|
April 30, 2004
Abortive thoughts on free speech
Here are some heretical thoughts which occurred to me after I heard complaints about this group bombarding female college students (who did not seek them out but wanted to use the student lounge) with gruesome images like these. (Interview with the group's leader here.) Barring a time, place, and manner argument, I think the right to shock people with gruesome images (whether of aborted fetuses or children being skinned alive is irrelevant) is morally at least as permissible as is the right to display pornography. Legally, of course, it's more so. But legal analysis is not my purpose here. (I'd defend the sign wavers's rights as much as I would Nazis, Communists, or Klansmen.) The placard wavers intend to shock people into thinking. So I'm just thinking. (I have stated my views on abortion previously. Activists on both sides accuse me of being on "the other side" -- as if they assume there are only two.) I recognize that abortion must be a very painful procedure. That if it is to be allowed at all in the second trimester, it's a shameful thing to do to a fetus, because that fetus now has a brain most likely capable of feeling pain. Therefore, the least the doctors could do would be to anesthetize the fetus. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ireland is on record as recommending pre-abortion anesthesia. But wait a minute! Isn't countenancing anesthesia an admission that the fetus feels pain? And doesn't that start us down a "slippery slope" towards condemnation of abortion? Hey, how is that my problem? Since when did I sign an agreement either way on whether a fetus feels pain? Should politics dictate these things? I mean, if animals are anesthetized before surgery or medical experimentation, what makes a wannabe person inferior? Beats me. In the course of researching this, I stumbled onto something else which I don't think too many people have thought about: the pain of birth. Further, studies have found that in the early stages of labor, healthy in utero fetuses will often respond with FHR changes or movement of some kind in response to various noises and sounds produced outside the intra-uterine environment. But as the labor continues, this reaction will cease. While some have described this as an instance of fetal habituation, others state that it is rather the distraction of the overwhelming fetal pain associated with labor.Overwhelming fetal pain? During birth? Why aren't we taught about that? The pain of the mother is now medicated almost as a matter of routine, but what about the baby? These days, they're starting to require anesthesia for circumcision, which occurs soon after birth. What's so special about the baby's pain after labor which isn't so special before? Or are we still clinging to the ancient idea that pain builds character? Before readers laugh, I would remind them that during the Victorian era, when anesthesia was first coming into use, some doctors refused to countenance it, based on the sincere belief that it would harm their patients' character. Is it heresy to ask whether the pain to the fetus of full-term labor is worse than the pain of abortion? I think it's a logical question, and I have to thank the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. They have failed, however, to persuade me a fertilized ovum is a human being. And I think their inflammatory approach, while constitutionally protected, is creating lifelong animosity towards their cause. The young women who had no choice but to view the huge placards (and read the signs claiming "genocide" and likening women who've had abortions to Adolf Hitler) are merely becoming desensitized. And angry at those trying to manipulate them. I found myself thinking about these things when I read this news report about the peculiarly large numbers of college age women in Washington last week: The people who complained about the placard wavers are not political activists in the least. I know them. They were really fried that people who are unable to distinguish between a knocked up teenager and Adolf Hitler were waving these images at them. It's a free country, and I support free speech as much as anyone else. But illogical assaults on the senses are not the best way to win converts to your cause. posted by Eric on 04.30.04 at 07:05 PM
Comments
The "in-your-face" rudeness of these pro-lifers (emulating tactics of Leftist protesters) and the dishonesty of so many pro-choicers are both alienating. I used to be ardently pro-choice but I can no longer align myself with people who can't even say the word "abortion" (it's all "reproductive freedom", "women's health", etc., instead). Abortion may or may not be murder, but it is killing. It may be justified killing, as in hunting or war or self-defense, but it is killing none the less, and the pro-abortionists don't even have the guts to acknowledge that fact. It is hard for me to see a fertilized ovum as a human being. It's equally hard for me to see a fully-developed fetus as anything less. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · May 11, 2004 02:57 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
For what it's worth - I'm not a doctor - but when I gave birth to my son I was refused anesthetic of any sort. He was so very premature they were afraid it would damage him. It may be one thing to anesthesize a fetus that's being aborted and another to do it to one that's going to live.
Sadly ironic, but there you go.