(In honor of noting/Remembering with regret – choose one) the United States Supreme Court decisions of January 22, 1973 in the matters of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, I am inserting, in place of my usual blog, an essay I wrote years ago on the subject. [It is, perhaps, of interest that Roei later decided that “abortion hurts women,”ii and Doeiii was apparently unaware that the suit was being filed, and she opposed it.iv]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending the Endless Argument
A Modest Proposal
for disposing of a troublesome Issue,
one dividing our Nation, yet pregnant with
the Potential for just and productive Resolution
to the Satisfaction of all Parties.
One need only sit among one’s fellows at a neighborhood establishment, satisfy himself with a little to ease the parched feeling in his throat, and dilate on the problems of the day to discover that too many of our citizens lack a tolerance for the opinions of others. One need simply read the daily tabloids and broadsheets, or their electronic analogs, to discover that the fifth estate is a significant contributor to the situation, although it is wont to ascribe its attention to such issues as the public’s interest or its “right to know.” And because by doing so they can distract their constituents from attention to matters of greater substance, our public servants confound these questions still further.
Of all disputes, the most difficult to resolve are those based on moral or religious principles, and those in which the emotions take precedence over a rational desire to reach some sort of accommodation so the parties can move on with their lives. Certainly, when political issues require resolution there are usually statesmen skilled enough to find common ground on which disputing parties can walk together; businessmen with interests in settling issues can generally negotiate an agreement that satisfies the needs of all sided; and attorneys make a living bringing disputants to settlements and framing compromises which are acceptable, if not a source of rejoicing, on all sides.
But absolute principles, the true arbiters of “Right” and “Wrong,” do not allow much leeway in problem solving. A typical example is the controversy concerning “women's rights” and “human rights.” Those who are “pro-choice,” who favor legal abortion see those rights as belonging to the pregnant woman, while “pro-life” advocates assign them to the unborn child. Since the issue is one of life and death, there does not seem to be much room for compromise -- at least in relation to individual cases. Because the dispute is one in which some organized religions have existing opinions, many are tempted to view those opposing their points of view as either religious fanatics attempting to impose their standards on others, or sinners who are violating universal standards of behavior; since it is always women who are seeking abortions, many who favor its availability see the opponents as sexists who are trying to control women’s lives. Such arguments are difficult to counter because they are very strongly felt and are based on belief, not reason.
Nonetheless, a solution must be found to a problem that has been polarizing our society for so long. As with all such solutions, it must be seen to meet the arguments of both sides to a sufficient degree that each can portray itself as at least partially victorious. To obtain such a result would seem to require the simultaneous acceptance and prohibition of abortion -- two contrary absolutes -- a difficult objective to achieve. What might be considered, however, is the establishment of specific situational criteria under which one or the other of these absolutes would be applied; in the one instance criteria would obtain in which unrestricted abortion would be permitted (perhaps even made mandatory), while in the other situation it would be prohibited under almost any circumstance.
If such standards were to be established, the greatest care and delicacy would be required to ensure their freedom from any hint of race or class bias. Indeed, they should not relate to religious or moral principles either. These are, in large part, the underpinnings of the existing arguments for and against and, since there is an abhorrence on each side of the other’s moral position, these issues should be set aside as a solution is sought. The fact that this is considered a “women’s issue” -- that, as many argue, perhaps with some justification, if men were to bear children they would support abortion rather than leading the fight to abolish it -- may provide a basis for finding a solution to the problem. While it would be facetious to suggest that the differentiating criterion might be the sex of the pregnant patient (prohibit abortion in men but permit or require it for pregnant women), sex might still provide the answer. Indeed, it has provided the issue.
In a democracy like the United States the majority sets the rules for all. That applies whether the community is as large as the entire nation or as small as the nine members of the Supreme Court. It is clear that the large majority of women favor abortion, and, consequently, it is appropriate that the majority speak for all. It is almost a certainty that a randomly chosen woman would agree with the opinion of the many. On the other hand, most of the males of the species may oppose such an act and a randomly chosen male would probably oppose abortion. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to extrapolate these specific points of view to a group who have not expressed themselves on the particular subject -- fetuses. We can safely assume that a female fetus would concur with her mother on the desirability of abortion, while a male fetus might question such a move.
Having clarified the issues involved, the solution becomes obvious, as soon as a pregnancy is diagnosed, appropriate testing should be performed to determine the sex of the fetus and all female fetuses aborted while the males are preserved. (That preference, though apparent in China, has not been universal. The Bible records Pharaoh’s preference for Jewish girls. However he preferred post-delivery family planning to achieve his goal.)
It would be naive to expect this proposal to be universally accepted even though a majority of citizens would surely support it. Indeed, there are many reasons to do so. These may result both from the decrease in female births and the relative increase in males -- a boon for females. In addition, it is immediately apparent that funds for abortion would be spent on a women’s health issue, an area to which everyone agrees far too little of our resources has been devoted. That the abortions will involve female fetuses exclusively skews the funding even more toward gender (dare I say “sex?”) equality in terms of health-care funding.
Another salutary effect of such an approach would be the availability of female fetuses for research projects, including stem-cell investigations. Currently there is a reluctance on the part of many to permit such research based on the fear that such sanction would encourage the performance of abortions. Since this new availability would be the result of a program aimed at limiting the number of abortions (although it might produce a larger number than are now performed) it could not be faulted on this count. And it should be specified that such research programs, which would deal only with female fetuses, would be well suited for the study of female health problems, to the complete exclusion of the study of diseases of males.
Equally salubrious, and resulting from the halving of deliveries (including c-sections), would be the immediate decrease in the incidence of pregnancy related diseases, death in childbirth, and post-partum depression. That would be followed almost immediately by the elimination of the abuse of female children, there being none to abuse. Presently the battery of women in general would end. There would also be a decrease overall in health-care costs as pediatrics, and later adult medicine and geriatrics, becomes less important.
An additional potential benefit which might be derived from the termination of half our pregnancies is suggested by the late Dr. J. Swift, a pioneer in the environmental movement who, in his own essay on the subject, urged the killing of children as a method of dealing with excess births in Ireland, and the utilization of their flesh as a renewable food source for other members of the population. Clearly his audience did not, at that time, recognize the wisdom of his counsel, and no improvement in the situation was obtained. Even today it is likely that few would accept the prudent suggestions he made since, though we are not at all reluctant to abuse them, we tend to shy away from the actual killing of children after they breathe their first. (It should be noted that this “shying away” is anything but universal and many children are actually killed by their parents and others.) As a consequence, we should be most unlikely to accept children as table fare. Indeed, the average American would probably be too delicate to taste even a fetus, though it might not be recognized as human life from its mere appearance. (There are two exceptions to this rule: One is the existence of cannibalism in some societies and among some of our own population who suffer from particular socialization disorders. Another possible exception is the processing and flavoring of the material for use as a substitute for the earthworms said to be incorporated into meat patties in some “fast food” establishments.)
Nonetheless, the idea of not recycling this high protein material would be anathema to most Americans. It would not be unreasonable, though, to deal with these byproducts of pregnancy much as we do with other materials which we manufacture but for which there is no market locally. We must export them as a means of properly reusing valuable resources, feeding the hungry in the Third World, and, of course, improving our balance of payments. It is a most propitious combination of benefits from a single act.
Returning to the results of the selective termination of female pregnancies, it should not be overlooked that the exclusive occurrence of male births would eventually result in increased homosexual behavior -- a consequence that would be repulsive to many of the men who currently eschew the sanction of abortion. There would, however, be a contrary result of the program which would more than satisfy the same super-masculine personalities troubled by what they would view as the weakness displayed by gay men. The greater number of males produced (for it is likely that there will be some compensation for the end of female births) would certainly increase the likelihood of that paradigm of strong, positive male activities, war. It would not be surprising if this were viewed as a signal benefit of the program, and a preference for sending gay men to the front might result.
Nonetheless, we could anticipate the continuation of the debate both in and out of the courts until the issue were finally resolved. What is, perhaps, most important about a solution like this one, a side-effect which might be overlooked at first glance, is that if it is implemented and made mandatory, we can, within a generation, eliminate both the problem and the debate. It would be wonderful, and perhaps unique in human experience, to be able to solve such a perplexing problem so quickly and completely as this.
It's certainly worth a try.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Next episode: “Intermezzo” – Words, not music.
i Norma McCorvey.
ii The New York Sun, June 23, 2003.
iii Sandra Cano.
iv “Cano, who opposes abortion rights, has said that she was unaware that Doe v. Bolton was filed on her behalf.” (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 11/12/01)
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.