Zero Zero X: License to Choose

One of the most divisive topics in America today is abortion (along with politics, football and the relative worth of life based on skin pigmentation) and yet I find that somehow I have taken the time to throw my mite of fuel upon that cheerful blaze that so consumes political discourse across this land. To no small part, my tardiness may be blamed on incoherence which is after all a very good excuse, having propelled one gentleman past all his fellow contenders for the standard of their party in the presidential race. But with the potentially devastating consequences of Zika virus infection looming over us, this seems a good reason to think about the most basic ideas surrounding the idea of abortion. I'd long since veered around to repudiating the position of the faith I was born in, and even before I flung off the shackles of religion, I'd already embraced the idea that women had every right to abortion services and that attempts to deny them was no less than an attack on all their rights and freedoms. I've long felt that while the wishes of the father should be at least considered, that discussion should be between the woman and man, and in the end the decision rests solely with the woman; when only one half of the pair has to deal with the huge physical changes, it's only fair that she get a proportional say in the decision to keep or abort the fetus.

But this was at best a conviction, a vaguely held idea about rights and equality that I had not fully thought through. Last night, a chance statement in a conversation with three gentleman who I shall call Ears, Baldy and Graybeard, regarding the exclusivity of atheist and pro-choice individuals led me to remark that in fact there was nothing in the Bible that literally prevented abortion. My point was that there was no clause that named abortion as a sin or prohibited act since the procedure as we understand it today was not known in era when that celebrated book was composed (as I found out later, I was wrong - aborting fetuses has been known and done for over two millennia). However, one of my fellow conversationalists, Graybeard, took a different point of view and cited the no killing commandment as all the authority needed to preclude abortion to all women. Now I would argue that in fact the sixth commandment is much too vague to be such a blanket authority since it would prevent one from ever defending one's country, or even oneself, against an attack. But that would be a cheap escape from the main question: since I am opposed to murder (in the general sense of the word) how then would I be able to justify abortion?

As far as I understand it, opposition to abortion is a moral argument and as such based on a subjective understanding of morality. But while I cannot objectively discuss a subjective theory, anti-choice views rest on some underlying concepts that can be addressed rationally. It all seems to rest on the singular idea that a fetus is the same as a human life and hence terminating a pregnancy is the same as murder, with all the moral issues contingent in that concept. To me, this central argument fails (and renders all subsequent moral arguments moot) since quite simply a fetus is not a human life. It's living, that is beyond doubt, but I find it a stretch that we would call it a human life, simply because as one debater stated, the word is Latin for baby (incidentally he was wrong, as the Latin roots refer to the bearing of offspring and is not even particular to humans). Even were he right, Latin and Greek words are often used to misname things, like planet from the word for wanderer to differentiate it from "stationary" stars or malaria from "bad air" that causes the illness. The other part of this argument was that fetuses when allowed to develop fully do become babies. However, no one would argue that tadpoles are the same as frogs or that the chrysalis is a butterfly (or moth or any other insect).  To cite an even more specific example, the silkworm pupa is very distinct from the moth and the moth is next to no use to us, except to mate and lay more eggs. At an even more extreme level, would anyone say that an egg is the same as the bird that laid it? I think I'm on reasonably safe ground when I argue that a human fetus is quite distinct from a human baby. Whether it deserves to be carried to full term may still be debated, but to equate aborting a fetus with killing a human being is a flawed argument meant to only evoke an emotional response, and deserves to be ignored.

Moving on to the idea that it is right or wrong to abort a fetus, I would argue that it's acceptable to abort a fetus, for the simple reason is that it cannot survive outside the womb under natural circumstances. A counter argument was offered that a baby is dependent on its mother as well, but I think that's not even a close comparison. Most offspring, especially further along the evolutionary ladder do require some assistance to survive but the level is not even close to that required by a fetus that is not even ready to live in air as yet. In fact, as my uncle (a biologist, fervent Catholic and staunch opponent of all abortion) once explained, a fetus is a parasite. Not in the layman's understanding of the term, but in the definition of a biologist, a human fetus meets all points of the definition as an organism that is absolutely dependent on its host, draws all its nutrition and energy from the host and forces changes upon its host to create a more hospitable environment for itself. Once the fetus is ensconced, the host is unable to destroy it even when the host's own health is adversely affected. It's obvious too that the human womb is not a universally welcoming place for the embryo or it would be incredibly easy for any and every woman to get pregnant; just like any smart parasitic invader the embryo actually forces the host to suppress its immune system to allow a successful pregnancy and this can take anything from one to dozens or hundreds of attempts. Absent any outside agency, a human fetus has a less than 2 in 5 chance of surviving from conception to full term. If it is acceptable for the human body to "naturally" terminate over sixty percent of conceived fetuses, why then is a less natural form of the same so terrible? The Catholic church (and undoubtedly other religions) has long advocated for only natural methods in case of managing pregnancy, but they pick and choose when to apply this standard, or they would all be walking around naked as apes.

I'm well aware that my discussion above describes fetuses in a not very appealing way and may seem insulting to the idea of pregnancy itself but it's sometimes necessary to lay out the facts in the baldest terms to debunk claims to the contrary (and after all, I'm well positioned to talk to the parasitic nature of the human fetus, having been one myself). When it comes to the question of pregnancy and carrying the fetus to term, I'm all in favor of it, just not a supporter of forcing it upon someone who doesn't want it. And that is in fact the exact reason that I believe the best world would be one in which we make contraceptives widely available and spread education thereon universally so that we do not force women into a position where they have to make this choice. Unlike the most fervent anti-choice folk, I think (and most studies back this up) that most, if not all but  a minuscule minority of, women think deeply over this decision and it is a difficult and heart wrenching choice for them. Of course, this is even more reason to enable a world in which women have total control over their own lives and bodies and are not forced into a painful choice. The biggest point that the anti-choice brigade misses is that having access to contraception or abortion services never coerces a woman onto an unwanted path while denying them these choices most certainly does.

There is so much more to add on this topic - fetal pain and the obtuse attempts to first ban late term abortions and then delay women from getting early abortions so that they run out of time and choices. I could ramble on for a long way on these and other ideas. But rather I want to address one last point by Graybeard. He stated, almost proudly, that he opposed his own daughter's choice to abort her pregnancy, because in his words "when she spread her legs, she ceded her right to further decisions respecting the fetus". This is interesting to me, since it basically awards greater rights now to a clump of cells (at the start of development) than to the woman who must make more sacrifices than any man could really comprehend to enable that same set of cells to become a baby. To offer a (purposefully simplistic) analogy, if one offered a starving (and maybe homeless) man a single meal, would the benefactor now be permanently responsible for feeding and housing the other? Or would he have the right to walk on and leave that unfortunate to fend as best he can? Would be have a choice to help the starving man or is he bound by that first choice to help the other for as it takes? In Graybeard's world,  woman had one choice - to have sex or not have sex. Now quite apart from the fact that in some parts of the world, and within some groups in the US, this is not really a choice made by the woman but her spouse, history has also shown that it is an unreasonable concept. Abstinence sounds simple and easy, but ignores all the messy reality of life. To insist that only the woman loses her freedom due to an act that involved at least two people is at the very least unfair.

It is amazing, and more than a little sad, that men, who never have to face the same wrenching choices, the same sacrifices and same experiences are the ones trying to decide the issue for women; in reality this decision should not be made by even another woman no matter how similar her own experiences may be. It is the choice, first and always, of the woman, who it solely concerns. We would justifiably disdain and reject any coercion in our own lives; refusing to force our choices and opinions on women in something that concerns us only peripherally is the very least we owe them.

Stand Up and Be Counted

I don’t normally read the newspapers of my native land (I would very likely qualify for Sir Samuel Rice’s description of a soul-dead man). But some months ago I found myself browsing the old, once familiar, sources of information, seeking to discover if the latest immigration fiasco, involving legal immigrants this time, had perchance made the headlines in the old country. They hadn’t, as far as I could see, but my attention was arrested by a different lead story, one that had seized pole position in the Indian newspapers, though garnering at best a sidebar on the “Odd news” section here at home.

The wise gentlemen of the cloth at the famous religious school in Deoband declared that coeducation was unlawful and responsible for a variety of evils. The Dar-ul-Uloom seminary in Deoband in India's largest province of Uttar Pradesh is not too famous in non-Islamic circles; even in India, I heard their name in the news less than a half dozen times, I would estimate. But their influence in conservative Muslim circles is extremely significant. To put their importance in perspective: the Taliban leaders were students of the Deobandi school of thought, and were theologically connected, even though they did not actually study at this school. With such adherents to serve as an introduction, we should be prepared for the extreme stupidity that characterizes Deobandi teaching. 

Unfortunately, the biggest problem today is not the extremists themselves but the moderates. The debate has swung so far towards the extreme that even the so-called called moderates are anything but. There is no better example of the lack of moderation in the Islamic world than in the response the Deobandi fatwa. If these madmen were merely a fringe, their fear and hatred of offering women the same education, status and freedoms as men could be treated with the contempt it so richly deserves. Unfortunately, moderate experts and clerics have failed to truly repudiate the madness. They have, to their limited credit, accepted that women have a right to education and even defended the rights of women to attend classes along with men who are neither their husbands or blood relatives. But this should have been self-evident, in this day and age. And should never, ever have been accompanied by the qualifying statement that co-education is unobjectionable “provided the woman is properly attired, including wearing the hijab”. 

What wonderful freedom this is, for women, that they may attend school or work, only if they hide their faces. I suppose we should be glad that they were not advised to wear that shapeless black all-enveloping costume makes a potato sack look like the height of fashion; their virtue will be preserved if they cover their heads and dress conservatively. I assume, of course that the moderates did not mean the hijab to be worn along with a thong bikini or something like this (mind you, if that was their subtext, I wholly support them). In their qualified defense of women’s freedom, these moderates have basically accepted the central tenet of the Deobandi fatwa, which is that women are the source of temptation and evil and must therefore be forced to cover up lest the drive men to crimes of passion. This has been an underlying principle of all the injustices heaped upon women in Islamic society and to a lesser, much milder extent in Christain concept as well. 

As a man, I object to every idea in that position. Passion and lust are not evil, per se; rather they are amongst the most fundamental and basic human emotions, and it is religions insistence on ignoring this fact that actually leads to dangerous repression and deviant behavior (remember all those priests molesting altar boys?). Furthermore I am responsible for my own actions and irrespective of how a woman dresses or acts, I remain solely responsible for my behavior. To blame a woman for being raped is one of the peculiarly stupid attitudes of the Islamic world (and some other conservative societies as well), along with a host of other chauvinistic ideas and unfortunately that they are clinging ever more passionately to them instead of abandoning them in favor of more enlightened attitudes. I know that moderates in Islamic society live in fear of attack from conservatives, less on an intellectual level and all too often on a physical one, with followers of the conservative priests willing to kill those who espouse a less hate-filled view. This is a real and understandable reason to avoid crossing the conservatives openly, but there are ways, especially in societies that are not ruled by Islamic law. In the words of Edmund Burke, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", and too often, those good men stay silent out of fear. They do not need to fight back with sticks or guns, but they do need to make a statement all the same. In India, as in the US and Europe, the power to oppose lies with the congregation and all they have to do is shun the more conservative of priests, and the temples they preside in. If the preachers of hatred and intolerance were shunned and left to preach to empty temples, their doctrine would wither and die and soon be forgotten. It would be harder in nations like Iran, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, where the Islamic clergy is entrenched and empowered to rule, directly or otherwise, but even there, if congregations chose to spend Friday evening prayers at home rather than going to their neighborhood mosques, the priests in charge would find themselves bereft of the rabid mobs they need to cower their opponents, and would be reduced to the same levels of influence of the Westboro Baptist Church.


I have harshly trashed the moderates within the Muslim community for their refusal to adopt more enlightened positions and challenge the fundamental drawbacks of their religion. But sadly, self-described liberals like myself deserve no less opprobrium. Liberals champion the freedom and equality of all people within their societies, but too often we hamstring ourselves in our misplaced respect for the sensitivities of others. Fearing to insult Muslims, we do not comment on their treatment of women in their societies and families, pretending that it is a private issue for them to confront. However their comes a time when we have to recognize that our silence is not respect for Islam but compliance in its greatest injustices. We do not have to march in and tear off the veils of pious Muslim women - if the women truly wish to believe that they are inherently evil and impure, we cannot and should not attempt to convince them of their error. Violence in support of even a righteous position is a bad idea but there are other ways that we can make a difference. We have to also let them know in no uncertain terms that we do not believe that trash ourselves, and that we support their right and freedom to dress and behave just as their counterparts in the West do. (I, for one support their right to dress in revealing clothes, like mini-skirts and g-strings). Many of them have been raised in conservative societies, cut off from interaction with the world outside their house and it is critical that we make our message loud and clear. Perhaps we don’t have to do it quite like this clip of “American Dad” but we can assist in emancipation by offering our support should they need it. We can let every person know that we will support their right to renounce their religion without fear of being murdered as apostates – and we should not flinch when we are accused of attempting to undermine Islamic society. That is a card that the religious conservatives have played too well in the past, and forced us to retreat from any meaningful support for true moderation in their midst. Sadly till now, western liberals have shied away from overt support to oppressed groups outside Western society in fear of offending the sensibilities of the oppressors. Worse yet, we have looked the other way at oppression within Muslim immigrant societies in the West while championing the rights of their society as a whole. On occasion this reaches truly ridiculous levels, as when a German judge ruled that a Muslim immigrant has the right to beat his wife, since that was the law of his people and religion. I would say that people who would oppress and ill-treat their own family members, to the point of murdering their own daughters and sisters to protect their family “honor” have no claim to respect for their twisted ideas. It is time for liberals to step up and support the women and religious minorities and voices of dissent in Islamic society, just like western conservatives do so that they are offered true freedom and equality. If Islam is the true religion it claims to be (as do all the other dozens of religions), it should be able to convince people to give up their identity as individuals without the threat of violence and death. And if coercion is all that keeps it alive, then it is a religion best consigned to the trash heap of history.