10 years ago

Active

Robert Emmett Murphy Jr

 
Shared with Public
Public
The book I’ve read recently that I was most impressed with was “The Better Angels of Our Nature”by Pinker. It explored evidence that civilization on a whole, but especially Europe and the North Western Hemisphere, have become less violent, and trying to divine why. Pinker gave a lot of reasons, all of which interacted with each other. One compelling section had to do with our ability to increasingly value the lives of others was recognizing individuals as autonomous. When your autonomy is respected, you are now valued by criterias other than your integration into a norm and utility to the image of that norm. Slavery, the subjugation of women, racism, homophobia, sectarian violence and genocide all require to devaluing of autonomy which makes group judgments easier and frees us to view others only in terms of zero-sum utility.
Strangely (and positively) this elevating of the individual has not unleashed anarchy. Quite the opposite, the recognizing personal autonomy seems to have evolved with (because of?) better organized states where rule-of-responsive-law trumped tribal association, traditional rule, and might-as-the-only-right . The concept seems almost wholly good, but you know that there has to be a bugbear somewhere, and when it comes to autonomy, abortion is the bugbear.
Our movements for recognizing the autonomy of women and children, and with that, insisting on their rights and lives be protected, came right up together (it is shocking how recently murderous violence against both were sanctified by American law). Women and children’s rights tightly bound together. But when the discussion reached the issues of the unborn, two autonomies were suddenly in conflict, and the conflict was irreconcilable. Simply put, if you recognize the autonomy of the unborn child, you can only do so by sacrificing some (a lot) of the autonomy of the woman carrying him/her. The language we use demonstrates this.
I strongly believe that a woman has a right to that much control over her own body, so I describe myself as pro-choice, and therefore for would call the opposition is anti-abortion.
Reverse that–The opposition will call themselves pro-life, and call me pro-abortion.
“Choice” and “Life” are words that reflects respect for autonomy, in promises intimacy with that other we claim we ally ourselves with (the woman or the unborn); meanwhile “abortion” is clinical, distancing, utilitarian. It applies (with the appropriate prefix is added) to only our opponents.
I recognize this divide, but it’s also clear to me which autonomy takes priority.
In defense of the unborn, there’s aggressive attempt to regulate women’s bodies. Just this week bills have been in the news that would mandate unnecessary medical procedures for those who want an abortion, notably mandated ultrasounds (which is clearly a shaming technique), and most especially the vaginal ultrasound bills (which seem remarkable similar to a forced sexual assault). The arrogance of this is best demonstrated by the demographics--overwhelmingly, these bills, effecting only women, were drafted by and lobbied for by men.
There’s also the a shocking correlation that can only be described as hypocrisy: These men who want women’s bodies so strictly regulated are the same men who will not accept any regulation of their own pleasures, like military-style-assault rifles and thirty-round magazines. They also are the men who won’t accept cuts to the military budget but push aggressively for cuts in medical care, food, and housing for the poor. It’s amazing how many allegedly pro-life support the death penalty.
In other words, for the most visible portion of the pro-life movement, the “life” part is bullshit. It’s more about returning to something more retro-grade, where autonomy is not taking for granted, where all of us are judged by zero-sum utilities, and where might-is-the-only-right.
All reactions:
Cathy Rouse Page, Marzilla Bryson and 5 others
4 comments
7 shares
Share

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Escape From New York (1981)

  100 best Science Fiction films Popular Mechanics list #99. Escape From New York (1981)   If you are an SF Fan, and you’ve reached a certain degree of vintage in your chronological age, you get the pleasure of a secret smile with almost every passing year. You sit back and think of your favorite novels, TV shows, and films that were set in bold futures that, and when their anticipated years actually arrive, what didn’t come to pass amuses you. The real year of 1984 wasn’t much like George Orwell’s novel “1984” (first published in 1949). Or maybe you shed a tear, for exactly the same reason, like how the real year of 2001 wasn’t nearly as impressive as the one envisioned in Arthur C. Clarke & Stanley Kubrick’s novel and film “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968).   When I originally wrote this, humanity was trapped in-between the anticipated dates of two great, unrealized, SF Dystopias: “Blade Runner” ( released in 1982, taking place in 2019 ) and “Soylent Green”...
Read more

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)

  100 best Science Fiction films Popular Mechanics list #84. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)     1.)          Introduction “But for many, the magic of ‘Star Wars’ is inseparable from the magic of the movies and, hey, that's no small thing. These movies make us lose ourselves in the spectacle. They make us forget our best instincts. They make us love the advertising as much as the art. They make us kids again.” n WJZ News, Baltimore   That unnamed Critic nailed it. I remember the first two films my parents brought me to an old-school Movie Palace, and I was blown away. Later, I realized they both films sucked (“Lost Horizon” (1973) and “International Velvet” (1978)) but experience of the massive theatre seduced me; in that moment I loved those terrible films far more than the clearly-superior cinema I’d already experienced watching TV.   When the first “Star Wars” came out (1977) I was...
Read more

The Tomb of Ligeia (1965)

  The Tomb of Ligeia (1965)   “‘The Tomb of Ligeia’  was vaguely based on an idea that Roger [Corman] and I had once. I had said I had always wanted to do a picture in a ruin, but actually using the ruin as an actual place, with real furniture in it and the ruin around it, which I thought would be very effective. This is sort of what he adapted to ‘ The Tomb of Ligeia ,’ which I think was the best one we ever did."  -- Actor Vincent Price   This was the last of the Roger Corman Directed Edgar Allen Poe adaptations, though not the last of the series from the Production Company AIP. Like most of Corman/Poe films, it was based on a story too short to flesh-out to feature-length with much fidelity to the source (originally published as “Ligeia” (1838)), but I gotta say, this one held onto more of the original story than some of the others and the most important difference outside the additional subplots and the Hero’s second marriage wasn’t loveless, ju...
Read more