Do Pro-Lifers Exist?
An essay in three parts:
1. The Guns Versus Abortion Debate
2. A Question of Belief
3. Eve, the Liberty Tree, and the Universe
1. The Guns Versus Abortion Debate
On occasion I have questioned the existence of Santa, and God, and intelligent life in the universe, and money, and white people. I’ve come up with “not proven” for God, intelligent life and money, and a definite “no” for Santa and white people. This time I ask if there is such a thing as a pro-lifer; and this time I answer “not in this universe”.
To be so definite, I must first define terms. I define “pro-life” as being in favor of protecting life; “pro-choice” as being in favor of freedom of choice. Please note that these terms have different conventional meanings; ‘pro-life’ means pro-fetal-life-exclusively, and ‘pro-choice’ means pro-abortion-rights-exclusively. But what about post-fetal life; in particular, the woman? And how about other choices, such as, say, the right to bear arms?
Shouldn’t ‘pro-life’ denote opposition not to just abortion, but also warfare, the death penalty, and gun ownership? And conversely, shouldn’t bearing arms be considered another choice? As is, the terms ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ are used in a way that’s partial, tendentious, and often outright fraudulent; here I insist on rigorous literalness, in order to clarify discussion.
I say that there are no pro-lifers; there are only anti-abortionists. The misnomer is obvious when you consider the “pro-life” movement’s love of weapons, warfare and capital punishment. In general “pro-life” is a misnomer; for there is no such thing as a pro-lifer, any more than there is such a thing as a free lunch.
There are no pro-lifers because there is no free lunch. Given the economic limits on all existence, all choices involve denying resources to someone somewhere, and this ultimately involves loss or limit of life. Therefore abortion exists; and also self-defense, and warfare, and capital punishment.
Most people close their eyes to this tragic dilemma by focusing on only those near and dear to them, and letting the rest of the human race fend for itself. This is called ‘parochial altruism’, or more bluntly, ‘hypocrisy’.
It seems to me that the real issue being discussed is not, in practice, abortion versus no abortion; or guns versus no guns; but which of guns and abortion is the public willing to tolerate as the lesser evil. I therefore propose that we rename this particular culture-clash the “guns versus abortion debate”.
In the Red rural areas, where there’s plenty of space but not many people, guns are celebrated and abortion is stigmatized; in the Blue urban areas, with their teeming millions, abortion is supported and guns are condemned. The result is a territorial dispute over a detail of timing. The American people have long ago agreed to killing some of their least valued members; the only question now is when and how; either prenatally by means of D&C, or postnatally by means of firearms.
Neither the pro-gun-anti-abortion nor the pro-abortion-anti-gun stance can honestly be called pro-life or pro-choice. Both allow the destruction of life, and both forbid it, albeit in opposite ways. Others have noticed this contradiction and call it hypocrisy. I’m more lenient, for I see this as a matter of economics and population density; ultimately an ecological issue.
As for solutions, I have none, beyond palliatives like social justice, full employment, contraception, and honest policing. The problem is existential: there is no free lunch, life is troublesome, and mankind is still part beast. Until the Messiah evolves, both guns and abortion will remain, as what I call “dark rights”; that is, rights dreadful to exercise but even more dreadful for the State to forbid.
In reality so-called ‘pro-life’ politics - properly, ‘anti-abortion’ - is about who owns a woman’s body; the woman herself, or the State? With presumably men running the State; but if the State owns a woman’s most private property, then rest assured that it will then grab a man’s most private property as well. And if your most private property isn’t yours, then what is?
2. A Question of Belief
In the previous section I say that there are no pro-lifers because life is hard and everyone must compromise. Show me a pro-lifer, and I will show you somebody willing to make exceptions. This is blatantly obvious for those against abortion, but for guns and war; but it applies even to a ‘seamless garment’ nun, against abortion, guns, war, poverty and all injustice. After all, the sister depends upon the church for her livelihood; and the church, historically, has often taken life; so unless she renounces her vows, the sister is complicit.
For the Catholic church to claim to be pro-life is deeply ironic, given not only its violent history, but also its anti-earthly ideology. For the saints and the martyrs and Christianity’s founder, the saving of life was not at the top of the list. The church is perhaps a pro-soul organization, but it never was, and cannot ever be, pro-life.
Consider the infamous Brazilian child-rape-followed-by-excommunication-for-abortion case. Many have expressed outrage at the Catholic church’s position; my own view is that the church’s position is impossible. In this case, a pro-life policy is not only untenable, it’s absent. With a 9-year-old pregnant rape victim, there is simply no way to avoid the loss of innocent life. Either the embryo dies, or both embryo and girl dies; therefore a pro-life option does not exist.
Now consider Dr. Tiller’s assassination by a domestic terrorist. The stark hypocrisy of calling the murderer ‘pro-life’ should be obvious to all but the idiotic and/or ideological. It reveals that the real dispute in this nation is not ‘pro-life’ versus ‘pro-choice’, but guns versus abortion. The actual issue under discussion is; shall killing be permitted prenatally or postnatally? It is a debate over a detail of timing.
Better contraception, adoption, etc., can reduce the number of abortions; but you cannot eliminate abortion. Dr. Tiller was involved in the hard cases, where the child would have died, or not long survived, or the mother would have died. 3% of all pregnancies must end that way. In those cases, abortion is a least-bad outcome, tragic but necessary.
Life has many such necessary tragedies. There is no such thing as a pro-lifer because there is no such thing as a free lunch; for in the absence of infinite wealth, people must choose whom to favor and whom to deny, sometimes even in matters of life and death.
Of course this burden falls on those least able to bear it; the weak and vulnerable; so social justice is part of the issue. But not all of it; many pregnancies miscarry spontaneously. These are called ‘acts of God’; which, if true, makes God the biggest abortionist of all.
If God exists, then God could hardly be called pro-life, at least not in this universe. Therefore it is folly for mortals to call themselves pro-life; for that would be claiming moral superiority over God and Nature.
3. Eve, the Liberty Tree, and the Universe
I say that there is no such thing as a pro-lifer, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. In this section I support this thesis by referencing the Bible, and also Nature.
I cite the Book of Genesis; in particular, the tale of the Garden of Eden. In it, Eve eats of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, rather than the Tree of Life; so she and Adam are cast forth from the Garden. This is often read as a tragic fall; I prefer to read it as a successful escape, with Eve as the heroine.
For what is this Tree that she eats of? Knowledge of Good and Evil? Or in other words moral choice; for without knowing good from evil there is no moral choice; but with such knowledge there must be such choice. So this was the Tree of Choice; the Tree of Free Will; or in other words, that most American of mythic vegetation, the Liberty Tree.
‘Twas the mind-opening fruit of the Liberty Tree that liberated Eve, and Adam with her. (First she was the sidekick, then he was!) She might have then eaten of the Tree of Life, and then also be immortal; but jealous Yahweh forbade that. So the choice offered Eve was between choice and immortality; and the mother of us all chose choice. Freedom over security!
Eve and Adam could have eaten of the Tree of Life, and lived forever, without choice; but instead they ate of the Liberty Tree, and got choice, but not eternal life. Presumably the events in Genesis occurred according to the will of God; therefore in Genesis, God was pro-choice, but not pro-life.
This biblical teaching is confirmed by scientific observation. Look around at the world; we all appear to have free will, but definitely do not have eternal life. Quantum uncertainty and chaos ensure that all things around us have some freedom of action; but no eternal beings are visible; indeed, 99.999+% of the universe is cold dark irradiated vacuum. The universe is pro-choice, but not pro-life.
Therefore pro-lifers do not exist in this universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment