Suzanne Fortin, a pro-life activist who blogs at Big Blue Wave, was good enough to provide a critique of my most recent post. I value the interaction very much.
Suzanne, as one would expect, agrees with some of my ideas and disagrees with others. This provides useful fodder for further discussion. Of the areas where we are in disagreement I want to deal with just one. I'll quote Suzanne and then give my response.
She takes issue with the following remarks that I made in my last post:
In fact, the pro-life movement as a general rule has defined 'sanctity' pretty narrowly. We're all for saving the fetuses from extinction, but not nearly as concerned for dealing with the circumstances into which too many of them are born. There are wonderful exceptions to this, of course, but not nearly enough.
Her critique is this:
What if we lived during the Holocaust? Would we worry: gee, we want to save those victims, but are we really thinking of their interest if we don't worry about what happens to them after we save them?
If I were in the concentration camp I'd say: who cares! Just save me! Stop dithering over the details and get me out of here!
It's the same thing with the unborn: if we start worrying about whether our social programs are generous enough, we're losing focus on the main struggle.
Here are my thoughts on Suzanne's position:
1. Why were the Jews (plus the gypsies, mentally challenged, homosexuals, etc.) in the concentration camps in the first place? Because they were hated and/or feared. Long before they were imprisoned and killed they were discriminated against, ostracized, and otherwise denied virtually all that was necessary to live in safety and hope. In fact, as they became more and more marginalized, they also became increasingly vulnerable. Had they been allowed to occupy a meaningful place in society, how likely is it that they would have been imprisoned and butchered as they were? [This is not just an academic matter with me, by the way. I have a brother-in-law who is a European Jew and who lost all of his uncles in the Nazi camps.]
2. Suppose that we had arrived at Auschwitz and said to these people, "OK we've overcome the guards and you're free to go. Regrettably, everything else is the same. The Nazis are still in charge. Everyone still hates you, you will still face every kind of discrimination, and you will live in hopelessness, want, and fear for the rest of your lives. I hope that someday that will change but it is not our focus." Would anyone say to us, "Good job. You've done what is necessary. Now you can stand down."? I doubt it.
3. Why do women and girls abort? Lots of reasons that are well known to YMFR (you my faithful reader). Fear of economic deprivation. Fear of abandonment. Violence and threats. Lack of (or ignorance of) necessary supports. Now, we say to these women, "OK, we've passed legislation that makes it a crime to abort your babies. Regrettably, you still face economic deprivation. The education system still will not provide for you. Your boyfriend still threatens to leave you or hurt you. And as a bonus, along with the lack of supports necessary to keep your baby with any hope for the future, we have made it a crime to consider abortion. We're glad that you are more moral now, however." Does that sound like a winning plank for a political party in the next general election?
There is seldom such a thing as a single societal problem. Any particular issue is linked to many others, and all of these related problems have to be addressed simultaneously for there to be any hope of a good solution. Abortion is no different. It can't be isolated from the web of other challenges in which it is enmeshed.
It's easy enough to take the (perceived) moral high ground and say, "The issue is not stopping abortion. The issue is fetal rights", as if this changed the challenge. Women's rights were not fully addressed simply by passing a law making them legal persons. Slaves' rights to freedom was not fully actualized when Lincoln outlawed slavery. Women and blacks still fight for the full realization of their rights. And we in the pro-life movement have to fight for the full realization of fetal rights as well. That does not end with giving the personhood to unborn babies. It's a bare beginning.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Unfortunately for Ms. Fortin, I believe she has come afoul of Godwin's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I took the time to actually look up Godwin's Law. This is it:
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Post a Comment