[Peace-discuss] Emergency Contraception Rally

[C. G. Estabrook]

There's a famous maxim, Paul -- "hard cases make bad law." It points out
that ethics is a practical endeavor, an attempt to discern the meaning of
human actions in usual situations -- not a formula that solves all
problems, even the most difficult. If it did, we wouldn't have much
literature. "Hamlet"  gets some of its dramatic power and its ethical
tension from the relative rarity of the situation its protagonist faces.

I take it to mean that the hard (unusual) case (e.g., a murderous king, a
terror-sponsoring country, pregnancy from incest) produces a solution
(resp. regicide, pre-emptive war, abortion) that is then inappropriately
generalized. Since it was OK in the desperate situation, it is thought, it
must be OK in general.

EC illustrates the maxim in less extreme form. In fact, EC is generally
available in hospitals for people who are raped.  But that hard case --
rape -- is making bad law when EC is thereby promoted as simply another
form of contraception, indifferently chosen along with chemical and
barrier methods.  That seems inappropriate to many people, even some of
those who want to argue that EC's interference with a fertilized ovum
(rather than just suppressing ovulation, as chemical contraception usually
does) is not abortion.

Abortion is unfortunately a shibboleth rather than a topic for rational
discussion of ethics and public policy.  I've argued elsewhere
<www.counterpunch.org/estabrook01172003.html> that the present rigid
configuration of politics on the issue should pass away.  But meanwhile a
group devoted to rational discussion of ethics and public policy regarding
war, should avoid getting itself locked into the conventional fixed
position on what are perhaps inappropriately called women's issues.

Regards, Carl


On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Paul M. King wrote:

> Being a male, I wanted to leave this discussion to the other gender.
> However, I've known and loved females who have been raped and
> assualted...so it's my business.
> 
> First, I just want to say that I remember the day that AWARE passed
> the 85% rule. It passed by some acceptable margin and was posted in
> the minutes last year sometime.
> 
> Second, I find Brooke's original response to Carl altogether
> convincing regardless of how I might feel about abortion. The egg is
> never fertilized. We can debate whether unfertilized eggs are life,
> but to me it seems somewhat irrelevant due to the reason below.
> 
> Third, Carl's suggestion that it would be a tactical error to support
> this event seems backwards. The ascendancy of the mighty Republican
> empire is in no small way attributable to their ability to bring
> together a wide range of disparate groups. We should be reaching out
> to others who do not share all of our views and bringing them into the
> activist fold. This helps the movement grow and it also helps us grow
> as human beings.
> 
> If I have not understood your position, Carl, please let me know. It's
> a rather interesting one that I would like to consider fully.
> 
> ..:: paul _______________________________________________