Why I am voting 'yes', part two (or how the real world is painted in shades of gray)
In part one I explained why 'pro-life' is a biased misnomer that should be avoided by us supporters of abortion rights. In this follow-up I shall focus my attention on the dangers of seeing the world in black and white, particularly when it comes to the definition of 'human life'.
It has been my observation that most people still cling to a platonic view of the natural world. In this perspective, species are immutable and discrete (as opposed to continuous) entities. It is as if there were a 'sacred archetype' which is unchanging and which embodies all the distinct characteristics of the species. Now, there are quite a few things wrong with this model — most conspicuous the fact that it's a load of rubbish and flies in opposition of the evidence shown by the natural world itself.
It has been almost 150 years since Darwin published his 'Origin of Species', and the reader could argue that no one thinks in this pre-darwinian1 way anymore (well, there's those creationist folks of course, but by "no one" I meant "no one lobotomised by indoctrination or personal idiocy"). True, but even many of those who profess a (typically basic) understanding of evolution still — deep down — tend to think in platonic terms. Think for example of the urban legend that "hybrids are always infertile", or the sharp distinction given to human/animal rights. And for an elucidative example outside of biology, think of the recent controversy on the definition of 'planet'.
The world is not black and white. There are shades of gray almost everywhere, which obviously poses a problem if you are inclined to classify things in all-or-nothing terms. Those who oppose abortion on the grounds that it equals the slaying of a human life are victims of this kind of monochromatic thinking. They see 'human life' as a discrete entity, something that either is or isn't, without any shades of gray in between. This prejudiced view of the world rears its ugly head on the abortion debate: by defining conception as the moment in which 'human life' is endowed — fully, of course — it follows logically that all abortion is murder. But this is of course a conclusion based on a faulty premiss!
Notes:
- In truth, even before Charles Darwin there were those (most famously Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus Darwin and the french naturalist Lamarck) who noted that species are not immutable entities.
Hi!
I do think that all you have said regarding the referendum is interesting and even somewhat correct. However, I will still vote NO. Why is that? Because what is at stake is not really the ability to choose pro/against abortion on the first 10 weeks... What is really at stake is the concept of referendum in Portugal. This question has already been posed to the portuguese people once (a few years ago). No matter how you approach the issue (with all its shades of grey) you are still fundamentaly asking the same question.
They are trying to beat us by attrition: "as long as you vote NO... we will keep asking you the same question..." Well "pals", I will keep voting NO as long as you keep asking...
This remembers me a story one of our teaches (fsm, you know who I am talking about...
Reply to this
Hey,
I am not very fond of the concept of referendums myself. And your comment illustrates why: people tend to vote not for the issue at hand but for other accessory issues (or sometimes even completely unrelated issues!). Just take a look at the results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands about the European constitution: very few people were actually expressing their opinion about the constitution; instead they were voting "no" to express discontent about local issues, immigration policy, or polish plumbers...
In any case, bear in mind that in the 1998 referendum, the 50% quorum was not reached. This means it was technically invalid, and a follow-up referendum is a legitimate course of action. It would be a different matter if the Portuguese people had overwhelmingly voted "no", and there were new referendums until the "yes" prevailed -- then your credit card analogy would make perfect sense.
Reply to this
Hi!
You will see that, again, the quorum will not be reached. People are just fed up with governments not taking responsability for their actions...
You are right, people tend to vote not on the main issue but as an overall assessment on economic, social and even personal events. But, as you know, this will happen in any kind of voting procedure posed to us. This is the human nature at work... we can not go against it...
Reply to this