[Peace-discuss] Emergency Contraception

[Paul M. King]

With all due respect, Carl, I disagree. Forming tactical
alliances based on public perceptions seems ethically bankrupt
to me. The danger of being misunderstood should be welcome. It
is an opportunity to educate, shake things up and possibly
reconfigure an entire network of strategic partnerships. This
is a rather bold attitude, but I would not expect a radical,
anarchist anti-war group to try and play it safe by
maneuvering and dodging issues. The truth is often not
convenient. Even when it is downright ugly, I feel a personal
responsibility to profess it. I suspect most people affiliated
with AWARE feel the same.

Your discussion about the danger of mistakenly generalizing a
code of behavior from an unusual situation is a pursuasive and
sound line of reasoning, but I do not follow the connection
with EC. You've indicated that it's a weak connection ("EC
illustrates the maxim in less extreme form"), and this is not
trivial. It is weak because it does not exist when held up to
reason. It only exists in the mind of an uninformed and
emotionally reactionary person. EC is not abortion; life has
not yet started. Brooke's email was very informative about this.

If you are truly interested in neutralizing the abortion
debate and releasing politics from its stranglehold, then the
EC issue seems a perfect stake to drive through its damn
heart. Here we have something being made available that will
actually reduce the number of abortions. Suddenly, the left
doesn't look so hypocritical anymore. Our value of life can be
practically implemented with this new technology.

As I stated before, the power of the current administration
derives from their ability to pull together an amazing variety
of supporters through the practice of identity politics. This
is just half of it, though. They are also mindful masters of
the ancient and tested imperial strategy of "divide and
conquer" (Karl Rove's gift is in this area). Cultural issues
such as race and abortion serve not only as effective uniters,
but destructive dividers. We have to look at unity
wholistically and ackowledge the destructive aspect of it in
order to discern who new allies for the left might be if we
are capable of moving beyond abortion and other cultural
issues. Who would we want to bring in under our umbrella? I
think we should be generous in our willingness to build
alliances and form friendships, or we will forever be on the
fringes of public dialogue.

This has been a great dialogue. I appreciate the opportunity
to discuss these ideas with this list and welcome other
input. Consider it a meditation rather than an argument. I've
been thinking a long time about some of these things.

..:: paul


---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:07:54 -0500
>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Emergency Contraception Rally  
>To: Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>
>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 _______________________________________________
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss