Official statistics tell a gruesome and horrific tale. Each year, in the Western, Economically developed world, from the U.S, to the U.K, to Australia, to Germany, and even in the most supposedly Catholic of nations such as Italy and Poland, millions of not-yet-born people are ´terminated´, at best ´euthanised´, without their consent.
The mass media have decided that footage of a typical ´abortion´ was too disturbing and shocking to air. They found it too ´sensational´to air. The reality was just too gruesome. Reporting on the reality of the reality of abortion is considered ´taboo´, as it might make those of us with legal rights feel uncomfortable.
Now we would not want our fellow citizens feeling uncomfortable about killing-aborting-terminating-involuntarily euthanizing-getting rid of not-yet-legally-persons, would we!
We prefer to deny the reality. We prefer to numb ourselves to the suffering our actions and inactions produce in others. For the suffering of other sentient beings might interfere with the satisfaction of our own desires. We cannot allow such empathy to inconveniently prevent us in our quest for satisfaction, for the gratification of our impulses, for our selfish striving for pleasure.
We numb ourselves to the potential suffering that not-yet-born-legally defined-persons might endure during abortions. This is the same response we have to the suffering humans and other animals endure in the production and testing of many of the products we consume.
Empathy means we suffer when others we empathise with suffer. The great philosopher David Hume saw this as the basis of the motivation we have to ease other´s suffering. Thus we help others to ease our own, empathetic, suffering.
However most people simply bypass empathy by pretending the ´other´ does not suffer. If this is impossible, they accept it does suffer, but that this suffering is unavoidable. Thus we are freed from any compulsion to seek to ease that suffering. We are absolved by our lack of power.
Thus we pretend. We make-believe. We live in subjective realities removed from reality itself.
And so we do not concern ourselves with niggling ethical issues surrounding animal rights, the rights of not-yet-legally-persons, and reproduction.
We are dead against all but the very minimum restrictions on our will that are necessary for society to function peaceable and productively. We fight against anyone and anything that contradicts our own wills. We feel a natural right to pursue our own interests, more or less independent of the costs this striving imposes on others, those with less power, with less fortunate holistic inheritances, including the poor, animals, and the not-yet-conceived, who have fewer, if any, legal rights.
This is one element of socio-pathic behavior the mental-health industry conveniently neglect!
We would be horrified by the idea of a state telling us we must forgo the satisfaction of any selfish impulses, whether the desire to eat animals, the desire to use them in testing products, the impulse to reproduce ourselves, or the desire to ´get rid of´ any unwelcome, inconvenient fetus.
And so there is little public debate over the issues of animal rights, abortion, or responsible reproduction.
And so saner alternatives are rarely considered
There is little public call for the considerations of alternatives to the inherited ´right to reproduce´ and ´right to kill ´a fetus, or animals.
A biblical Jesus will tell us that ´the poor will always be with us´, and this includes their suffering. Life is a ´vale of tears´. One day it will be revealed to us why it was ´necessary´. Ah, we will see, it was all part of some grand plan we were unaware of. Billions of lifes of misery. Billions of lives not ´intrinsically´ worth living, will prove to have served some great ´purpose´, some ´extrinsic´value.
And so few people have considered that the misery could in fact be avoided, if we wanted to. Of course their are beneficiaries of this situation. The massive scale misery has provided a select few with gratifying lifestyles of incredible luxury and satisfaction. Guess who owned most of the wealth for most of human history? Who lived in the palaces? Who owned the land? Who collected the tithes and taxes? You guessed yet?
Of course it was the priests, the religious authorities, the popes, the bishops.
And who is it that has opposed every attempt at reducing overpopulation? Who has resisted the adoption of responsible family planning a-la contraception? Who encourages people to reproduce? Who refuses financial aid to nations which promote safer sex and contraception?
Of course it is the Churches of every age. They defined masturbation as worse than rape, as it represented the ´sin´ of ´waste´ of semen. Each ejaculation could have produced one more value producer to produce more wealth and power for the overlords, the priestly classes.
This blog is just a quick reminder that saner alternatives exist.
What makes more sense?
To use one-off, unreliable contraception in 99.9% of all sexual interactions.
Or to harvest sperm, from boys who will then undergo a vasectomy, to be used for the few planned pregnancies he or his partners will desire over the course of his entire life?
It would be logical to use vasectomies as the operation is simple, cheap, and in most cases reversible. For the occasions reversal is not effective, the stored sperm can be used.
We know for certain that the first option will produce billions of unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions.
The second option rules out any unplanned, and therefore undesired, pregnancies.
No unfortunate pregnancies would take place. Women would not be faced with having to make the decision regarding abortion. Women at inappropriate times of their lives, such as those strugging with an addiction, the consequences of rape, or less severe but still important economic and social circumstances, would not become pregnant.
There would be no babies born to drug addicts. No babies born to poverty. No babies born to women and men who had no love or affection for them.
This would make abortions redundant. This would save millions of not-yet-legally-persons from enduring what is at best involuntary euthanasia, and at worse, one of the most horrific and cruel forms of murder.
I was not the first to recommend it. Several Noble prize winning scientists have put forward similar arguments. However such ideas are rarely presented in the mass media, as people just don´t want to deal with the issues. People don´t want to face up to the reality of the situation. They don´t want to have to make decisions.
Few people would dare challenge the rights of others to reproduce as and when they want to, for fear of potentially being denied that right themselves.
All of these argments are powerful completely independant of the potential for genetic screening, and the potential for ensuring each not-yet-conceived child an equally fortunate genetic inheritance.
And on a less challenging topic
Around 30 years ago I was considered ´insane´ for suggesting that we should not tolerate smoking in public places. The laws we have today were considered unthinkable a few decades ago. So that is something I can rightly feel good about.
But the laws don´t go far enough. Pregnant mothers are allowed to poison their not-yet-legally-person-fetus. Mothers and fathers are then allowed to force their children to consume the products of their smoking. Pets also suffer, often being even more sensitive to tobacco related illnesses than their owners.
Generations of parents today will soon be facing up to the fact that they killed their own children, friends, and co-workers, by forcing them to consume their second hand smoke.