Abortion is the emotional foundatioin of the political feminism of the late twentieth century, it is therefore the second segment of this book.
Is Societal Rejection, as Practised in the Past, the Answer?
The question of abortion goes on and on. On the one hand if a woman doesn't want her baby, the baby is faced with a life that will be full of misery, therefore it is kinder to abort. On the other hand killing babies is the worst kind of statement to make about the values of society. It will surely lead to other decisions based on perceptions about the cheapness of life. On the other hand there are vastly too many people in the world. If we don't kill some of them we will surely all drown. On the other hand "Thou shalt not kill". The sense of guilt will surely maim the lives of mothers. On the other hand the poor keep producing babies for which there is no semblance of a home, surely it is more humane to abort them. On the other hand the availability of abortion will encourage promiscuity which will lead to more abortions. On the other hand people should have the freedom to make decisions about their own lives. On the other hand people should not have the freedom to make decisions, the consequences of which they are unprepared for.
Clearly, there is no painless solution to the problems of procreation after pregnancy begins. Therefore the only place to look is prior to pregnancy. If no pregnancy occurs there is no problem. How can we foreclose on the possibility of pregnancy? Birth control? Unfortunately there are a flood of new problems attendant on these options, the most important of which is a person who has not the range of vision to anticipate problems attending promiscuity will lack the motivation to use birth control. One is driven to the conclusion that premarital sex cannot be allowed. How is it stopped? By sanctions that seem unacceptable to even the most poverty stricken among us. What sanctions are those? The only one known to work is rejection of the pregnant person by society. The result is tragic, no doubt, but it is less tragic than what we now have.
Is the Abortion Question Equivalent to the Slavery Issue?
I am beginning to compare the abortion issue with the slavery issue of one hundred years ago. It is an ideological issue. One side is convinced that in a fair world women should be equal to and have the same freedoms as men. This is an abstract ideal that tries to minimize the physical differences between the sexes. One method of minimization is abortion. The other side believes that abortion is immoral because it transgresses The 10 Commandments. There is an argument here because God's law, as given to us by Moses, is not precise.
Slavery was an ideological argument. One side said that we should be free to exploit blacks because they were less than white Christians. This is based on the notion that organisms are evolving toward something and that whites are farther along. We still hold this theory to justify our treatment of animals. The other side said that slavery was immoral because we are all men and equal in the sight of God and the constitution.
From this it can be seen that in general, the group that was for abolition will be for abortion. This is interesting and suggests that the morality issue is ammunition rather than a bedrock value.
On the other side, abortion is not an economic question, as was slavery.
November 29, 1988
Editor, The Mississippian
University, Ms.
Editor,
The November 29th paper contained some commentary on abortion that threatened enlightenment, but didn't quite fulfill the promise. I hope this letter completes the job.
Mr. Strickland related an account of a French Abortionist in a France that apparently doesn't allow abortions legally. There appears to be a point here. Legal abortions may be very bad for society, while in individual cases they may be very good. This is a fact, which however can only be shown empirically over a very long period of time. It places in relief the difficulty of contradiction in everyday life that is always waiting to confuse and confound us. We may wail at this fact of life, but that in no way reduces its claims on us. Finally there is only one solution: hypocrisy.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Ricky Baldwin's column on abortion: we have seen this same argument repeated hundreds of times as well as the opposing argument. Simply saying something over and over is not going to be convincing, especially when the opposing argument is just as valid. This suggests the argument is being limited to the wrong issues. Abortion can't be justified on its merits, it is a feature of a more comprehensive fight.
Mr. Baldwin, in his list of causative factors contributing to the number of unwanted babies, avoids promiscuity. Surely he recognizes that it must be a factor. Surely he recognizes sexual desire as a factor in human relations. Since promiscuity exists, and unwanted babies result, a successful societal order will include motivation to avoid sexual relations when the consequences cannot be accommodated.
In the past motivation was supplied by condemnation of the offending couple. Unfortunately this has now been judged lacking in compassion. It has also been criticized on the grounds that it was unfairly focused on the woman.
I would suggest that eliminating the criticism of the offending couple altogether was not the right response. Widening the criticism to the male as well as the female would have worked better.
Joe Schiller