I'd like to preface this entry by stating that I may modify it or add to it once I've had the time to listen to the full speech Mr. Henry Morgentaler made as he recieved his honorary degree from the University of Western Ontario. The topic of this entry is a loaded one and I want to express myself clearly and to benefit from the thinking that takes place as I write and reflect on it.
Mr. Henry Morgentaler was born in Poland and survived the WWII in a German concentration camp he was placed in because of the fact that he is a Jew. He studied medecine after the war, lodging with a family required to house him under the UN programme that provided his education. Following this he moved to Montreal and became more and more involved in the cause of abortion rights, opening abortion clinics across the country and several times facing charges and doing time in jail in the process.
There are many stances one can take on abortion, including that it is morally wrong, that it can be justified under certain circumstances such as pregnancy due to rape or threat to the life of the mother, and that it represents the right for a woman to control her own body. The underlying philosophies for one's stance on abortion, likewise, can vary as well. One's stance may spring from religious, feminist, or humanist underpinnings and may vary between people though they claim to be basing their stances on a similar foundation.
A subject as broadly defined and justified and as tied to strong beliefs such as the rights of the fetus and the rights of women is, not surprisingly, extremely prone to heated disagreement and the entrenching of opposed and embittered camps. The language surrounding the issue is polarized, with terms such as "pro-choice", "anti-choice", "pro-abortion", and "anti-abortion" used both to describe and to condemn. Mr. Morgentaler has been right in the middle of this in Canada.
As I stated above, I have not yet listened to the full speech Mr. Morgentaler made. I will though. I have read the CBC article on the speech which included a few quotes. These quotes seem to indicate that as part of his speech, Mr. Morgentaler suggested that abortion offers a woman the opportunity to have children whom they can love and that the increased in the ratio of loved to unloved childred is good for society. He stated that "Well-loved children grow into adults who do not build concentration camps, do not rape and do not murder" and that "the most important factor is that there are fewer unwanted children, fewer children likely to be abused, brutalized or neglected ... children so victimized they may grow up for a thirst for vengeance which seeks an outlet in violence". Mr. Morgentaler also made a causal link between a decrease in crime since 1991 and an increase in the women's access to abortion.
I can understand a conviction that the right to abortion is important because it is part of the right of a woman to wrest control of her body from the state and from a male-dominated society. I can understand the justification of abortion to save a woman's life or because the pregnancy came about through rape. I can understand but do not accept the argument based on the bettterment of society through pruning away those who would not be exposed to loving environments. Mr. Morgenaler's argument has a wierd similarity to the one made by Swift in A Modest Proposal. One difference is that Mr. Swift was attempting to evoke revulsion in his audience. Both arguments, however, involve an argument that devalues human life in the process of pursuing what is presented as a greater good.
My main objection to Mr. Morgentaler's rationale for abortion is that decisions must never be about whether or not people should live or not based on social or humanistic or genetic goals. Mr. Morgentaler does make such an argument since it is based on considerations of human beings and their actions once born, not women and their rights to privacy and control over their bodies. His argument stems from his humanistic values rather than from the femenist values most often associated with the fight for abortion rights for women. In essence, Mr. Morgentaler has carried out a thought experiment in which a fetus is born and grows up unloved. The results of that experiment leads to a decision to condone the abortion of a fetus. This is dangerous. This line of reasoning, besides being used to support abortion rights, can lead to things such as eugenics programs, forced sterilizations, and genocidal campaigns such as occurred in Rwanda and Europe under the Nazis in WWII. How far one runs with this reasoning is, of course, relevant to the judgement of a person's actions. I am not discussing the relative severity of results of reasoning here, but rather the line of reasoning itself. Life must never be devalued in any rationalization for any action. Life is a greater good. If one wants to fight hatred one should fight to do things that show a value for life such as working againsts poverty, inequity, enslavement, violence, and a myriad of other things that devalue life. Working against these things may indeed lead to fighting for abortion rights.
One final note; a reduction in crime rates between 1991 can be explained well by the fact that a large proportion of the population, namely the Baby Boom generation, has passed through its youthful criminal age. Through demographids, there are fewer kids (not fewer "unloved" kids) around, proportionally, to commit acts of vandalism, burglary, assault, etc.
