Let's Talk!!
Who Owns the Stuff? Who owns the People?
It’s been two years now since a good friend of mine took his own life. As I think about it now, I disagree with and dislike the phrase, “took his own life.” Was it really his life? He left behind a wonderful wife and two beautiful daughters. His business employed many people who counted on him for leadership and a paycheck. And I lost a friend. That expression too is messed up. Nothing was lost! The life that we call “his” was stolen. He stole it. He took it from all of us who loved him.How did we ever come to deceive ourselves into believing that we are the owners of our own bodies; of our own lives? My friend was a Christian, as I am. He would have known that the Bible says that we, “Were bought at a price.” Literally it means that Jesus bought us. He owns us. As a matter of fact, a Christian will say Jesus owns everything. But whether or not you are not a Christian, if you have experienced the suicide of someone close to you, I think you will feel that something has been taken from you. No life is owned by one person simply and absolutely.
Philosophical Inconsistency
In political philosophy the questions, “Who owns the stuff?” "Who owns the means of production?"and maybe even, “Who owns the people?” are important. In communism everything (including people) is publicly owned and government controlled. Socialism holds that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned by a community as a whole. In capitalism the focus is on private ownership. In general, notions of public ownership are upheld on the left of the political spectrum with notions of private ownership on the right. How is it then that the most ardent defenders of the right to die and reproductive rights are left of centre politically? These are positions that assert private ownership of one’s own body. Is there a philosophical inconsistency here?
This appears to be a more complex issue than many make it out to be. Can the death of my friend inform us at all about the life of an unborn child, or if you prefer, a fetus? An advocate for a pro-choice position will insist that the woman owns her own body and has absolute authority over the continued life of the fetus. The position appears to flow from a capitalist notion of ownership.
A socialist,wanting to be true to his or her political philosophy will want to ask, "Is there a community that has some legitimate claim on the life of that unborn child?" As I argue that my friend did not own himself to the extent that he thought, I am left to ponder, "Does a woman own her uterus absolutely?"
To look at it another way, if we think of the fetus to be a tenant, with the privately owned womb as the residence, and the mother as the landlord, are there limitations on the rights of the mother to evict the tenant? While the landlord is the owner and has the right to evict the tenant, that right is not absolute. It is a capitalist who would hold to the absolute property rights of the landlord.
To look at it from the other perspective, an advocate for a pro-life position will contend that any ownership or stewardship that a woman has with respect to her uterus is limited by some competing pre-eminent right to that uterus. To protect the right of the unborn child, who is clearly disadvantaged, appears to be somewhat socialist. The community, according to the socialist, must identify its weakest members and rally to protect those who are unable to defend and advocate for themselves. And yet, it appears that a majority of pro-life people support political parties that advocate for capitalist ideas such as free-enterprise and smaller government. This too appears to be philosophically inconsistent.
The political landscape around the debate between pro-life and pro-choice is polarized to say the least. In fact it is not a debate at all. Waving placards at each other is not a form of meaningful discourse.
When I teach middle school aged children, I will sometimes ask, “If one of your friends becomes pregnant when she is 15 or 16, what is the very best thing you can do for her?” Intuitively they understand that they must be a good friend and a support while the friend goes through the most difficult time of her young life. We discuss what that might look like. Judgement of the young mother or strident and loud advocacy for unborn child, however well-intentioned, are unlikely to be the wisest form of love in this case. But it’s complicated.
How do we begin a national conversation around an issue like this? Can we refrain from demonizing the ‘crazy’ social conservatives like me? Can we resist the temptation to insult the ‘reckless’ social progressives? Can we start by believing that disagreeing with someone does not require that we also dislike them or disrespect them? Can we begin to recognize that it is complicated and that each of us has some holes in our argumentation? Can we disagree better?
There are many conversations that Canada is not ready for. We have stopped talking. We have made Canada an unsafe place to publicly advocate for views which dissent from those held by the mainstream and upheld by the media. The conversation must begin with our leaders. Elected representatives must learn and demonstrate how to disagree respectfully and productively. We should be able to expect from our leaders that they model the kind of disagreement that we would desire for our children.
The pro-life/pro-choice debate is an example of an issue about which people might research thoroughly, deliberate strenuously, and believe passionately, but say nothing because they are frozen with fear at the consequences and public backlash that may result from testing their ideas in a public forum. This is the world we have created. This is the world we must demolish.
Let’s Talk!
Look up my campaign page on FaceBook.
Check out my Web Page too!
This appears to be a more complex issue than many make it out to be. Can the death of my friend inform us at all about the life of an unborn child, or if you prefer, a fetus? An advocate for a pro-choice position will insist that the woman owns her own body and has absolute authority over the continued life of the fetus. The position appears to flow from a capitalist notion of ownership.
A socialist,wanting to be true to his or her political philosophy will want to ask, "Is there a community that has some legitimate claim on the life of that unborn child?" As I argue that my friend did not own himself to the extent that he thought, I am left to ponder, "Does a woman own her uterus absolutely?"
To look at it another way, if we think of the fetus to be a tenant, with the privately owned womb as the residence, and the mother as the landlord, are there limitations on the rights of the mother to evict the tenant? While the landlord is the owner and has the right to evict the tenant, that right is not absolute. It is a capitalist who would hold to the absolute property rights of the landlord.
To look at it from the other perspective, an advocate for a pro-life position will contend that any ownership or stewardship that a woman has with respect to her uterus is limited by some competing pre-eminent right to that uterus. To protect the right of the unborn child, who is clearly disadvantaged, appears to be somewhat socialist. The community, according to the socialist, must identify its weakest members and rally to protect those who are unable to defend and advocate for themselves. And yet, it appears that a majority of pro-life people support political parties that advocate for capitalist ideas such as free-enterprise and smaller government. This too appears to be philosophically inconsistent.
It's Complicated
When answering the question, "Who owns or has stewardship of the unborn child or the mother’s uterus?" our political philosophies do not tend to be consistent with our views on such matters. It’s complicated. And yet, we often advocate for our respective positions as if they are simple; as if the answers are obvious. They are not.The political landscape around the debate between pro-life and pro-choice is polarized to say the least. In fact it is not a debate at all. Waving placards at each other is not a form of meaningful discourse.
When I teach middle school aged children, I will sometimes ask, “If one of your friends becomes pregnant when she is 15 or 16, what is the very best thing you can do for her?” Intuitively they understand that they must be a good friend and a support while the friend goes through the most difficult time of her young life. We discuss what that might look like. Judgement of the young mother or strident and loud advocacy for unborn child, however well-intentioned, are unlikely to be the wisest form of love in this case. But it’s complicated.
How About A Little Respect
Using descriptors like pro-death, anti-choice, woman-hater, or baby-killer will also not help. We need some means of rekindling public discourse around social policy. It has to begin with respect. It has to begin with the recognition that the issue is complicated and that your adversaries have some valid points.How do we begin a national conversation around an issue like this? Can we refrain from demonizing the ‘crazy’ social conservatives like me? Can we resist the temptation to insult the ‘reckless’ social progressives? Can we start by believing that disagreeing with someone does not require that we also dislike them or disrespect them? Can we begin to recognize that it is complicated and that each of us has some holes in our argumentation? Can we disagree better?
There are many conversations that Canada is not ready for. We have stopped talking. We have made Canada an unsafe place to publicly advocate for views which dissent from those held by the mainstream and upheld by the media. The conversation must begin with our leaders. Elected representatives must learn and demonstrate how to disagree respectfully and productively. We should be able to expect from our leaders that they model the kind of disagreement that we would desire for our children.
The pro-life/pro-choice debate is an example of an issue about which people might research thoroughly, deliberate strenuously, and believe passionately, but say nothing because they are frozen with fear at the consequences and public backlash that may result from testing their ideas in a public forum. This is the world we have created. This is the world we must demolish.
Let’s Talk!
Look up my campaign page on FaceBook.
Check out my Web Page too!
Comments
Post a Comment