[Peace-discuss] peace and contraception

[Ricky Baldwin]

Thanks, Carl-

I do appreciate the clarifications, though we still
don't agree.  At least I better understand where
you're coming from.

A couple of comments in response, though:

 [1] Despite the frequent assertions on this list
> that "emergency
> contraception is not abortion," there are those who
> see interference with
> fertilized ova as abortion, and that's what these
> drugs do.

In fact, these drugs prevent fertilization, too.  I
don't know with what frequency they block
fertilization versus implantation.  Maybe others do. 
But it should be noted that even many abortion
opponents don't consider the prevention of
implantation as abortion.  That shouldn't end the
argument, of course, but it is worth noting.

> [2] The abortion debate should begin (not end) with
> the observation that
> it's unreasonable to hold that human rights are
> conferred only at birth
> and do not exist before.  It's not of course a
> matter of "the same rights
> as an adult human being" (voting, for instance), but
> the one-day old child
> does have the right not to have its life ended -- we
> agree that
> infanticide is wrong.  When does that right begin?

Now we are getting somewhere.  Though I don't agree
that that's necessarily the starting point (as opposed
to, say, under what conditions someone has the right
to intervene in another's life and under what
limitations) and I wouldn't assume that everyone is
opposed *in every case* to what's called "infanticide"
(anencephaly and other extreme birth defects, for
example), I think it's also true that most supporters
of abortion rights don't really think that abortion is
really *okay* in the latter weeks of pregnancy except
under extreme conditions (threats to the life of the
mother, etc.).  

Neither does Roe v Wade, for what it's worth, as I'm
sure you know.  The Supreme Court delineates different
levels of access to abortion at different stages of
pregnancy.  Some say they err one way, some the other.
 I suppose we could argue the point.  But the point
is, just to say that "infanticide" isn't normally
okay, and so neither is late-term abortion in most
cases, actually doesn't present much of an argument
about earlier-term abortions at all.  This has been
Mort's argument, and that of several others, and I
would like to know what you think about it.  Is it
really just because we don't know exactly where to
draw this line that we can't draw it at all?  That
seems to me too play fast and loose with the rights of
the women involved.  

> [3] You write "...granting the fetus this more or
> less absolute right to
> life means taking away rights from pregnant women
> ... [which] may include
> life, health, autonomy to varying degrees, economic
> well-being or a number
> of other things."  I'm not quite sure who's doing
> the granting -- 

Well, by "granting" the rights I mean agreeing to
them, as you probably guessed, but I apologize if I
was unclear.  It is interesting, though, that this is
another question that abortion rights advocates have
raised repeatedly, some on this list: whose right is
it to intervene in a pregnancy and tell a woman what
she must do with her body (or if you prefer, with
*herself*)?  

Most of us probably believe that under certain
circumstances, some state or other representative of
society or community can intervene in what a person is
doing and say, for example, you must cease beating
your wife.  It's a bit stickier, I think, for
professed anti-statists, anarchists and other
anti-authoritarians.  It's easy enough to say, as
Gandhi did, that if someone attacks my father I have a
right and an obligation to intervene with violenec if
necessary.  I think it isn't obvious at all, however,
that this is the same as having a right or obligation
to intervene when someone is doing something
internally within their own body (or within
*themselves*, if you prefer) that you believe (and
others do not) is tantamount to an attack on another.

Here I think Bob's example of not wanting to donate a
kidney is helpful, though obviously not exactly the
same.  But now I'm getting into the next part...


the left
> has historically argued for the recognition of
> rights that were being
> ignored by a repressive society -- but you certainly
> would not come to
> similar conclusions in the following cases:
> 	[a] "...granting the Palestinians this more or less
> absolute right
> to life means taking away rights from Israeli Jews
> ... [which] may include
> life, health, autonomy to varying degrees, economic
> well-being or a number
> of other things"; and
> 	[b] "...granting slaves in the antebellum South
> this more or less
> absolute right to life means taking away rights from
> plantation owners ...
> include life, health, autonomy to varying degrees,
> economic well-being or
> a number of other things."
> 	But [a] and [b] seem true.  In each case there are
> rights that may
> indeed possibly conflict, but they can't be simply
> ignored.

Agreed.  Therefore, I think, ethical arguments must
seek balance among these rights.  This brings us back,
I think, to the question of what rights a fertilized
egg, a fetus or in fact a child or young person does
really have at various stages of development.  That's
a can of worms, to be sure.  But I think, as I've
argued before, these rights have to be based on
something.  We probably disagree on what that
something should be, but it's the only way I can see
of discussing them in any rational way.  Maybe there
are others.  

> 
> [4] I think you may have misunderstood my remark to
> Jen.  Her questions
> were rhetorical, designed to expose the
> ludicrousness of the positions
> they seemed to represent.  I simply agreed.

Apologies if I misunderstood.

> 
> [5] Finally, I do think we should worry about
> "alienating, for example,
> anti-war Democrats or anti-war Zionists or anti-war
> free-traders or
> anti-war pro-Chief folks or any number of other
> anti-war types."  

Now I think you may have misunderstood my point.  I
said "I’m not suggesting we should sacrifice our
principles to do so".  The point is that we say what
we believe is true on a variety of topics, and if we
alienate folks who disagree on those things, we
haven't worried too much about it.  Also, I think my
point about working together, for example on Prospect,
makes it clear I think we can work together despite
these differences.  I doubt that an endorsement like
this will turn away anyone who really wnats to work
against this war -- that was my point.

And I
> think it's an even greater mistake to change the
> anti-war focus of the
> group.  

Well, we regularly endorse a variety of events not
directly related to the war as such: the upcoming
Unity March, for example, anti-Chief and anti-Columcus
Day activitires, etc.

Sponsoring the EC rally is like sponsoring a
> rally for brave
> little Israel (another point on which we'd be
> agreement with the Kerry
> people), or against the new anti-Semitism (David
> might object to our doing
> that), or to honor the Chief...

I'm not sure I see the connection.

>  
> "That's really our job ... to communicate as best we
> can the need for and
> the hope of making a difference through opposing the
> war, and then act
> together, as we have been."  I quite agree, with the
> proviso for the need
> to expand and not contract the number of those so
> communicating.

Surely you aren't suggesting a means to communicate
with the "unborn"?  I think you mean communicating
with anti-war pro-lifers.  And I agree, just as I
think we have an opportunity here to reach out to a
community of lower-income women and men who are active
on healthcare issues.

Thanks again, Carl.  Hope my comments were at least
somewhat thought-provoking, too, and not just
"provoking" :-)

Ricky

> 
> Regards, Carl
> 
> 
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> > 
> > ...I think we need to keep in mind that the rally
> we are discussing is
> > not for abortion at all, but emergency
> contraception, as both Brooke’s
> > message and the original rally announcement I
> passed around at the
> > meeting have pointed out.  That is, emergency
> contraception prevents
> > fertilization and/or implantation of the
> fertilized egg into the wall
> > of the uterus.  It prevents pregnancy; it does not
> terminate it.  If
> > someone has an objection to contraception, let’s
> discuss that -- or
> > discuss abortion but not hinge this endorsement on
> it.
> > 
> > Thirdly, I have to say every time we have this
> debate, we seem to
> > start again at the beginning.  The only objection
> to what most of
> > consider abortion rights seems to be the assertion
> that a
> > fetus/embryo/zygote at whatever stage of
> development must have the
> > same rights as an adult human being.  I’ve argued
> before that I don’t
> > think anybody really believes that -- the evidence
> being all the
> > restrictions on children’s freedom, the control
> over their little
> > lives that parents routinely exert, and so on,
> that we can agree on --
> > but besides that, as Carl is so fond of saying,
> what is gratuitously
> > asserted can be gratuitously denied.
> > 
> > Carl does argue that opposition to abortion
> belongs on the political
> > left, because the left’s historic direction is the
> expansion of rights
> > to more and more people.  But I think it’s an
> oversimplification of
> > the issue, because granting the fetus this more or
> less absolute
> > “right to life” means taking away rights from
> pregnant women (or in
> > this case, women who might become pregnant without
> access to emergency
> > contraception).  These rights may include life,
> health, autonomy to
> > varying degrees, economic well-being or a number
> of other things --
> > things the left has fought long and hard for, I
> might add.  These
> > points have all been raised before and either
> ignored or dismissed
> > (like Carl’s reply to Jen’s point: “I don’t take
> it seriously”) which
> > I don’t think really gets us anywhere.
> > 
> > Others have painted a moving picture of what these
> issues mean to
> > women's and raised points which, in my opinion,
> deserve an answer of
> > one kind or another.
> > 
> > And just one more point (sorry).  I’m troubled by
> this argument that
> > we shouldn’t risk alienating the anti-war
> pro-lifers.  We never seem
> > to worry too much about alienating, for example,
> anti-war Democrats or
> > anti-war Zionists or anti-war free-traders or
> anti-war pro-Chief folks
> > or any number of other anti-war types.
> >  And I’m not suggesting we should sacrifice our
> principles to do so.  
> > The point is that we are constituted as a very
> loose, anarchic group
> > -- intentionally -- to allow for the widest
> possible flexibility of
> > action and discussion around certain core
> principles.
> > 
> > The problem here is that we disagree on the
> application of those
> > principles.  So be it.  But most of us have been
> in crowds where we
> > didn’t support everything that was said or every
> position of the
> > principal organizers.  I know I’ve probably spent
> more time in
> > churches as a nonbeliever than I did as a
> believer, and I’ve certainly
> > spent more time meeting with preachers.  Do we
> think that others can’t
> > do the same?  I know they can, if only from the
> diversity of people
> > who turned up on Prospect especially during the
> fever pitch before the
> > war.  Most of them I talked to assumed they
> disagreed with us on some
> > things (often the disagreement turned out to be
> less than they
> > thought), but they weren’t shy about turning up. 
> They didn’t check to
> > see what other events we had cosponsored, even if
> they could have, and
> > they couldn’t have cared less.  They were there
> for the same reasons
> > we were: to stand up against an unjust war.  And I
> think, given the
> > need and the hope of making any difference, they’d
> be back.
> > 
> > That’s really our job, in my opinion, to
> communicate as best we can
> > the need for and the hope of making a difference
> through opposing the
> > war, and then act together, as we have been.  I
> seriously doubt we’ll
> > persuade one another on this issue.  I do think we
> might be able to
> > understand one another’s positions.  Maybe we
> can’t.  But what we
> > definitely can do is do our best to maintain a
> hospitable environment
> > for disagreement, do what we do best, and stay as
> open as we can to
> > coalition efforts.  Coalitions won’t always be
> possible, of course,
> > but I think they usually are if we work at it.
> > 
> > I guess we’ll see where tomorrow night’s meeting
> leads, but there’s my
> > two cents.
> > 
> > Thanks for getting this far, Ricky
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail