No. ¥500 No. 1-126 11 H26No. ¥500 No. 1-126 11 H26 co No. ¥50 1-126 11 No. ¥50 - 1-126 11
Dissentingfutilitarian no. 11
-
Upload
dissenting-futilitarian -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Dissentingfutilitarian no. 11
D EAR reader: Motion 312 has
come and gone. Defeated 203
nays to 91 yeas on the 27th of this month.
Time at last to unwind and relax. - Ha! That
was proved false before the sun rose the next
day. This Motion is by no means dead; there is
life in it yet, for now we are seeing it used as
a litmus test of a person 's commitment
to women 's r ights . For a brief moment it
seemed time to move on - but, no: now the
witch hunt.
Yes, this motion was so black that those who
stood up for it are marked. It is not enough
to have defeated the Motion. Not enough that
the Motion was successfully painted black
(as a repudiation of progress, as an “abortion
Motion" eager to take us back to the past), and
then sunk on that basis. No, now we must
soul search; now we must face that there are
MPs among us who are - how shall we put
this - against progress. (In Canada we do
not employ the label ‘unCanadian': that's the
American play-book. In Canada we imply.)
That the Motion was not one that “sought
to bestow legal personhood on fetuses in order to
recriminalize abortion," this paper has ably
shown, I believe, in a most unbiased way.
[ but don't listen to me, judge for yourself:
those w ho are w illing, sEE IssueS 9 & 10]. It was not , but people believed it was . And
now we must realize that a horrible Motion
has horrible supporters. Take the “shocking"
behaviour of the Honourable Ms. R oNA
AMbRose , Minister for status of Women.
“A slAp in the fAce t o t h e w o m e n o f C a na d a"
O n the very night of the vote the
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
(ARCC) issued a press release titled “Rona
Ambrose Must Resign" - subtitle, “Minister for Status
of Women Voted for Motion 312, and Against Women’s
Rights." What J oYCe ARTHUR , executive
Director of the ARCC , there called a show
of “profound disresepct for women" was that Ms.
AMbRo se voted for Motion 312 while
occupying the post of the Minister entrusted
with protecting women's rights. The very
rights she is obviously against, we are told!
Wrote Ms. ARTHUR ,
“Her job is to advance the rights and interests of women,
so her Yes vote on the motion was a shocking failure
and a slap in the face to the women of Canada. She’s
proven herself to be unfit for the job and must resign
immediately."
Instantly, at lightning speed, the Minister was
made the object of a campaign calling for her
resignation. so let us ask the question of the
hour: is support for motIoN 312 A votE AgAINSt
womEN 'S RIghtS & a betrayal of women É?
“unfit for the job" because...? Here are ‘4' answers.
1 a v o t e f o r t h e m o t i o n
w a s a v o t e a g a i n s t Abortion rights
m otion 312 was not about
abortion - did not contain the
word ‘abortion'. Abortion rights could be lost,
by passing the Motion, only if passing the
Motion would lead to the criminalization
of abortion or some other such restriction.
so a vote for the motion was a vote against
abortion rights only if ...
2 t h e m o t i o n s o u g h t t o criminAlize Abortion
“l et's be clear," said Ms. ARTHUR ,
“the anti-choice movement hoped this
motion would be their ticket to recriminalizing abortion."
(Many of the MPs who opposed the Motion
paid good money and bought that claim, and
then proudly unveiled their purchase as a
reason for voting No.) but, if passing this
Motion (and, as a result, hearing evidence as
to whether and how we have human beings
in the womb) could lead to another outcome
than criminalization, then wouldn't it seem
that they bought junk and they are wrong .
If passing this Motion could lead to another
outcome than criminalization then this claim
is false and its charge hollow.
It could lead to another outcome.
It could lead to no outcome, other than to learn
that science has no answer to the question
“what is a fetus?" (As we were told, repeatedly,
by people such as Ms. ARTHUR , “There will
never be a consensus on what the fetus is, because this
question is inherently subjective and unscientific.") That
is not “recriminalizing abortion."
It could lead to the outcome that at all points
during gestation we have nothing more than
human matter, like skin (“a blob of cells that
is part of a woman," as was argued repeatedly
throughout the debate on M-312). We agree, I
think, that tissue would not be granted legal
personhood and human rights. That is not
“recriminalizing abortion."
It could lead to the outcome that at a certain
point during gestation (but not before)
we truly do have, we agree, an individual
human being no different from a baby but
for its presence in the womb. At that point,
we would now be in agreement that we have
two human beings. but that could not spell
a ban on abortion for the reason that (as we
were reminded repeatedly by Ms. ARTHUR
herself), “women’s rights cannot be arbitrarily removed
or even ‘balanced' with fetal rights. It is impossible for
two beings in the same body to exercise competing rights in
any meaningful or just way.") or (I quote the Hon.
HeDY FRY ), “We have seen over and over [how] the Supreme Court" has ruled on this very competition
of rights, by affirming that to compel “a woman,
by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term ...
is a breach of the woman's rights to security of the person."
That outcome is not “recriminalizing abortion."
And it could lead to the outcome that we
would change our tune. I say, ‘Here's what you
would have to show me, to get me to think
that that unborn creature is an individual
human being like a born baby' - and then you
show it : you show me by the very standards
of evidence I acknowledge - and then I (man
of my word) now agree: ‘That unborn creature
is as human as I was when I was born: it's an
unborn child.' That's some kind of progress,
because I never talked that way before.
should I cry foul?É Have I been hoodwinked,
bamboozled, lured back to the bad old days?
No. If we got to that point, in this country, it
would simply “honour our commitment to honest laws
to recognize a child's worth and dignity as a human being
before the moment of complete birth if" - please note
the word ‘if ' - “the evidence established that as fact,"
just as Mr. WooDWoRTH said this past
week. That too is not “recriminalizing abortion."
Yes, I suppose there is no doubt that some
people in the “the anti-choice movement hoped this
motion would be their ticket to recriminalizing abortion,"
but capable thinkers like Mr. WooDWoRTH
and Ms. AMbRo se are not likely to be
among them.
The Motion did not seek to criminalize
abortion, and neither did Ms. AMbRo se
vote for a motion that threatened this.
one does get the impression, however, that there
are people in the pro-choice movement who
cannot believe that this charge (no. 2,
above) could ever and for any reason be
shown false - the evidence of its falseness
cannot penetrate them; they have a kind of
force-field against it. - one hopes that we
do not have such minds in government; the
rebuttal above seems fairly easy to understand.
3 t h e m i n i s t e r ' s p o s i t i o n i s
cou n ter to t h a t o f cAnAdiAn women
t he ARCC press release notes that
“the Canadian people overwhelmingly support
women’s rights and don’t want to ban abortion." Having
equated voting for m-312 with opposing
women ’s r ights (i.e., the opposite of “support-
No.
11 30 sep
2012}}
the Dissen ting Fu tilitAriAn {{
L ET T E R S TO c a n a d i a n s F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E c a n c e l l E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y
S o m e t a l k t h r o u g h a c a n , s o t h a t y o u c a n h e a r ! S o m e t a l k t h r o u g h t h e i r ’ a t a n d ’ o o p i n y o u r e a r !
B
Zor
Z
t h e shocking story O F HOW CA NA DA ' S minister for Status of women
G AV E “A slAp in the fAce to the women of cAnAdA,"
SHOW ED “profound disrespect for women , "
& “threw women under the bus"
D I D N O S U C H T H I N G W H AT E V E R ! ( I T ' S SHOCK I N G E I T H ER WAY )
[ing] women’s rights" along with “the Canadian people"),
it makes good sense to go there. (I would
certainly run with this if I believed it. The
status of Women Minister against women's
rights? I can't breathe! - but I, who am not
very smart, am too smart to believe that a
vote for m-312 is an attack on women ’s
r ights via an abortion ban . so, actually, I
can breathe.)
but the abortion-ban line is really the whole
cavalry. Take it away and how does the Minis-
ter's position look, relative to women of Canada?
Are Canadian women against placing any
restrictions on abortion? No. Most are not in
favour of late-term abortions done for less-
than-emergency reasons. over ninety percent
of Canadians are strongly against sex-selection
abortion (2011 environics poll). Ms. AMbRo se
voted to see if these abortions kill human beings.
Are Canadian women in favour of discussing
the issue of whether (and in what sense),
before birth, we have actual human beings?
We have no reason to think that the answer
is No. organizations like the ARCC like to
suppose that their view is the common view,
so that anyone who departs from their view
is betraying the whole country, but where's
the evidence for that? As ANDReW CoYNe
noted, Ms. AMbRose is “the Minister for Status
of Women, not the Minister for Enforcing Feminist
Orthodoxy." It seems quite reasonable to think
that the majority of Canadians are at neither
end of the spectrum: they are not abortion-
rights activists and they are not abortion-ban
activists. In which case Ms. AMbRo se 's
vote - which was, recall, a vote for looking
into what is factual (which is, by definition of
the word ‘fact ', what the average intelligent
person will have good reason to support) -
... her vote very well serves the interests of
most Canadian women. - And finally, ...
4 t h e m i n i s t e r v o t e d to roll bAck
progres s
“A s [the minister for] the Status of Women,
she clearly betrayed the women of this
country by not standing up and ensuring that we don’t let the
clock be turned backwards," said NDP Deputy Leader
the Hon. L I bbY DAv Ie s . We have heard
again and again that “we should not be turning back
the clock on women's rights; Instead, we should be making
progress together for women" (the Hon. MAs s IMo
pACeTT I ). Whereas this horrid Motion was
against progress. The job of this Minister is
to secure the gains of women against erosion,
and voting as she did she showed contempt
for progress. - or so we are told.
Again, by what means could Motion 312 undo
progress and imperil women's rights? Not
by answering the question that it asked but
by criminalizing abortion - but, as we have
said, an abortion ban is not at all a likely
consequence of answering the Motion's ques-
tion. (As Mr. WooDWoRTH often reminded
people, “one thing that I have insisted that the committee
not do is ... propose any options which are inconsistent with
our Constitution or Supreme Court rulings. So, whatever
the Supreme Court has ruled about women’s rights ... is
untouchable under the terms of my motion.") This Motion
was a threat to established progress only in the
minds of people who equated it w ith a ban
on abortion . How does answering a question
about the beginnings of life take away rights?
Consider also this question: How was the
Minister's vote for the Motion a “refusal to
vote in the best interest of Canadian women" (beTH
RYAN , organizer of the current petition
against the Minister)? If the Minister has
balked at women's interests, that indeed
sounds bad - but that is just another way
of putting the argument we have already
picked over (women need abortions, banning
abortions is not in their interest, the Motion
would ban abortions). Let's just repeat this
again and again, say the Minister's opponents,
and waste no time wondering whether
recognizing unborn females as human beings
(as the Motion was indeed equipped to do)
might be in the interest of women.
D D D
speaking of the “retrogressive policies" that the
Motion was said to advance (Mr. pACeTT I ),
might I ask a question on the issue of progress?
a R e Y o U modern?
I think you are. The 60s happened and you know it. The whole Modern Age
happened! We have made great strides! Good
riddance to ... etc. Yes, good riddance to what,
exactly? Ask people glad to be here in the
Modern World what they are glad to be rid
of and they will often say: irrationality ,
commitments not based on facts ,
believing what you want , “magical thinking."
“Science is factual, Religion is beliefs. Educate yourself!"
“Why don't you grow some Q Q Q and just admit that your
beliefs are just your beliefs ... not based on fact, but faith?"
If you are Modern you want to say, Down
with all of that - ESPECIALLY in the political
sphere! If everybody is going to be bound by
some decision of law, it had better be based
on something more than personal commitment,
likes and dislikes, private logic, because if it
isn't - if it has no basis in reasons or facts
that citizens can be expected to see, because
these facts are facts - then we have just
gone back to the will of the powerful. And
that ain't democracy .
So it is quite ironic indeed , isn 't it? I mean,
there you are, one day, Mr . or Ms . Modern
just minding your own business, when along
comes some doodlehead to ask, What is a
human beingÉÉ? - And what do you do?
(Now, there are a lot of you who want right
away to know what this doodlebug is up to.
but that's a separate question. one we could
well pursue, it is true, but when we get back
here won't that first question still be waiting
for us?) When we get back to talking about
belief s , about what you believ e about
things, which would include things like
human being s (as in, What do you believ e
a human being is?), then to take care of this,
you've got the Modern way and that other way.
but get this. Thinker, legal scholar, and
general smart guy s TANLeY F I sH says:
“Nowadays, it is pro-lifers who make the scientific
question of when the beginning of life occurs the key one
in the abortion controversy, while pro-choicers want to
transform the question into a ‘metaphysical’ or ‘religious’
one by distinguishing between mere biological life and
‘moral life’.”
Ironic , isn 't it? In other words, what Modern
pro-choicers are saying is: beliefs about when a
human being begins - plus beliefs about
what a human being is (how do you know
when an opera begins if you don't know what
an opera is?) - are not based on observable facts
or features of these things. They are in the case
of fish (‘All fish have gills,' etc.) but not, for
Modern pro-choicers, in the case of humans.
No, the beliefs you hold about when a human
being begins and what a human being is
are based on philosophical commitments. And
so people say things like,
“How does a medical school teach what is and isn't ‘a
human life'? It's a medical school - essentially a glorified
plumber-mechanic school - not a philosophy department."
sure, there is a point to be made in that
medicine is applied science - but why would
you turn to philosophers for an answer?
Why not scientists, embryologists, the people
who actually study this natural life form?
Why exclude these people?
It would be good to ask, when did the
question What is a human beingÉÉ? cease to
be one that you could answer by pointing
to scientifically detectable facts? because not
very long ago, in the Modern Age, this was a
question that scientists answered. [ FoR moRE
oN thAt SEE Issue 2](for those interested) a Brief aside to
answ er: when did w e start giv ing a modern
response to the question w hen does a human
being begin? In 1800 the answer to this question
was still coming from the philosophers - that
is, ancient philosophers like Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas . They believed (and what
was their evidence?) that a human soul appeared
at around 40 days, turning primitive life into
human life. Then in 1827 Karl Ernst von
Baer , the “father of modern embryology,” discovered
that mammals produced eggs, changing the
picture dramatically. It soon dawned on folks
that a human being was created not by “ensoulment"
but by the fusion of egg and sperm. In short order
the law and the Church both began to follow the science (great strides and all that). Laws were
passed against abortion and in 1869 Pope Pius
IX issued a decree rejecting the Aristotelianism
of Aquinas , who had said that for the first eight
weeks abortion was not the killing of a human
being - but science had now showed that it was.
scientists gave us the scientific story
(a human being is created by the fusion of
egg and sperm, which, as the 20th century
made clear, involved genes), which became
the standard story that people on the left
and on the right are still ready to tell, in
the Modern period, about every other form of
life,É and even human life when the stakes are
different. When does Fluffy begin to exist,
ready to unfold as the adorable fuzzball she
is? The standard story is: w hen the genes
assemble . When that happens, the individual
is made.
We say pretty much the same thing when
sporting the Darwinian hat we so often wear
these days: it ’s all about the genes . How
do we know that that tissue came from a
human being? It has the human genome. How
do we know that that being is an individual?
You’ve watched CSI : by all the standard
signifiers of individuality in our culture:
unique fingerprints (at 11 weeks), genetic
particularity (acquired at fertilization). It's
all science .
so Fish is quite right:
“pro-life arguments are now based on scientific evidence,
and the pro-choice arguments are not. That is a cultural,
historical fact.”
And it doesn't look like Fish is ready to drop
science and go back to philosophy , so that
he can uphold some previously arrived at view
of rights. The rights of human beings attach
to human being s : they don't dictate what
human being s are . “I am in favour,” he says, “of
affirmative action and gay and lesbian rights, but I do not
support abortion rights.”
D D D
people are saying, “we do not want to go back; we want
to move forward." oK, do it. because it looks a
little like we did go back . It looks a little like
we quit science for philosophy . I didn't get
this memo. Are people having second thoughts
about Modern progress? sounds to me like
other MPs - not Ms. AMbRo se and Mr.
WooDWoRTH - are saying, ‘Here's a place
where it doesn't matter what the facts say.'
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't we say,
“that ain 't democracy"? I think a lot of
people are wrong about just who is returning
us to the dark ages.
I am, etc.
1 1 D i s s e nt i n g f ut i l ita r i a n . b lo g s p ot.ca