Over the past severals of months (read: up to a year) I couldn't help but notice a lot of hate online.
Okay, scratch that. Over my entire lifetime spent online I couldn't help but notice a log of hate online. Sometimes it may seem like the entire internet is simply a giant cesspool of bad information and even worse interactions, but I swear there's lots of good stuff on here too. Like this blog, where everything is worthwhile and friendly!
Now, I've been down into the seamy crotch of the internet (comment sections) and back a few times, and I've realized where most of the hate comes from. It's because people have espoused an idea or position, but haven't taken the time to understand the other side. To those people, their position makes so much sense for all of these reasons, and the other side is formed completely out of mist. What's even holding that side up? Ghosts? Space pirate ghosts?
It's probably space pirate ghosts.
But I'm here, today, to tell you that no matter what argument you're looking at, there are people on both sides of the issue. They both have human wants, desires, and emotions, and they both think, for actual, substantial reasons, that they're right. Sometimes those reasons are based on incorrect information or erroneous reasoning, but they are reasons. And the person who is acting on them is an actual person, and while their information may deserve your considerate correction, they as a person deserve your respect.
And part of that respect, the respect we should hold for each other as members of the larger human family, is the willingness to understand each other. So let's do a little thought experiment together, in the interest of understanding both sides of a complex issue with complex people and their reasons on both sides.
Abortion.
If you do not share that belief, this is where your journey of understanding begins. If you'd like to understand why I believe in the existence of spirits or an afterlife, I'd love to have that discussion, but I don't really have space for it here. So we'll start with that point. Once a child is conceived, "pro-lifers" believe that there is a human soul waiting to enter that body if it hasn't already done so. There isn't a waiting period where the embryo is just a lifeless mass of cells, there is a moment in which chromosomes are exchanged and cells start dividing, and from that point on what's in there is a human individual.
That is the basis of this position. Based on that background, the reasoning behind the "pro-life" argument is that an abortion is akin to premeditated murder undertaken by a medical professional.
Morally, I think it's a pretty common belief that murder is bad. This is pretty universal mainly because we believe in our society that the freedom to choose the path of our life is pretty important. Murder is one person removing another person's right to choose the path of their life, and since an unborn child can't express their desire to live, and based on the belief that said child is actually alive, it's a murder. It's pretty clear, linear logic, and has the effect of painting a woman choosing to have an abortion sort of like a mob boss calling in a hit.
The "pro-choice" argument springs from the basis that a single clump of dividing cells, without organs of any kind to say nothing of a developed brain, could possibly be considered a consciousness the way we term human life. Human life is reason, and an embryo or fetus can't reason.
Every time you hit a bird with your car you're ending the life of a creature far more logically developed than an embryo, and nobody is getting worked up or arresting people over that. With that foundation, it's important to look at the effect a pregnancy has on the mother's body. It can be harmful, but even if everything goes spectacularly well, it's painful and stressful. So why shouldn't the mother be able to choose not to go through that pain and stress? Remember, the right to choose the path of our own life, as long as it's not removing someone else's right to choose, is absolutely fundamental to our society.
Now, those seem like fundamentally opposed positions, but they're both perfectly understandable given the reasoning behind each of them. So assuming we can respect each other's rights and beliefs, it seems like this is an area in need of some compromise.
Now, a caveat. Even the "pro-lifers" have to acknowledge that the baby's life isn't the only one in question in this situation. I fall back on the official policy of the LDS church in this, because even a highly conservative organization such as that recognizes that, for certain circumstances, an abortion can be needed. If the baby has little to no chance of surviving once born and the pregnancy is causing serious health concerns for the mother, an abortion might be needed. If the mother is too young or sickly to safely carry a baby to term without dying herself, an abortion might be needed. If the pregnancy is as a result of rape, an abortion might be needed. These situations are unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.
So, how does that apply to what we have? Well, it means that we can't outlaw abortions. We have to have competent and readily available assistance for those women who fall into those situations. So already we have to move one of the goalposts up to something like outlawing elective abortions, meaning an abortion on a pregnancy that does not endanger the child or the mother as determined by competent medical professionals.
But what about the mother's story? What about the sudden responsibility for caring for a child? What if you're not financially able to take care of that? What if your partner doesn't want to be a part of it? I totally get that, and the prospect of dealing with that would scare me half to death. And for all of you who are screaming "adoption" at your computer (stop it, the librarian is giving you a weird look), I've seen pregnancy up close and personal. Frankly, the thought of having to go through that would scare me the other half to death. Even with adoption you'd have to carry a baby to term, and I totally get not wanting to do that. In every conceivable way.
So I can't in good conscience say that we can declare war on abortion clinics. Outlawing abortion, defunding and shutting down stuff like Planned Parenthood, aside from getting rid of a readily available source of needed health care for women across the country, would also remove the ability to find help for the cases I already called out above, and it wouldn't actually stop abortion. It would just add increased danger to the mother when she went to some underground clinic to get it handled by amateurs.
But I can't get away from the sanctity of that life. That's a human spirit in there, one of my brothers or sisters, and they are filled with so much potential. What could their life be? I want to know. So any compromise here would have to prevent abortions and preserve a mother's right to choose what happens to her body.
But also, give her a better choice. Educate young people better on how conception works, and more importantly, on how contraception works. Give them ready access to birth control methods, hand out condoms in sex-ed classes in school. If women have the ability to easily avoid getting pregnant, and they know how to use those methods, then they won't be having abortions. Eventually we might be able to prevent all unwanted pregnancy, which would mean the only abortions going on would fall under the sorts of situations I called out above. And in the mean time, we weren't forcing anyone to do anything, and we weren't removing infrastructure necessary to ensure the safety of our fellow humans.
It's not a perfect solution, probably, and I'd be interested to hear any respectful and thoughtful ideas or compromises in the comments. But please recognize that the only way through problems like this is to try and respect both sides of the issue, and to try and understand each other. Once we understand, we can move forward to a better and brighter future.
This applies to far more than just issues like abortion. Understanding is how we grow together instead of apart, and this applies to every issue we're going to disagree on. I really think this is the only way forward.
Okay, scratch that. Over my entire lifetime spent online I couldn't help but notice a log of hate online. Sometimes it may seem like the entire internet is simply a giant cesspool of bad information and even worse interactions, but I swear there's lots of good stuff on here too. Like this blog, where everything is worthwhile and friendly!
Now, I've been down into the seamy crotch of the internet (comment sections) and back a few times, and I've realized where most of the hate comes from. It's because people have espoused an idea or position, but haven't taken the time to understand the other side. To those people, their position makes so much sense for all of these reasons, and the other side is formed completely out of mist. What's even holding that side up? Ghosts? Space pirate ghosts?
It's probably space pirate ghosts.
But I'm here, today, to tell you that no matter what argument you're looking at, there are people on both sides of the issue. They both have human wants, desires, and emotions, and they both think, for actual, substantial reasons, that they're right. Sometimes those reasons are based on incorrect information or erroneous reasoning, but they are reasons. And the person who is acting on them is an actual person, and while their information may deserve your considerate correction, they as a person deserve your respect.
And part of that respect, the respect we should hold for each other as members of the larger human family, is the willingness to understand each other. So let's do a little thought experiment together, in the interest of understanding both sides of a complex issue with complex people and their reasons on both sides.
Abortion.
Pro-Life
I'm going to start with the "pro-life" side of this coin, because that's where I sit by most definitions, and I feel qualified to express the reasoning behind that position. I believe that abortions should be avoided because I believe that an unborn child has, for lack of a more universal term, a soul. That belief is predicated on religious faith and a belief in a pre-birth and post-death spiritual existence.If you do not share that belief, this is where your journey of understanding begins. If you'd like to understand why I believe in the existence of spirits or an afterlife, I'd love to have that discussion, but I don't really have space for it here. So we'll start with that point. Once a child is conceived, "pro-lifers" believe that there is a human soul waiting to enter that body if it hasn't already done so. There isn't a waiting period where the embryo is just a lifeless mass of cells, there is a moment in which chromosomes are exchanged and cells start dividing, and from that point on what's in there is a human individual.
That is the basis of this position. Based on that background, the reasoning behind the "pro-life" argument is that an abortion is akin to premeditated murder undertaken by a medical professional.
Morally, I think it's a pretty common belief that murder is bad. This is pretty universal mainly because we believe in our society that the freedom to choose the path of our life is pretty important. Murder is one person removing another person's right to choose the path of their life, and since an unborn child can't express their desire to live, and based on the belief that said child is actually alive, it's a murder. It's pretty clear, linear logic, and has the effect of painting a woman choosing to have an abortion sort of like a mob boss calling in a hit.
Pro-Choice
So let's look at the other side of the coin. I say look at, and that's meant literally, because I don't spring from this background and for all of my efforts to understand I'm not perfect. So please help me understand if I'm misrepresenting something here.The "pro-choice" argument springs from the basis that a single clump of dividing cells, without organs of any kind to say nothing of a developed brain, could possibly be considered a consciousness the way we term human life. Human life is reason, and an embryo or fetus can't reason.
Every time you hit a bird with your car you're ending the life of a creature far more logically developed than an embryo, and nobody is getting worked up or arresting people over that. With that foundation, it's important to look at the effect a pregnancy has on the mother's body. It can be harmful, but even if everything goes spectacularly well, it's painful and stressful. So why shouldn't the mother be able to choose not to go through that pain and stress? Remember, the right to choose the path of our own life, as long as it's not removing someone else's right to choose, is absolutely fundamental to our society.
Understanding
That is, as I understand it, where both sides of the issue stand. Now, what do they want? "Pro-lifers" want to outlaw abortions. Treat it like murder. "Pro-choicers" want to remove the stigma from abortion. Offer it up like any other elective medical procedure, with plenty of access and qualified professionals to handle it.Now, those seem like fundamentally opposed positions, but they're both perfectly understandable given the reasoning behind each of them. So assuming we can respect each other's rights and beliefs, it seems like this is an area in need of some compromise.
Now, a caveat. Even the "pro-lifers" have to acknowledge that the baby's life isn't the only one in question in this situation. I fall back on the official policy of the LDS church in this, because even a highly conservative organization such as that recognizes that, for certain circumstances, an abortion can be needed. If the baby has little to no chance of surviving once born and the pregnancy is causing serious health concerns for the mother, an abortion might be needed. If the mother is too young or sickly to safely carry a baby to term without dying herself, an abortion might be needed. If the pregnancy is as a result of rape, an abortion might be needed. These situations are unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.
So, how does that apply to what we have? Well, it means that we can't outlaw abortions. We have to have competent and readily available assistance for those women who fall into those situations. So already we have to move one of the goalposts up to something like outlawing elective abortions, meaning an abortion on a pregnancy that does not endanger the child or the mother as determined by competent medical professionals.
But what about the mother's story? What about the sudden responsibility for caring for a child? What if you're not financially able to take care of that? What if your partner doesn't want to be a part of it? I totally get that, and the prospect of dealing with that would scare me half to death. And for all of you who are screaming "adoption" at your computer (stop it, the librarian is giving you a weird look), I've seen pregnancy up close and personal. Frankly, the thought of having to go through that would scare me the other half to death. Even with adoption you'd have to carry a baby to term, and I totally get not wanting to do that. In every conceivable way.
So I can't in good conscience say that we can declare war on abortion clinics. Outlawing abortion, defunding and shutting down stuff like Planned Parenthood, aside from getting rid of a readily available source of needed health care for women across the country, would also remove the ability to find help for the cases I already called out above, and it wouldn't actually stop abortion. It would just add increased danger to the mother when she went to some underground clinic to get it handled by amateurs.
But I can't get away from the sanctity of that life. That's a human spirit in there, one of my brothers or sisters, and they are filled with so much potential. What could their life be? I want to know. So any compromise here would have to prevent abortions and preserve a mother's right to choose what happens to her body.
Compromise
I've spent a lot of time trying to understand both sides of this, and now that I think I do, a workable compromise seems oddly obvious. Stop this ridiculous war on abortion clinics. Give them funding. Open their way to provide healthcare to women who need it. Allow women to consult with actual medical professionals as they consider what they are going to do with their bodies, and if that consultation results in an abortion, so be it. Respect her right to make those choices.But also, give her a better choice. Educate young people better on how conception works, and more importantly, on how contraception works. Give them ready access to birth control methods, hand out condoms in sex-ed classes in school. If women have the ability to easily avoid getting pregnant, and they know how to use those methods, then they won't be having abortions. Eventually we might be able to prevent all unwanted pregnancy, which would mean the only abortions going on would fall under the sorts of situations I called out above. And in the mean time, we weren't forcing anyone to do anything, and we weren't removing infrastructure necessary to ensure the safety of our fellow humans.
It's not a perfect solution, probably, and I'd be interested to hear any respectful and thoughtful ideas or compromises in the comments. But please recognize that the only way through problems like this is to try and respect both sides of the issue, and to try and understand each other. Once we understand, we can move forward to a better and brighter future.
This applies to far more than just issues like abortion. Understanding is how we grow together instead of apart, and this applies to every issue we're going to disagree on. I really think this is the only way forward.
Comments
Post a Comment