Two hours of Gloria Steinem on April 5th, 2006.

After today it will be stored in the KUOW archives.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

See especially the quotations that lead the second link’s brief essay.

Am I suggesting moral relativity? Perhaps, in some areas. Moral relativity is often tossed out as a criticism, but there may be some place for moral relativity in a pluralistic society. To say there is not, is to claim that there is a set of universal absolutes. The question of abortion shows that there is not. In the case where a society does not suffer from the actions of an individual, there may not be an absolute and we may have to tolerate the different moral compass of another on that issue. It may not be a matter of allowing a majority to rule, or simply one of protecting the masses from a powerfully vocal minority. If we are to live in peace with one another, we may have to accept that some topics may always be the source of heated debate – perhaps, rightfully so – and may never be settled into a an absolute law.

There are, obviously, many things that need to be absolute for a society to function. Its pretty dificult to have any stability if people are free to kill one another. So, we’ve come to the conclusion that this needs to be universally illegal.

I guess I am suggesting, that peaceful co-existence requires a lot of letting go of judgement of others. We must own and embrace the fact that lives are complex and that we do not serve each well by being trigger happy with judgement. This should be the last lens we look through rather than the first. Before judging we might try seeing how we can, as a society, can eliminate or reduce the impacts that lead to controversial choices. Rather than basing our laws on some set of right/wrong standards based in a religious morality that is not universal, perhaps we should adopt a Do No Harm standard.

This still makes abortion a tricky subject because of those who believe that it is murder. But since this is not universally considered murder, and there is such a complex web of issues that are tied into the question, we need to be very careful about declaring absolutes. Women are raped, coerced, uninformed, underinformed, ill-informed. The sperm provider is not held to equal responsibility for the resulting child and mothers have even less income potential that women without children. The physical, emotional, economic, and social ramifications for a woman facing childbirth can be overwhelmingly enormous. Basically, there is a lack of empowerment. So, until women are fully empowered, it is reprehensible to be placing a judgement upon them.

Perhaps, the next layer of consideration in our system of laws needs to go beyond Do No Harm, to Do Everything to Empower. Every time we are thinking of making a law we must show that these standards have been met.

I have some other vague thought that certain parties should not have a say in certain matters. Since men don’t end up pregnant if they are raped or coerced or ill-educated, and since they don’t bear the same child-rearing responsibilities effecting their ability to earn an income and participate in society, perhaps, they should not have a voice on the topic of abortion????? big question on that one in my head. Leads to a difficult morass of how to determine when specific groups are not allowed a voice. May not be a workable idea.

That’s all I’ve got for now. I’ve never really thought this through, so its pushing me to articulate what’s in me. I look forward to your thoughts and to see what else comes out of me.

I think in a democracy it is ok for some to try and impose a moral compass. What is not OK is to accept, without one hell of a political fight, such efforts or to accept changes to the rules of the game that allow some to more readily impose their will.

In a pluralistic society, one group cannot claim that their morality reigns supreme. For me, the pertinent question isn’t “How can you believe in the death penalty and oppose abortion?” But rather, “How can you claim to believe in democracy and then claim that you can impose your moral compass on others?”

If they want to impose their moral compass, then they need to convert the nation to a religious state, not a democratic one. First they would have to determine who the religious leader would be and then, if they could come to an agreement on that, they had to fight a civil war to put that structure in place. Until then, get off the moral righteousness platform.

The sovereignty question of the tribes is interesting. Someone mentioned that they are essentially on US soil. But they are not. Tribal lands are like embassies They are a sovereign island surrounded by foreign land. The case of the drug arrest was because they were acting outside of the tribal lands. The interesting question on the women’s health clinic is that some official has stated that they have no jurisdiction over the Oglala women on the tribal land, but that US women from SD could be prosecuted if they went to the tribal land for an abortion. This is a huge sovereignty test. Would a woman be prosecuted if she went to England? And does a state have the right to what a resident does when outside of the state? That prospect is the most frightening of all.

Gloria Steinem was on KUOW yesterday morning and talked about how the value of choice is respecting women’s autonomy ie a woman who is a feminist may decide that she is against abortion for herself but still respect the right of other women to make their own decisions. I agree with her. To me the core value of choice is respect for women.

I would go a step further and say another moral value of choice is valuing the integrity of the physical environment. As an environmentalist, whatever eles I’ve done I consider not having children to be my most important contribution to the health of the planet. (I’m greenish/blue) If I weigh famine, war and environmental degredation against use of birth control and legal abortion the choice is clear to me. I don’t think the right-to-lifers actually value life so much as they want to maintain a power stucture that controls women.

Potter, I know that people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. I am simply repeating words of a friend who is questioning her pro-choice stance. She sees this commentary as valid, logically. She also knows that pro-choice doesn’t equal pro-abortion, but it does sanction abortion. I was trying to explore the simplicity (not pejorative) of the “red” worldview of black and white, and the complexity (also not pejorative) of the “blue” one.

To be clear, I am anti-death penalty for myriad reasons, and pro-choice for myriad reasons. All these reasons, at their core, relate to what is social good, what makes society work better, more inclusive, and more free.

To the issue at hand, I’m simply asking whether this issue can be resolved, given the fact that this conflict goes to the country’s beginnings. Is this the US’s internal clash of civilizations (universal moralism vs. social moralism)? Also, in terms of law, where would the Supreme Court stand on sovereignty of Native Americans (given mind Justice Scalia’s universal moralistic stand)?

Those who want the right to make their own decision about abortion are not “for abortion” as you know. It is unfortunate that the zealots on the right get away with painting this issue that way. The “pro-choice” position addresses a person’s right ( in this case a woman) to make decisions about her own body and life. It begs the questions: when does life begin? When does the state have a right or duty to step in to protect the life of a citizen? With the unborn, it seems to me that the state is very far away from having that right.

Being anti-death penalty (which does not serve to deter potential murderers) means to be against choosing to kill another person where there is no need and where, especially these days evidence may be found to exonerate some. This position puts weight on how such killing reflects upon us as a society.

I am cheering the Sioux on because I want to see indian tribes across the country fill the possible emerging need for planned parent clinics. This would be better for them than running gambling casinos ( though probably not a lucrative).

An argument I do hear often from “blues” is, How can “reds” care so much about a little gob of fertilized egg when they are so gung ho for the death penalty and war? Peace and justice are “blue” moral values.

After the 2004 election when the press said Bush won on “moral values” I sure knew a lot of livid “blue” people who deeply resented being told that they were supposedly less moral than the “red” homophobic war mongers.

I think it is a mistake to deny “blue” people our morality.