TVRDNJA POKRETA ZA-IZBOR #3
Za-Izbor ili Za-Život? ISPITUJEMO 15 TVRDNJI ZA-IZBOR Šta nam govore činjenice i zdrav razum?
Neki zagovornici pokreta Za-Izbor tvrde da čak iako je fetus osoba, to ne mijenja činjenicu da jedna osoba nema pravo da koristi tijelo druge osobe suprotno njenoj volji (u ovom slučaju protiv majčine volje). Zbog toga bi majka trebala imati pravo da “izbaci” fetus iz svog tijela.
U svojoj knjizi Praksa abortusa, Warren Hern, jedan od najistaknutijih aborcionista je napisao da: “odnos između (majke) i (djeteta) se najbolje može objasniti kao odnos iz-među domaćina i parazita.”
On nije jedini koji ovako misli. Jedna žena, koja je nosila blizance koje je kasnije abortirala, napisala je: “Sada su to samo paraziti koji žive na moj račun.”
Jia Tolentino je napisala: “Ako je fetus osoba, onda je
to osoba koja posjeduje, kako je to Sally Rooney sročila u Londonskoj kritici knjiga, ‘širok dijapazon ljudskih prava, prava koja nisu dostupna ni jednoj drugoj klasi građana’ - pravo na besplatno korištenje nečije maternice i krvi bez njihove dozvole, i pravo da izazove trajne, neželjene promjene na tijelu druge osobe. U odnosu između žene i fetusa, žena ima manja prava od leša.”
“KIDNAPOVANA” DEVET MJESECI?
Ova argumentacija nije nova. Mnogo godina ranije, zagovornica za pravo na abortus, Judith Jarvis Thomson, kreirala je analogiju koja je bila naširoko citirana u literaturi i debatama pripadnika pokreta Za-Izbor. Ona je uporedila trudnoću sa situacijom u kojoj se netko probudi privezan za poznatog violonistu koji je u nesvjesti. Zamislite, Thomson kaže, da vas neka grupa pod imenom Udruženje ljubitelja muzike “kidnapuje” zato što imate određenu krvnu grupu. Sada ste prisiljeni da ostanete “prikopčani” na tijelo violiniste devet mjeseci, nakon čega će on moći preživjeti sam.
Thomson je onda pitala, šta ako nije u pitanju samo devet mjeseci, nego devet godina, ili čak mnogo duže od toga. (Ovo se poređenje odnosi na brigu o djetetu nakon rođenja.) Thomson pretpostavlja da bi čitaoci smatrali takvu situaciju “nečuvenom” i da ne bi mislili da je njihova obaveza da pristanu na devet mjeseci ropstva i bijede zbog violiniste, koji je malo vrijedniji od ljudskog parazita.
Ova analogija je vrijedna pobližeg ispitivanja, zato što je ona tipičan primjer načina na koji je pitanje abortusa predstavljeno od strane zagovornika prava Za-Izbor u našem društvu. Slijedeće četiri slabe tačke ovog argumenta koje prodiru u samu srž debate o pitanju abortusa.
1. Veliki procenat trudnoća, preko 98% su rezultat seksualnih odnosa u kojem su oba partnera dobrovoljno učestvovala. Žena je rijetko natjerana ili prisiljena da zatrudni. Paralela sa Udruženjem ljubitelja muzike ne postoji nigdje drugo osim u umu Thomsonove. Mali broj žena ostane u drugom stanju kao posljedica silovanja, i riječima ne mogu izraziti količinu suosjećanja koje trebamo imati prema ovim ženama. Ipak, iako ideja Thomsonove da su trudne žene kidnapovane i primorane, jeste učinkovit emotivni instrument za izokretanje stvarnosti. Možete li imenovati ijedan subjekt koji tjera ljude da stupe u seksualne odnose i zatrudne?
2. U ovom scenariju, majka i dijete su usmjereni jedno protiv drugog kao neprijatelji. Majka je u najboljem slučaju sistem za održavanje na životu, a u najgorem slučaju žrtva zločina. Dijete je pijavica, parazit, koji nepravedno iskorištava majku i narušava njenu privatnost. Ljubav, suosjećanje i briga se nigdje ne spominju. Veza između majke i djeteta se u potpunosti ignoriše. Slika žene koja se budi u krevetu vezana za nepoznatog nesvjesnog čovjeka je bizarna i degradirajuća za žene čija trudnoća i majčinstvo jesu prirodne stvari.
“Violinista je vještački vezan za ženu,” Greg Koukl piše: “Nerođeno dijete jedne majke, međutim, nije vezano hirurški, niti je ikada bilo “privezano” za nju. Umjesto toga, bebu je stvorilo majčino tijelo putem prirodnog procesa razmnožavanja.”
Pored toga, ljudi koji imaju religiozna vjerovanja obično smatraju da je tu i nadnaravna prisutnost Tvorca koji je stvorio dijete na Njegovu sliku, što čini to dijete svetinjom, a ne parazitom.
3. Prisustvo djeteta tokom trudnoće je rijetko nelagodnije od njegovog prisustva nakon rođenja. Teret rođenog djeteta je obično veći za ženu, nego teret nerođenog djeteta. Ipak, ako roditelj dvogodišnjeg djeteta odluči da je umoran od roditeljstva, i da niko nema pravo da očekuje od nje da nastavi biti roditelj, bez obzira na to, društvo priznaje da ona ima određene odgovornosti prema djetetu. Ona ga može dati u udomiteljski dom ili na usvajanje, ali ga ne može zakonski zlostavljati, zanemarivati ili ubiti. Ako je ubijanje nerođenog djeteta njeno rješenje za stres koji donosi trudnoća, zar ubijanje ne bi takođe bilo rješenje na još veće stresove koji dolaze sa odgajanjem djeteta koje ide u vrtić.
Greg Koukl pita: “Šta kada bi se majka probudila iz nesreće i našla sebe hirurški privezanu za svoje dijete? Kakva bi to majka dobrovoljno isključila sistem koji održava na životu njeno dvogodišnje dijete. Šta bismo mi mislili o njoj kada bi ona to uradila?”
4. Čak i kada nije prisutan osjećaj dužnosti prema nekome, ponekad postoji stvarna dužnost. Šta ako neko siluje ili ubije ženu, kako ćemo gledati na one koji nisu učinili nikakav napor da je spase? Zar ne možemo priznati da postoji moralna obaveza da se spasi život, pa čak iako podrazumijeva neugodnost ili rizik koji nismo tražili, niti ga želimo? Scott Klusendorf je to ovako rekao: “Možda nemamo obavezu da spasimo strance koji su na neprirodan način prikopčani na nas, ali imamo dužnost da održimo na životu naše potomstvo.”
Za ženu koja nosi dijete, sigurno je bitno da uzme u obzir i to da se njena majka žrtvovala na isti način za nju. Možemo li zaboraviti da je svako od nas nekada ranije bio “pijavica” ili“parazit” koji je koji je ovisio o majci ovisio o majci da bi preživio? Zar vam nije drago da je vaša majka gledala drugačije na trudnoću i na vas - drugačije od ovih analogija?
SIMPTOM SLOMLJENOG DRUŠTVA
Ovaj argument je zasnovan na utilitarizmu, ideji da, što god čovjeku donosi momentalnu sreću ili olakšanje, je pra-vi smjer djelovanja. Ovo je klimavo tlo za bilo koje društvo koje želi biti moralno i pravedno u načinu na koji se odnosi prema slabima i potrebitima.
Kao što Michael Spielman, osnivač i direktor Abort73 kaže: “Potpuna ovisnost nerođene djece je postao izgovor, ne za njihovu zaštitu nego za njihovo uništenje! Činjenica da toliko mnogo majki vidi vlastitu djecu kao parazita je strašna optužba našeg društva.”
Pro-Choice Claim #3: “Even if a fetus is a person, no person is allowed to live off the body of another person without permission.”
Some pro-choice advocates argue that even if a “fetus” is actually a person, that doesn’t change the fact that one person does not have the right to use the body of another person against their will (in this case, against the mother’s will). Therefore, she should have the right to “evict” the fetus from her body.
In his book Abortion Practice, Warren Hern, one of the world’s most prominent abortionists, wrote that “the relationship between the [mother] and the [baby] can be understood best as one of host and parasite.” He’s not alone in this view. One woman, referring to the twins she was pregnant with and later aborted, wrote, “Right now it’s just a parasite only living off of me.”
Jia Tolentino says, “If the fetus is a person, it is a person who possesses, as Sally Rooney put it in the London Review of Books, ‘a vastly expanded set of legal rights, rights available to no other class of citizen’—the right to ‘make free, non-consensual use of another living person’s uterus and blood supply, and cause permanent, unwanted changes to another person’s body.’ In the relationship between woman and fetus, she wrote, the woman is ‘granted fewer rights than a corpse.’”
“Kidnapped” for Nine Months?
This line of argument is not new. Years ago, abortion-rights advocate Judith Jarvis Thomson invented an analogy that was widely quoted in pro-choice literature and debates. She compared pregnancy to a situation in which someone wakes up strapped to a famous but unconscious violinist. Imagine, Thomson says, that some group called the Society of Music Lovers has “kidnapped” you because you have a certain blood type. Now you are being forced to stay “plugged in” to the violinist’s body for nine months until he is viable, or able to live on his own.
Thomson then asked what if it were not just nine months, but nine years or considerably longer? (This is a comparison to having to raise a child once he’s born.) Thomson assumes that readers would find such a situation “outrageous” and would not consider it their obligation to be subjected to nine months—at least—of bondage and misery for the sake of the violinist, who is little more than a human parasite.
This analogy is worth a closer examination, because it’s typical of the way the abortion issue is framed by pro-choice advocates in our society. Following are four fallacies of this argument that cut to the heart of the abortion debate.
1. An extremely high percentage of pregnancies, over 98%, are the result of sexual relations in which both partners have willingly participated. A woman is rarely coerced or forced into pregnancy. The parallel to the Society of Music Lovers exists nowhere except in Thomson’s mind. A very small number of women are in fact pregnant due to rape, and words cannot express the compassion we should have for these women. However, while Thomson’s idea of most pregnant women being kidnapped and coerced is an effective emotional device, it is a distortion of reality. Can you name any entity forcing people to have sex and get pregnant?
2. In this scenario, mother and child are pitted against each other as enemies. The mother is at best merely a life-support system and at worst the victim of a crime. The child is a leech, a parasite unfairly taking advantage of the mother and invading her privacy. Love, compassion, and care are nowhere present. The bonding between mother and child is totally ignored. The picture of a woman waking up in a bed, strapped to a strange unconscious man is bizarre and degrading to women, whose pregnancy and motherhood are natural events.
“The violinist is artificially attached to the woman,” Greg Koukl writes. “A mother’s unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever ‘attached’ to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother’s own body by the natural process of reproduction.”
In addition, those who have religious beliefs typically think there is also the supernatural presence of a Creator who has formed the child in his image, making him or her sacred, not parasitical.
3. The child’s presence during pregnancy is rarely more inconvenient than his presence after birth. The burden of a born child is usually greater on a woman than the burden of an unborn child. Yet if the parent of a two-year-old decides that she is tired of being a parent and that no one has the right to expect her to be one any longer, society nonetheless recognizes that she has certain responsibilities toward that child. She can surrender him for foster care or adoption, but she cannot legally abuse, neglect, or kill the child. If killing the preborn child is her solution to the stresses of pregnancy, is killing not also the solution to the greater stresses of parenting a preschooler?
Greg Koukl asks, “What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that? And what would we think of her if she did?”
4. Even when there is no felt obligation, there is sometimes real obligation. If a woman is being raped or murdered, what do we think of those who make no effort to rescue her? Don’t we recognize there is moral responsibility toward saving a life, even if it involves an inconvenience or risk we didn’t ask for or want? Scott Klusendorf puts it this way: “We may not have the obligation to sustain strangers who are unnaturally plugged into us, but we do have a duty to sustain our own offspring.”
For the woman carrying a child, surely it’s a significant consideration that her own mother made exactly the same sacrifice for her. Can we forget that every one of us was once this “leech,” this “parasite” dependent on our mothers in order to live? Aren’t you glad your mother looked at pregnancy—and looked at you—differently than these analogies?
A Symptom of a Broken Society
This argument for abortion is based in utilitarianism, the idea that whatever brings a person momentary happiness or relief is the right course of action. This is a shaky foundation for any society that hopes to be moral and just in its treatment of the weak and needy.
As Michael Spielman, founder and director of Abort73, says, “The absolute dependence of unborn children has become the rationale not for their protection, but for their destruction! The fact that so many mothers think of their child as a parasite is a scary indictment of our society.”
