The next false dichotomy is abortion, with “pro-life” and “pro-choice” options, and I will now show why I think it’s deceptive.
The pro-choice argument says that it’s woman’s body, she gets to choose what happens with it, if she doesn’t want to be pregnant and give birth, she can have an abortion.
The pro-life argument says that a fetus is a human being from conception, it has human rights, and you can’t kill a human being legally, so its right to life takes precedence over any other consideration.
So basically the false dichotomy is whether you believe the fetus is a human being or not. If it is, the concept of human rights applies. If it is not, when does it become one? At the time of birth? When is that, considering all the premature births that survive in an incubator? The pro-choice option really has a problem there. The pro-life option has a problem of trying to ban abortion outright, and most people intuitively agree that this might not be the best idea, although it’s difficult for them to argue why exactly without sounding like monsters.
So here’s my take on this. A fetus is a human being since conception. However, humans don’t have any intrinsic rights, whatsoever. There are only duties and privileges. Privileges are derived from contributions; since the mother contributes her body for a parasitic entity to use for its growth and to deform her in the process, and demand her resources and sacrifices for decades to come, any privileges of the fetus, including its privilege of life, are realized at her expense. This gives her the right to simply refuse to donate her body as a host for the fetus. The father, too, has rights, or should I say privileges, considering how he provides for the woman with his resources. Since having a baby is also realized at his expense, and might pose a serious burden on him, he also has a voice in the matter. So, what exactly is the position of the fetus in all this? The fetus is a guest, who was invited into the family by the act of them having sex. It’s a soul that started the process of incarnation based on that invitation. The invitation can be rescinded, but that is done at the soul’s great inconvenience, is very traumatic to all sides and they better have a valid reason for that, because it’s definitely an action that goes against both nature and common decency, because if you tell someone that he’s so unwelcome and such a burden that you’d rather kill him than suffer his presence, that’s a really serious message. So, nobody has rights, but there are other things that are actually much more binding than the concept of rights. One of those things is basic decency and goodness, out of which you simply don’t kill your child unless your life is threatened, or its body is diagnosed to be deformed, in which case you destroy the body in order not to force the soul to endure life in the trap of a deformed body. So yes, in theory the mother has almost unlimited rights to do whatever she wants with the fetus, because all its rights are derived from her personal contributions and sacrifices, and it is her option to decline. The father, too, has rights, because it is expected of him to support the family. The child, in theory, merely consumes resources and is an inconvenience, and has no rights whatsoever. In practice, the child is a guest, who came into the mother’s body by invitation, and if that is so, its protection is a great ethical priority and an obligation. If the child was conceived by carelessness, the mother can rescind invitation, but it always comes at great spiritual cost, because she basically not only made a mistake, she also forced someone completely innocent to suffer for her mistake. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, she is perfectly justified in doing whatever she wants with it. She can have an abortion at no moral or spiritual expense, or she can shrug and decide that she wanted a baby anyway and simply keep it, taking ownership of the situation.
So, in theory I advocate a purely pro-choice position, but in practice, I am almost as extreme in the anti-abortion stance as the most ardent pro-life advocates. That is because I don’t base my moral stance on the concept of human rights or liberties, but on the concept of having God, who is the absolute goodness, as a role model, and not wanting to live my life in a way God would find objectionable. This is the crux of the pro-choice position: you choose not only what to do, but what you will become as you do it, and not all outcomes are equally desirable.
My personal stance on abortion changed when I had a pregnancy scare. I decided that I would rather die than have a child. In the end, it was just a scare so I didn’t have to do anything, but it forced me to reevaluate and formulate an approach to the issue.
I’m intrinsically aware that abortion is a horrifying prospect, and that I would not want to let myself grow so insensitive that it would stop being so. If I can’t even feel a child developing, if it doesn’t feel like something sacred and incredibly vulnerable, then what kind of person am I? Before the scare, my view was that abortion is ok for those who need it, but probably not acceptable for myself. Afterwards, I realized just how badly I do not want a child, to the point of suicide.
So the approach is: take all the responsible measures available to prevent pregnancy in the first place. From being mostly celibate, to using condoms and other forms of protection. If a condom breaks (which happens), there’s morning after pills. If even that fails, then I’m being trolled by nature and I am going to have an abortion. I’m not going to celebrate it, but the alternative is suicide, so it is acceptable to me.
In leftist, feminist-oriented communities, if you try to point out that the circumstances of abortion matter, you get shitpiled on. If some kinds of abortion are less acceptable than others, suddenly the whole structure falls apart. You have to be either for or against, black or white, you can’t not fit in. This tendency to simplify issues and attack any attempt to explore its complexities is downright scary.
I’m glad that you’re exploring this issue because it’s something I’ve thought about for a long time. The most glaring example is atheism vs religion (I’m sure you’ll get to that one). Recently, I offhandedly commented to an idiot that I thought Richard Dawkins was an arrogant dumbass, and he immediately sorted me as a religious person. It was so amusing, I didn’t even bother to correct him. I’ve explored everything from the occult, from Goetia and Enochian, left hand paths, right hand paths, Satanism, New Age, Buddhism, Hinduism and all the incredibly varied and nuanced approaches of Eastern philosophy… only to be forced into a black or white choice: either you’re an atheist or you’re a fundamentalist Christian. It is so crude that it becomes almost funny, until you remember the level of stupidity.
Anyway, thank you for writing about this and bringing more clarity in your usual deeply insightful and incisive style. 🙂
I’ll almost certainly write more, as soon as my other obligations allow me to. Atheism vs. Religion, as well as Egalitarianism vs. Racism, are somewhere on the list.
I feel like this example shows particularly well just how much the ethics of Western society is based on materialism. If one is pro-choice, fetuses are just a collection of cells, who cares. If one is pro-life, life suddenly becomes the most important thing, who cares how the soul feels, life must be preserved at all costs. As much as I’m disgusted by seeing YouTube videos of spoiled, uncaring feminist cunts prancing in the streets and yelling “Hey, everyone, I just had an abortion!” with glee in their voice, it doesn’t compare to how I feel when I try to explain to someone religious how the fact that we are souls in human bodies should have some practical implications on our daily life (for instance, not letting a soul experience decades of degrading existence inside a body with a defective brain, even at the cost of the defective body) only to get a look of utter confusion, like they’re defining the soul solely as an artifact of the body and that its death is somehow the greatest of sins. It’s not even a choice between two views, because when you get down to the bottom of things, it’s materialism either way.
But in all honesty, I think the issue lies solely with egalitarianism and democracy. Stupid people are allowed and even encouraged to have opinions on issues that are way beyond them, forming shallow binary and mutually exclusive opinions like the ones you mentioned. I wouldn’t even go as far as to blame stupid people for this, because how much can you really expect from someone with an IQ of 80? The ones I’m more upset at are smart people who should know better, but still get caught up into these silly, simplistic dichotomies. I’m just wondering how many of them I’ve unconsciously accepted without even realizing.
I intend to go through a few more. It’s interesting how people prefer to accept extremist views and that’s somehow considered normal, but as soon as one applies some degree of discernment, personal judgment and responsibility, that is seen as the horror of horrors. Basically, it’s ok to maintain someone in a state of perpetual suffering, but euthanasia is seen as a dark evil.