good or a bad action as well as its moral (and theological) implications, but the modern era reached a certain ethic behind the concept of abortion which is in itself a unique thing. Furthermore since the advance of science and the subsequent insignificance of religion, science itself now plays a role in the question of Abortion. At least as far as trying to justify abortion by means of science is concerned.
It was argued by the theologians of the past that such an act is an affront to God, that taking what was deemed a gift from divine Providence amounted to a sin, a sin which man cannot allow himself to partake in. That each life first conceived is endowed with a soul, and that the termination of this soul is an act against the wishes of the Higher power. Now granted, it isn't what one would today consider a reasonable defense for denying a certain action, considering how our knowledge evolved throughout the years, and the failure of the Church to in turn adapt to the arguments presented against them. But it was effective at least, in ensuring that the continuation of the folk, remained in tact and as nature dictates. For those who do not procreate, or fail to provide an ample quantity of future generations to increase positive adaptability, cease to live at all, they become extinct, mere remnants of the past, examples of failures.
In contrast to Pro-Life arguments which today is (or rather is believed to be) soundly refuted by science. It is believed among certain philosophical circles that a fetus “is not yet a person/human being and as such they do not yet have a substantial right to life” [1] On the face of it, this might seem reasonable, but the absurdity of this statement becomes ever more apparent when we dissect it and ask of it some pressing questions. At what point do we consider something to have a substantial right to life? The period described by science as the term where a fetus can be considered as “not having a right to life”, isn't one born from fact but is rather a subjective value judgment born from the common belief that we must accommodate our world view with that of the wish and desires of the current establishment and not, as is usually the case, shape it in accordance with what is positive. It is admitted, that the fetus is indeed a life, and that it does indeed have a genetic system [2] but this according to the subjective analysis of the pro-choicers, doesn't suffice as a reasonable enough argument for constituting it a human being. What is neglected and I suspect deliberately so, is the fact that a present genetic system in and of itself, does in fact make it a human being. What is defined as an individual in biological terms, is unique genes, because what its genetic system is composed of, is those same genes you and I contain in our human body. The period up to its birth is a process of gene selection from an already present human genetic pool. To state that its not a human being because, at that point in time its selection process did not create X amount of limbs or what have you, isn't a reasonable argument to make. For then any human being with a genetic defect is not a human being on the basis that its gene selection process was disturbed and resulted in an error or an omission. For that matter to argue (as they do) that it is not a human being on the basis that its not separate and independent of its mother, is simply not a reasonable argument to make either. Would it be reasonable for us to suggest that once a man loses his independence whether through war injuries or other misfortunes, that we abort him from society for not having that said independence he previously had? Of course, people would be upset at such a suggestion, one could already imagine the cries of condemnation you'll receive for even thinking such a thing. And yet it is dependence that is the determining factor for aborting a life not considered human because of its dependency on others. Are we not all to some extent dependent on others? What sort of imbecilic criteria is this? Who in their right mind would use this as a basis on which to determine life or death? And who, for that matter, would even find this suggestion agreeable?
Ah yes! But feeling!, now there is a popular and frequently used justification for terminating a life, it doesn't feel anything, they say...therefore its not doing actual harm to the fetus, this is of course if we neglect the fact that it is the termination of a life form containing all the genetic composition of a human being and thus doing harm not only to it, by ending its life, but also to the folk. The subjective nature of this statement becomes even more apparent if one takes this argument further to suggest that one could for the same matter then simply shoot a paralyzed individual. No! They would emphatically exclaim, I'm certain, at the mere mention of such a thing, what then makes this so different? Why does the one provoke public indignation while the other doesn't? I am sure there are some who would argue that one lived a life but for the same token we could say that another is denied a chance at resuming life! And for that matter, everything lives a life up to the point it dies, even a fetus lived a life up to the point of its abortion, its an absurdity to argue in these terms, or to apply such an infantile explanation to such a serious issue. Clearly the claim to have “lived” a life isn't an appropriate justification for denying one the chance at resuming its life coming into this world, and becoming a contributor to the folk and fulfilling its part in nature. For that is ultimately what birthing and procreation is intended for, to ensure the survival and continuation of the folk.
Of course we run into a wild fool every now and then who claims as our friend [3] does that : “ it is necessary for the health and survival of the individual, the families and society” that we should allow abortion. Imagine that, what a fine reason to do so isn't it? Not only is abortion done without the individuals life being in danger, contrary to what is suggested there, but it goes completely against the survival of society! Procreation, as already stated, exists to ensure the survival of the organic community, and not as our friend claims, to endanger it. Yes of course we could at this point expect the popular claim that the world is over populated. Which is a popular statement to make during discussions of this nature. It is simply another asinine claim made by the hysterical quacks just itching to get their names etched into history. It's not the world that's over populated, China and India may be, but they don't even begin to make up the vast landmass that is known as earth. Even so, should we consider this a serious statement, there is nothing that prevents man from adapting. Already we have the means with which to do so. In Japan for instance, we see the Asian building upwards to make land available, we see science manipulating and engineering foods. Western man is no exception. We Europeans have the means with which to adapt. Not that we would be pressed to do so anytime soon, considering our spectacularly low birth-rate. But enough about this subject. We must press on and continue our exploration into the question of Abortion.
If, as we have done here, we find these gospels of pro-choice to be lacking, we arrive at the last method of enforcing sympathy for the sake of executing life:
Pro-Choicers claim that “ it is impossible to give equal moral rights to fetuses without denying those same rights to women [4]. While this at first glance may appear to be true, we quickly realise that this statement again, implies that the woman's life is in danger in all cases. I.E. That throughout the first trimester all women who abort do so because their lives are in danger. Since the only right we speak of is the right to life. It's absurd to suggest that this would put the woman's life in jeopardy. Unless of course the “life” spoken of in reference to the woman, isn't the same as that which we speak of in reference to the fetus. But that her “life” being in danger is in fact the selfish belief that a child “ruins lives” and that she will be “enslaved” and “chained down” by this infant. That she...would no longer be able to do as she pleases, but would have responsibilities of her own. Its not far fetched to consider this selfish perspective as the motive for continuously referring to the endangerment of the female's “life”, it is often a popular claim to make in this day and age.[5] That this absurdity is even considered a legitimate argument boggles the mind, and more so demonstrates how poorly society treats this subject matter. Its quite obvious that her life is not over. That society frowns upon pregnancy is not an indication that its a sickness, or an undesired condition, but that society itself is sick and in an undesirable state. There is also one other angle we have to consider and address, and that is the popular appeal to emotion, as it is often the last resort in justifying the murder of ones own:
What if...they ask...”the child is not wanted by the mother? You would subject an innocent child to a life where he is not wanted and is abused?” Not in the least, there are people who can't conceive out of their own, who'd love the opportunity to raise a member of the folk. And should the mother so decide to act a child and flee from her responsibilities. Then it becomes the concern of the State. Who will then take on this responsibility. If for no other reason, than because the child is a member of the organic community, and as such, is a vital part of the survival of this community. It (the State) is bound by the natural instinct to survive, to ensure its safety and well-being. Since the State serves the role of co-ordinating society in a way that will ensure survival and continuance into the future. Naturally we must consider the possibility that the woman was taken against her wishes. But even so, does it justify an abortion? If in a society that takes a pro-life stance, we consider that such cases are exempt from this view, we will undoubtedly have numerous cases where false reports are made in an attempt to do away with the child. Should we decide to make this an exempt case, it will require a far more rigorous investigation, so as to prevent an outright and shameless abuse of the law.
Of course (and this is to move away from our original question) at this point, one could ask “why not just let women have the right to abort if you know they're going to endanger themselves?” and the stories of the alleged “countless” women who put their own lives in danger doing back alley abortions before its legalization would pop up again, in an attempt to make it justifiable. Forgetting all the same that most women opted to give birth and accept responsibility for their actions, the amount of illegal dangerous abortions were minimal in comparison with the 49 million [6] abortions performed as of 1973 in the United States alone.
That aside, returning to our original question: I have spent some time deliberating on whether or not abortion, in the event of rape should be permissible. Should it be that it is not considered exempt from the law, it would perhaps still be the best course of action in certain circumstances. It may well make me appear hypocritical to say so. But the reasons for my stating thus are sound when looked at from the perspective of evolution. Should the fetus be the product of another race then it is mandated by the principle of evolution....that is...discrimination, to secure ones own survival and permitting an abortion. It may seem “evil” to some to state it so bluntly...but nature has no capacity for evil, only that which is right – to secure survival and grant your organic community (racial sub-species) the best advantage possible. Besides, it would be an ironic thing to behold, those who do so for selfish reasons, lecture me on the evils of arguing the very thing they use to get free from responsibility, as a justification for fulfilling natures rule. Can termination be justified in this instance where the perpetrator is in fact European? There were many factors to consider during this deliberation. The fact that the female did not consent to it, her emotional state, the emotional toll the pregnancy may have on her. All of these very reasonable considerations. But one must also consider the innocence of the life inside her. Whether or not it should be punished for the sins of its father. Also, should this be permitted, how many would claim to have been raped, in order to get an infant aborted? Which is of course, always a possibility. One could argue that stricter investigations should solve this problem of false claims. But for the same account one could argue that so would counseling in the proper sense, assist the female throughout her pregnancy. There are reasonable arguments to consider on all sides of the issue. And ideally we would want this to not be an issue at all. Its the responsibility of the state to do all that it can to make it as less of an occurrence as is humanly possible, however, some individuals even on pain of death cannot curtail this animalistic behavior. Unfortunately this scenario, is completely unavoidable.
However, keeping in mind these rare instances under harsher penalty (with the required proper investigation) We cannot find reason to suggest that we ought to set a standard that would in the future, provide an argument in favor of the same indiscriminate exterminations we have seen today. It cannot be considered permissible to continue as we are today or to set grounds that could lead us back to that point, and set our birth rates to a point where it is below that of our death rate (as it is today) ipso facto, endangering the very existence of our folk . And with these considerations all kept in mind, what we can do, is to attempt as best we can, to first and foremost try and save this life, by providing proper counseling and proper support for these few women, who we failed to protect. If, however, she is weak of will and fragile of constitution, we must make exemption, for to lose two lives in the process is not a rational nor a reasonable expectation.
The other special instance, would be in the case of severely malformed infants, there is nothing more cruel in this earth than to prolong and inflict more pain on these people, all for the sake of mere curiosity and some parents even allow this birth for the sake of their own vanity!. Of the countless times, I paged through magazines and found one or other couple, enjoying the publicity they get, and the admiration from others for their “hard life” in rearing these poor souls who's sufferings cannot so much as even be uttered. They fuel their vanity by calling these souls “happy”, “blissful” and what nonsense else, the pain they conceal within their mute bodies, not even remotely fathomable to these imbecilic parents. I am sure this provoked at least a frown to some, its a strange bit of contradiction in modern society, that when one aborts a healthy life it was a “choice” yet should you do so for the reasons stated above...you are a monster.
As far as choice is concerned, women often exclaim its my body its my choice. While one is an individual, one is only ever an individual part of a whole, that whole being the organic community And it is the responsibility of this organic communities Government to guide them into the pathway that evolution dictates: survival, expansion, supremacy. As this is the function of Government, not to turn against its own survival and endanger its peoples future as it has done in the past and is doing today. All for the sake of phantom choices! It is the heir who will take the struggle of the folk forward once more, to ensure survival of the racial community. As far as choices are concerned...one was made knowing full well of the result. All actions have outcomes, we cant terminate every perceived negative consequence in our lives, all simply because we do not like these outcomes or because we are conditioned to be as children, woefully crying at our lot as though some injustice was done to us. Every action will always have a reaction. Once we stop acting like children and accept this, we will no longer frown upon life as though it had given us a raw deal...or foolishly think that its conspiring against us.
Special thanks to Lawrence Good, for his contributions and patience during my assessment of this article.
[1] Warren, Mary Anne, Essay on Abortion, P. 303, The Blackwell Companion To Ethics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1993.
[2] For instance see: “What Is an Abortion and Why Women Must Have the Right to Choose,” by A.S.K., Revolutionary Worker #1265, January 23, 2005.
[3] Warren, Mary Anne, Essay on Abortion, P. 304, The Blackwell Companion To Ethics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1993.
[4] Ibid, P. 311.
[5] For instance see: Lionel, Shriver, 2005, “Why Ruin Your Life”, The Guardian, Friday 18th February, [Online], available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/18/gender.uk1, accessed: August 11th 2010.
[6] The National Right to Life, [Online], available at: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html, accessed: 11th August 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment