I always
thought I was pretty certain about my views on politics. In the modern world, I
find I am firmly with the European left.
I am green,
anti-gun, pro- gay rights, anti-war, pro-free trade, anti-racism, anti- capital
punishment, pro-Palestinian, anti-nationalism, anti-fiat money,
anti-privatisation, anti- fascism -civilised in a word. Every position discursive
and not intuitive, my escutcheon unblotched by superstition. I bore all those badges you could proudly wear
to a good university on the European mainland, maybe even on Albion but more
and more certainly not in the USA.
I needed to be persuaded by reason and history, not by the threat of
displeasing the sky-god or a fiery hell or sleeping ancestors.
Sufficiently
introduced I will now go on to add one more political stance to my quiver-full.
I had always thought I was pro-abortion. It was after all the civilised position
to hold was it not? The spectre of hordes, infused with the Holy Spirit bombing
abortion clinics, assassinating doctors , bearing placards with Bible verses
inscribed on them, encouraged every step by the noxious alliance of religious
organisations from the malevolent Sunni conglomerate, to the evil Southern
Baptists and the bloody-handed Vatican
was enough to persuade me. The abortion debate was always waged on such grounds;
the right thing was God's way and hell was the end of those practising it, or
defending it. Pro-abortionists were evil, soul-less child-killers.
There was
something particularly enchanting for me about the pro-abortion label,
pro-choice; even though I conceded that pro-life was more emotionally effective. Born of a professional mother and raised in a home where the
equality of the sexes was taken for granted, I saw all attempts to place the
woman in a position where she was not master of her life as barbaric. When
these attempts were mounted on the language of ancient,foreign, paternalistic religious texts, my
attention was even more ardently turned off. So I was pro-choice, defending the
right of a woman to do with her body as she pleased.
You will
understand then that I was repulsed by the recent decision by the
US Supreme Court to outlaw partial abortions . That George Bush came out crowing
a short time later only served to make me more resolute in my conviction that
the USA
was truly in the thrall of the bible-beating bigots. These were people who
preferred to let millions die than permit stem-cell research, who saw it as a
matter of utmost importance that they meddle in the lives of the gay population
but who still found the pious passion to be pro-war and pro-guns. I did not
need persuading, as I took reflexively took up my protest banner.
Then I found myself
clicking on a link to the Supreme Court's decision, and a few minutes later I
was at Wikipedia and then on Google looking up the term ‘partial abortion' a.k.a D&X . Partial
abortions are carried out after 4-5 months of pregnancy. The young life is by
this time almost fully formed and the majority of these infants are viable,
i.e. would survive outside the womb. The procedure is carried out much in the
way of a breech delivery. The entire body of the infant is delivered in the
normal way except for the head. Scissors are then jammed into the base of the
infant's skull and its cranium opened up. A tube is then inserted into the
skull and the life is sucked out of the infant. After the removal of its brain,
the dead infant is pulled out, There are no known reasons for this procedure,
apart from the fact that the mother wants to get rid of the baby. While it is
true that there may be complications with delivery and treatment of the
premature infant, is this not a better path to take than killing the infant? Further,
doctors point out that there is no circumstance under which this would be a
mother's sole option. It would be reasonable to undertake an abortion at this
late stage to save a mother's life, but these are very rare cases.
Now I know
that whatever else I think of abortion, I will remain forever disturbed by it. I
am won over. To argue against wanton
racist war, wife-beating, and child abuse but still stand in support of the legal
murder of the infant is not just hypocritical but astoundingly immoral. Like a
broken clock, maybe the religious fanatics are sometimes right.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Not because of his "change of opinion" I say that; in fact such a turn-around would make for interesting and intriguing reading. Would have. Could have. A chance lost.
I suggest the author start anew after the description of the abortion procedure, and tries to make an ARGUMENT. Like in secondary school, you know? Reasoned debate (look up the lemma in a dictionary), and all that...
Alexander, disappointed