the salt makers

I will respond via email and blog.  I've been meaning to write a blog about this and since I know many of you do not read the blog regularly, this is the only way to get the message to you.  This email will contain arguments from previous emails simply for blog completion.

I have thought about the abortion issue at length and there are some interesting conclusions I have come up with.  As mentioned in the previous email my thesis is as follows:

It is quite clear to me that the pro-choice movement is based upon two assumptions:  The first being that it is a woman's right to do with their body as they please.  The flaws in this assumption are apparent enough.  I feel your (Hampton's) quotation is a more appropriate response than I have offered in this dialogue:

"Now, I won't ever say that a woman has a "right" to an abortion, because a right is, of course, nothing more than the crystallized fantasy of the person using the word.  A 6 year old would claim that it is his right to get the same amount of cookie that his sister got, no more and no less.  A juiced up frat boy would say that it is his right to pick fights at bars and disrespect women. "

The second assumption is quite bold: the fetus is not a child.  As with the previous assumption, this cannot be proven, even with science, because certainly what consists of "life" varies from science to science, from scientist to scientist.  I don't know that it will ever be able to be proven with science, though I won't contend it won't, due to the unique nature of the issue.

So, feminists and pro-choicers latch onto these assumptions as truths, with nothing more than dogma to support it.  Why, do you ask, are they so fervent about an issue they know so little about?  Convenience and the illusion of "equality". 

Women want so badly to believe that they are tantamount to men in every fashion.  I submit that there are biological differences (what feminists call "sex") which necessarily entail social differences (what feminists call "gender.")  But that is an entirely different issue, which requires a dialogue of it's own.  My point is that women seem to believe that if they do not have the same liberties as men, then they are not equal.  For example, I suppose you could say men have the liberty of having sex without pregnancy concerns.  Women do not.  If women do not posses this liberty (abortion) then we are not equal. 

Assumption number three.  Women are not "equal" to men in the traditional sense.  From dictionary.com equal means "Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another."  Sorry ladies, but you do not have the same value as men, plain and simple.  There are tasks we can do that you can't do and there are tasks you can perform which we cannot perform, perhaps with a few exceptions all around.  It might be more appropriate to say that there are tasks that we do better than each other, or that you possess values that men do not.  My point is that men and women are completely different entities, but yes, our responsibilities are equal;  you just refuse to accept it.

For years men have dominated the public realm and the social limelight.  These responsibilities range from being the primary financial provider to hosting the yearly Christmas party.  Women, on the other hand, have dominated the private realm.  These tasks range from bearing and raising children to housework.  While the tasks were clearly defined many years ago, we're beginning to see the lines blurred because women simply cannot accept the fact that raising children is equally, if not more, important than bringing home a paycheck.  I would almost certainly argue it is more consequential, for what is more important than the raising of the children?  The stubbornness of the feminist movement refuses to accept this "relegated" responsibility due to the lack of "liberty" they inherit if they cannot abort their children.

The second issue is related to the first in that the liberty to be free of pregnancy concerns is certainly a convenience that women do not possess.  It is convenient for two reasons:  First of all, "it" will not get in the way of their career or schooling.  Secondly, if they would just rather not have to take care of a child that they don't want, then they can just discard it.

Now, Hampton has agreed that the belief in abortion rights is arbitrary as they are based on assumptions motivated primarily by the desire for convenience and equality.  On the other hand, he has pointed out that the pro-life movement is just as arbitrary by contending that the fetus is a child and that women have "no right" to abort.

This I can agree with, and have come to the same conclusion in the past week.  But this is certainly far from the end of the debate, as there are key differences. 

The truth is that while both conclusions are arbitrary, one is founded on a sounder reason, that being the pro-life. The important point here is that no one can define scientifically when the "human" life begins.  Not you, not I.  So, where do we go from here?  Allow me to illustrate with some examples that I know we will all agree with:

Example 1:  You wake up from a deep sleep and mad scientist Ethan has kidnapped you.  You're locked in a room and there are two buttons present: red and blue.  Ethan tells you that if you press the red button, someone might die, but you can leave.  If you press the blue button, no one will die, but the result will inconvenience you.  What do you do?

Example 2:  You're the manager of a demolition company and you're about to destroy the building that is your largest contract.  Millions of dollars in your pocket.  As you give the order to begin the destruction, one of your employees yells, "I think I see a child in the window!"  Knowing that postponing the demolition could lose you the contract, what do you do?

Example 3:  Evil scientist Ethan kidnaps you again, but this time there is a gun in front of you.  You have two choices:  you can stay in this room for 2 weeks with Brittney Spears and Nickelback blaring 24 hours a day, or you can put the gun to your mouth and pull the trigger.  The gun might or might not be loaded.  What do you do? Wait, that might be a bad example...

I think that it is safe to say that virtually 100% of the people who are asked this question would err on the side of life; the other choices would be unnecessary risks, even with inconvenience.  And here is the key difference between the arbitrariness.

The pro-choicers arbitrarily assume that they have the "right" and that the fetus is not a child for the purpose of convenience.  A rather suspect motivation.  Pro-lifers, on the other hand, hold their beliefs because they hold human life paramount to everything.  Pro-choicers hold their own life selfishly above an action that could potentially be a murder.  Most people err on the side of life 99% of the time, yet with abortion, somehow it's totally different.  No convenience is worth that risk.  This is why I say abortion is an immoral act.

I will save your other arguments for another email, as I do not find them very troublesome to my cause.  Furthermore, there are many avenues of this argument I have not visited in this email for want of space and time.  I couldn't possibly preempt every pro-choice argument, but I'd be happy to address them individually if they are brought up.

Note: My intention is not to offend people.  I realize that might happen, but those of you who are offended are going to have to deal with the fact that there are people who disagree with you...and for good reasons.  I look forward to any dialogue on my views.  Also note that I'm not focusing on the immorality of abortion.  That area is simply too gray to discuss I have come to feel.  My purpose is to analyze the motivations of women and feminists who insist on their "right" to abortion.

You may forward this to anyone you please and, in fact, I encourage it.  As Socrates says, "For all men who have a companion are readier in deed, word, or thought."

Zach Sonnier