This is included under ethics and social responsibility because I
feel that this paper is largely about social issues. This paper is about
freedom, life, and other issues that are being actively considered by
bioethicists.
Jon Strauss
Professor Trimble
Meaning and Madness
Oct. 25, 2002
In earlier ages, women were not given
any option of choice. They were given an arranged world, from arranged
marriage to the denial of their ability to vote. In our century, a
woman's choice is still being threatened. The new
threat to choice is not based on suffrage or citizenship, it is over a
woman's choice over her body.
Racial prejudice, religious bigotry,
have now been put into the same breath as “fetal genocide”? What exactly
would
fetal genocide look like? Is it the selective killing of all foetuses?
Is it a murderous rampage to stomp out all
babies? Both are incorrect. This act of “genocide” is committed every
time a woman decides to abort her pregnancy.
Such rhetoric can be very dangerous; alas, it has been used as
justification for the murder of doctors and the bombing
of abortion clinics.
Those of a left bent might be taken
aback that “their” issues now include abortion. It is a given that
racial prejudice
and religious bigotry are issues liberal speak out viciously against,
yet most are partial to the idea of abortion. This
attack is clearly aimed at those who speak out against the atrocities
in our world.
The question that remains is: “Why do I
find this offensive?” I have long been an avid enemy of anyone who
attempts to limit my freedom of choice. Through the machine we know as
the justice system, my freedoms are
slowly being taken away. For example, I am not allowed to smoke
marijuana. A purely self-oriented act is
now someone's else's problem. I certainly accept that there is a health
risk, yet I cannot see how I have swung my
fist into someone else's nose. The same sort of logic applies to
abortion, or at least to me. A foetus cannot live on
its own without its mother's body. Who's choice is it to allow a living
being to continue to grow and require of
their body? Is it the bearer of this life or a third-party?
Perhaps this is the very root of my
conundrum. I believe abortion is wrong, but for my own reasons, most of
which are emotional attachments to life that I potentially create. Yet,
my freedom not to choose is also
someone else's freedom to choose. It is all a matter of belief. Some
believe that abortion is the murder of a
live human being, and ,in a manner of all its own, it is. What matters
is where we believe life to begin.
I believe it begins with consciousness. A foetus is arguably not
conscious. Abortion does not take a live, feeling
human and kill it. Abortion takes an unconscious human and aborts its
existence.
When I saw Stephen Pinker, he brought
up an interesting argument that is currently being hashed out in
congress. The issue is “when does 'ensoulment' occur?” Ensoulment is
the point when a soul is attached
to the living mass that will eventually become a human being. This
question is pointless to me because I do
not believe in a soul. However, to many of the pious, this question is
absolutely essential. I find it odd that
an agency meant to be separated from the church is ensnared it this
pointless debate. If it were any more than
a belief, then I would have to say that abortion and ,for that matter,
stem cell research should be discontinued.
Yet it remains only proven that the brain is where consciousness
occurs.
Thus, I believe that major acts against
other human beings, in this case, racial prejudice and religious
bigotry, are not on par with the issue of abortion. I find it wholly
offensive to see hate issued next to abortion.