Ken Dobson's Queer Ruminations from Thailand
Search this site
  • Life in Thailand
  • Queer Issues in Thailand
  • Queer Christian Issues
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Stories

Abortion

12/11/2016

4 Comments

 
Picture
                                                      AN ESSAY ON HUMAN RIGHTS     

The Senate of Ohio is working on a definition of when human life begins, although their express project is to specify an early end-date for legal abortions.  In “breaking news” as of December 6, the senators have decided that no abortions should occur after a fetal heartbeat can be detected (using the most sophisticated equipment).  That is “22 days after conception or earlier”. 
     To put that into perspective, the current practice is to draw the line at “viability” which is about 28 weeks after conception.  “Viability” is the point at which about 90% of fetuses could survive outside the uterus.  Before 20 weeks 0% of fetuses are “viable”.  Full-term is 40 weeks.  So the senators have agreed to shorten the time from 28 weeks to 3 weeks for pregnant women in Ohio to decide whether to become a mother.
     In real terms, 22 days is before most women are even aware they are pregnant since they have not yet missed their first menstruation, much less their first two.  The Ohio bill would effectively eliminate abortions, since no abortion (or any medical procedure) would be considered before someone is aware of the need for it.  Ohio “Pro-life” (anti-abortion) groups are rejoicing because this is a step toward reversing the US Supreme Court’s “Roe vs Wade” decision that permitted legal abortions in order to reduce the dangers of illegal abortion practices by bringing all abortions under the law.  In theory, as articulated currently by pro-life moralists, human life begins at the moment of conception  Pro-life activists hope that Roe vs Wade will be overturned when the US Supreme Court takes on conservative Republican justices as soon as next year.
     In short, the abortion issue in the USA and elsewhere is, “at what point is the will and welfare of the woman replaced by the welfare of the fetus she is carrying?”  In its starkest form this question is, “When is it more important to save the baby than the mother, and who gets to decide?”  On one side of the issue are the woman’s welfare, her emotional and physical health and well being, her social existence, and her human rights.  On the other side, of course, are the child’s rights, which brings us back to the question of when does the embryo (later called a fetus) become formed enough to be called human and have legal standing.
     The current choices are essentially these:
  • A fertilized egg is human from the moment of conception.
  • The embryo becomes human when a heartbeat can be detected.
  • A fetus becomes human when it is “quickened”, i.e. when the woman feels movement.
  • A fetus becomes human when it is “viable” and would survive outside the womb.
  • A child becomes human at the moment of birth.
     Who gets to decide when someone is human?  This is a serious, on-going, unresolved issue.  As soon as we think it’s been settled, it wiggles out of confinement again.
     Option ONE: the state decides.  Example: The Nazi state made the decision that the “Aryan Race” was fully human and other beings were less human, sub-human, or inhuman.  Those excluded were Jews, Slavs, black people, homosexuals, and mental ill or deficient and physically deformed persons.
     Option TWO: The church defends what God decides.  Example: the Roman Catholic Church made the decision that having an abortion is a grave sin and that all who are supportive of abortions are involved in the sin.  The rationale is “natural law” as a basis for canon law that human life is sacred and that no matter when “human” life begins, the purpose of sex and procreation is to produce human life.  The church actually defends the process by which life has a chance of beginning.
     Option THREE: the impregnated woman decides.  When complex factors began to be recognized in mid-twentieth century, those factors distorted and re-described what was theretofore “normal”.  At that point, priority began to be assumed in favor of those responsible and obligated to provide care for human children.  The right to decide about continuing a pregnancy was allocated to parents and medical professionals as the most competent to assess the specific factors in a given case.  In effect this meant that finally the mother decides.  It was considered a huge victory for women gaining standing in a male-dominated world.
     As of 2016, once again, the state is maneuvering to remove mothers from having a legal voice in the issue of whether or not they will be required to bring every conception to full-term if possible and then to be accountable for 18 years of care and nurture.  All associated matters are obliterated.  If the anti-abortion movement prevails, it will no longer matter that lives may be ruined or unsustainable.  The only issue, once again, will be whether the conception happened.
       Beneath this presenting issue is the philosophical one of who decides what constitutes a human being, at what point it begins and at what point it ends.  Who decides who should live or die?
    This round of the contest will be between states versus individuals.  The problem is that states/nations fail to handle particular extenuating circumstances, and the cases all are unique, every one of them.  Churches/religions also insist they are dealing with universal truths.  Ironically, both states and religious entities are less comprehensive, with concerns more limited than human rights are supposed to cover. On the other hand, the problem with allowing free decisions is that individuals tend to be sometimes erratic and inconsiderate.  There needs to be a steadying influence.
     When it comes to defining who is human, however, states and religions have a terrible track record.  Human rights are in the wrong hands when the handlers lose sight of half of the human beings they are supposed to be protecting.
4 Comments
Roy
12/12/2016 10:13:03 am

"The problem is that states/nations fail to handle particular extenuating circumstances, and the cases all are unique, every one of them.

"This statement is so true in so many situations including our welfare system." The state/nation needs to stick to its constitutionally given authorities and stay out of everything else, especially our lives.

Reply
Perdo
3/2/2017 11:06:40 am

Carson, E.F. (2001). The unfit: A history of a bad idea! Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. HQ 751 C284 u2001.
The interesting critique of Carson is that there is a social category for several subcategories of human beings. The word Unfit is used. This word meets Gorman's criteria of stigma which issues in a series of injustices. As a result, the unfit persons described in Carson will be put at risk variously of stereotyping, special treatment and charity, abuse and other risks: death by abortion, sterilization (forced or coerced) and more.

Questions I have of this study
1. How are the unfit defined?
2. What are the common and diverse characteristics of this category?
3. What are the opposite characteristics that define ‘normal’ society which is deemed more desirable?
4. What outcomes are proposed for the unfit in their treatment by society?

Reply
Perdo
3/2/2017 11:15:20 am

On one hand I am deeply concerned about nationalist agendas enacted by the state that pursue pregnancy as a tool for creating the correct kinds of human beings.
It would be nice to think of religions as presenting a moral alternative to the state, but by and large they support national eugenics policies, resulting in forced and coerced abortion and sterilization among selected populations. The Western religious denominations have so far limited themselves to 'protests' to protect the right of mothers to choose. They ignore the argument against the forced and coerced abortion of the unfit. Are women, freed from the state regulations on abortions, truly free to choose? No. state coercion remains after formal state actions are removed, as per 1975/Nixon's Administration ending of forced abortion among women of color. I wonder how the CIA's introduction of the pill at that time has fared among the "unfit" mothers celebrating their freedom to let blue-eyed, mentally-brilliant, physically unimpaired and non-imprisoned women have all the babies.

Reply
Dominic link
5/24/2022 04:40:02 am

Thanks greaat blog post

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Rev. Dr. Kenneth Dobson posts his weekly reflections on this blog. 

    Archives

    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Copyright © 2023 Rev. Dr. Kenneth Dobson