Thursday, April 14, 2016

Child Protective Abortion

The Moral & Legal Abortion argument about Immoral & Illegal Abortion goes as follows: "Why do they support protecting the baby in the womb when they won't pay for its welfare later?" Its exact counterpoint is hardly ever used: "Why do they support the mother's right to kill the baby in the womb when they won't allow the mother to discipline it as she wishes later?"

Because in the former, if it's morally wrong to let women kill the baby, then why does society not also intervene to ensure the baby is properly fed? And because in the latter, if it's morally wrong to interfere with the woman's choice to kill the baby in the womb, why is it morally imperative to prevent the woman from using a hot iron for disciplinary purposes, and/or selling the child to slave traders?

The "survivability" and "part of the body" arguments are foolish, wishful, and wholly inadequate, since some third-trimester fetuses ("infants"?) can survive without the womb or machines even before Biologically Determined Birthday, while some fourth-trimester fetuses ("infants"?) cannot survive without the womb or machines even after Biologically Determined Birthday. And it's guesswork, not certainty, to know beforehand, even for the uber-coolest science-priests.

And there is a brokenness to each of the earlier arguments. If, say, Token Western Conservatives really do believe life is so incredibly sacred, maybe they can claim that society needs to force urban Afro mothers-of-six to be responsible by not paying for the welfare on her seventh child, but, should not, then, society's interest in preventing the child from being killed also extend to giving the mother full health care benefits from conception onward (or quickening onward)? Mandating the carrying of the child to Biologically Determined Birthday, and putting abortion providers in the electric chair, while refusing food stamps to the mother but putting her in the chair for child endangerment if the child starves, are completely internally logically consistent, whether or not they're moral. Things begin to seem arbitrary, though, when society's investment in the sanctity of vulnerable life does not extend to the full prenatal care package. If the arguments aren't made jointly, then the impassioned claim for preserving life is lost, and what the TWC is really after is "fostering responsibility" rather than "preserving life." Maybe fostering responsibility is good--maybe so. But the argument should be honest.

What isn't most interesting here is which components of the Token Western Conservative policy are or should be morally or legally correct, or even whether or not the TWC argument necessarily contradicts itself, but why the TWC argument so often occurs in the pairing it does: "We should prevent abortion but we should also not fund the irresponsible sow's _____th prenatal state."

(And there is a huge contradiction there. Abortions can be induced in non-trackable ways which don't involve foreign doctors or coat hangars, such as by jumping up and down, striking one's own stomach, or other techniques which cannot be provable as "abortion" without full in-home video surveillance of everyone, plus full mind-reading machines available at trial. It is scarier to do it that way, but for moral purposes, it's untraceable possibility speaks volumes as to the larger question of how much society could/should intervene.)

The interesting pairing of the Token Western Liberal policy is how often pro-abortion arguments are conjoined with the State's subsequent interest in interfering with the child's future relationship with the mother. While the mother's "body" (the 7-month fetus that could survive if taken out and laid in a laundry basket) is inviolable to the TWL argument, those same people tend to have the 100% view that the government should be in the business of making parental decisions. Legions of low-IQ counselors and interventionists, representing PP's uglier older sister Planned Childhood, stand ready to drop another billion in treasury bonds on instilling the necessary attitude adjustments. And such an argument is more plainly inconsistent and broken than the TWC "anti-food-stamp" one, since the TWL argument is comfortable completely overriding the woman's choices and forcing her to raise the child in accordance with State Dictate. The evil bureaucrats who may not be allowed to prevent abortion must prevent the mother from, say, spanking, religion, nationalism, or avoiding thimerosal (and its successor gremlins). The mother, who was so incredibly wise and valuable while having a full womb, suddenly becomes a worthless ignorant piece of shit once she has the child, and Child Protective Services needs to invade her home and steal the kid to be sure it is engaging in right-think and right-growth.

Both the TWC and TWL arguments are authoritarian, and worse, randomly so. The Clinton Foundation would stand idly by while you had twelve recreational eight-month abortions, then send armed men to interfere with your parenting style; conversely, the Westboro Foundation would send armed men to kill abortionists, then stand idly by while you ironed your twelfth child for blasphemy. Undisguised, the hypocrisies vanish, and the arguments reveal themselves as completely consistent: the arguments aren't actually about abortion, but about the individual's duty to society. To the Clinton Foundation, your duty is to produce only docile individuals subservient to the State, while to the Westboro Foundation, your duty is to produce only docile individuals subservient to the State.

That difference in emphasis--between "only" and "to produce"--is the crux of the "abortion" debate. As part of Earth, we have a fleshly linkage to all embryos, ergo the "my body" argument is stupid and blurry, and besides, survivability destroys it at quickening (or, soon enough if not already, at plasticking/surrogating). Conversely, as someone not involved in, say, late-night tantrums, we have zero responsibility for our clone's children, genetics notwithstanding, ergo the "my body" argument becomes paramount, except that drawing the lines based upon provisioning care makes all babies belong to the State, e.g., the Clinton/Gates/Oprah foundations. Racialists have a way out: the ethnic nation can claim a vested and immediate interest in the continuation of the ethny (supporting both abortion prevention and some degree of childhood interference), which is more provable in a "microscope" way, but starts rolling the snowball of genetic proximity and degrees of group membership, leading into the same ravine of guesswork survivability that people think they're in now.

In healthy societies, these things need no State. Like prostitution, abortion ends up as one of those unpreventable things with heavy social stigma, and in most cases, private shame exacts a greater toll, both punitive and (perhaps far more pragmatically important) preventative, than the State's attempt to mediate the possible. The "my body" argument goes only as far as it naturally can, regarding concealment from social shame and the plausible deniability of trying to maintain a culture that non-hypocritically respects both individual and group. The "our people" argument goes only as far as it naturally can, regarding disassociating selfish hedonism and/or justifiable murder from licensed caregivers, respectively.

No comments:

Post a Comment