 
|
Choice Recently, an organisation by the name of SOUL (Students Organised to Uphold Life) tried to become an AUSA (Auckland University Students' Association) affiliated club. Why? Because SOUL is a pro-life organisation. Or, depending on your point of view, because a majority of the students who were standing in the quad one Wednesday lunchtime thought they shouldn't. Either way, abortion is a complex and emotional issue that one probably shouldn't wade into whilst drunk. But what the hell. (And for SOUL's own reporting of the events, see here and here.) So let's make this clear: I am pro-choice. I think the anti-abortion campaigners are wrong. I don't think they're wrong because of their religious beliefs (as SOUL point out, not all pro-lifers are Christians), though I disagree with those also; I disagree with them because they're wrong. The pro-life stance rests on the claims that: 1) It is wrong to kill a person, and 2) A foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The interesting irony in this is, of course, that while certainly not all, a majority of those who oppose abortion are in favour of the death penalty. Hardly a stance that can in any way be described as "pro-life." But the real flaw in their argument is the claim that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception, and that abortion is therefore homicide. You can produce all of the horrifying abortion pictures you like, and this argument will still be spurious. After all, exactly what is so magical about the moment of conception? Even without any kind of intervention, it is a long way from guaranteed that a baby will actually result. And what is produced by conception hardly seems to show much resemblance to a person. A single cell. This cell divides again and again, but nonetheless, a few cells can little more be said to be a human being than my toenail clippings can be said to be me. And why conception? What is so special in this whole process about the fertilisation of the ovum? What about before that? Am I committing murder by using a condom? What about when I masturbate? These questions aren't as ridiculous as they sound. SOUL (and they are not alone in this) describe certain kinds of contraceptive as abortifacients. These contraceptives, such as most varieties of the pill, at least sometimes operate by preventing the implantation of the embryo, and therefore, apparently, constitute abortion. So what about other contraceptives? After all, they are, in the end, achieving the same result. And if contraceptives are wrong, then what about abstinence? If I have an opportunity to have sex, and do not, am I committing murder? Does that make impotence manslaughter, and the taking of Viagra a moral duty? No, because we haven't reached that magical moment of conception. But do we really have a person at this stage. Well, according to the definitions of life in a variety of biology texts, we don't even have a living organism. And what we have is utterly dependent on another human body for life. Unless one accepts that some form of magic occurs at conception, it seems only logical that the woman whose body this is should be allowed to choose whether or not she wishes to continue to support what, at this stage, is little more than a parasite. But the whole argument seems to me to rest on when this dividing clump of cells becomes a person. So where do you draw that line? 1 cell? 2 cells? 6E5 cells? There's no simple answer to that question. (I often suspect that the actual answer lies somewhere around the age of 20 years or so, but that's another discussion entirely.) The way the law works at the moment looks like a reasonable compromise. So why not let them affiliate? Firstly, because AUSA itself has a pro-choice policy. While SOUL point out that among AUSA's affiliated clubs there are many contradictory views, including Christians, Muslims and Atheists; Young Nats and Socialists, so far as I am aware, the association has never had any particular policy on the existence and nature of God, nor of the ideal form of government/appropriate economic model for running the country. This, on the other hand, is a group whose sole purpose is to promote a view that is in direct opposition to AUSA's own policy. Secondly, because pro-life groups have a lengthy track record of harassment and violence. Maybe that's the sort of thing this particular group does and maybe it isn't. Given the precarious position AUSA's in at the moment though, it's probably not the time to be taking those kinds of risks over causes that aren't their own.
--Hewligan |
|
