We had a party yesterday. It was designed as a fundraising event for a new club that we're introducing at uni. There was swimming, laughing, quizzing and cricket. All up, it was a great way to launch a club like this, except for one thing: barely anyone came. We ended up with the three people who organised it and two other friends. However, we catered for a fair few more people than that, largely because a number of people indicated that they either were coming or might be coming, and then didn't show.
Now, it might just be sour grapes, but this leaves me wondering, what sort of an obligation does an invitee have in these circumstances? In this case, the club just covered costs, making it an unsuccessful (though enjoyable) day. If the two people who said that they were coming had turned up, we would have turned a decent profit, and been well on our way towards having enough money to run our first big event. In the case of personal celebrations, a birthday party, for instance, this sort of result would be just as aggravating. Imagine putting hours of preparation (cleaning, cooking/earning the money for food, potentially decorating and the like) only to have a couple of people show up, probably the ones that you wouldn't bother cleaning for because they come around so often.
One comment by a friend's friend set my personal coda on this. She had recently invited a number of people to an event, and one person's reply, "I'll be there unless something comes up", really irritated her. Essentially, this style of reply boils down to 'I'll come, unless there's something better on, in which case I'll happily go somewhere else'. After thinking about her whinge for a while I decided that no longer would I go to whatever sounded best that weekend/evening. The first invitation sticks. And with the exception of events that are eclipsed by work or family events, I've kept to that. Furthermore, RSVPs are to be respected. If you're going, give the host warning that they've got another person to cater for. If you're not, let them know too. It's basic courtesy.
I could expand on this with reference to other aspects of celebrations (drinking, piking, etc), but I'm sure you can think through it yourself. In essence, parties are a social event, not just an excuse for people to stuff around. Even when it's down-time, think about the rammifications of your actions.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Abortion?
Starting a new blog feels a lot like opening a new notebook. I want to put down something perfect in this record that's not been sullied by awkward phrasing or messy thoughts yet. Ha! Fat chance. I've found recently that I have far more chance of getting somewhere with my notebooks if I scrawl my intentions for it inside the front cover, destroying any hope (as small as it was) of keeping it pristine. That way I can write freely thereafter.
Once a week (roughly) I work in a very quiet office as a weekend receptionist. I've decided to try to use this time, or at least a small amount thereof, to have a ramble and a play, to try to define some of my scattered thoughts and my meandering musings and work out a more solid idea of my beliefs, interests and ideas. Hopefully it lasts longer than my old blog did.
Because of an ongoing conversation between myself and friend D, this post's going to explore my thoughts on abortion. Polite comments and suggestions are welcome, as challenges to my beliefs are the best way I have to re-think and improve them.
So, to my mind, there are two (very basic) positions on abortion. On the 'pro-life' side, there is the argument that abortion at any stage of a pregnancy will end a human life, and is thus equated to murder. The foetus has the potential to become an individual human being, a unit whose right to life is held as inalienable in most societies.
On the other hand, there's the 'pro-choice' lobby, which argues that the foetus is not yet a child in any way, but a collection of cells with, to a point, no self-awareness or individuality. The foetus is simply a part of it's mother, and as such the mother should be able to choose to keep or terminate it as she sees fit.
Personally, my default stance on this issue is to side with the 'pro-choice'ers. The idea of a foetus only weeks old being the automatic equivalent of a newly born child - with the same right to life - seems ridiculous to me. In fact, six months ago if I had become pregnant, I expect I would have considered an abortion as my logical solution (depending on the wishes of the father, etc).
However, to work beyond my own emotions and instinctive moral relativism, I need to find a reason for this view that is based on fact, rather than rough and changeable emotion. So, we start of with an accidental pregnancy. (Let's restrict this to a healthy pregnancy created by two consenting, responsible adults for now. I'll address pregnancies under other circumstances later.) I'll begin with the morning after pill. I have no problem with this. It is essentially a form of contraceptive and, in most cases, still works to prevent fertilisation. To my mind, there is little difference between this and typical contraceptive use, other than the obvious urgency.
The type of pregnancy I'm concerned by is the type that is not immediately realised at fertilisation, but that continues for a number of weeks before being recognised. In this case, as I understand it, there is a recognisable foetus with, in the case of a healthy pregnancy, a high chance of becoming a living, breathing human being in their own right. So, by what logic is it right to deny this foetus their opportunity to live? Some of the common reasons:
1. It will ruin the parents' lives.
Perhaps. But what's to say that they would have lived their lives the way they wanted to had she not become pregnant? And an abortion completely removes the child's opportunity to experience life in any way at all. Through the appropriate use of contraceptives in an appropriate combination, the couple could have prevented the pregnancy. If they did not make the effort to, they should have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Similarly, the argument that they were uneducated - while carrying far more weight - does not hold out, especially in western society where public access to information in libraries or over the internet is near universal. In the case of people who are illiterate, there are facilities for learning provided by a range of public health services aimed at this demographic.
2. It's the woman's body, so she should be able to do what she wishes
Yes, it is her body. Which, at least in the cases that I make this argument for, she has used to participate in consensual sex without taking the appropriate precautions against unwanted pregnancy. She (along with her partner) is responsible for the foetus, and should act responsibly towards it, rather than disposing of the problem because it is convenient to do so.
3. It's irresponsible for the woman to bring a child into the world when she cannot care for them and herself.
I would find this argument far more persuasive if there weren't other options available to families unable to care for their children. It seems far more humane to me for a mother to have her child adopted than to prevent the life from ever having existed. Especially considering the number of families who are unable to have children but would like to.
This argument is one of the most persuasive in my view, largely because it ties in well with my opinion on population control. In general I support a lower birth rate for the sake of environmental sustainability, however abortion is an inhumane way to achieve this. Instead, the proper use of contraceptives and family planning should be encouraged (oh, for a perfect world!) and, if a woman becomes pregnant and cannot support the child, she should give birth and then have someone else adopt the child.
I am entirely aware that there are circumstances in which these arguments don't apply. For instance, I can understand, and morally agree with, abortion in a number of extreme cases. If the mother was raped or the pregnancy was the result of incest, the health (mental and physical) of both the woman and child would, in my opinion, outweigh the arguments above, as long as the woman made an informed choice to have an abortion. Similarly, if the life of the woman was at risk, an abortion would be reasonable, as carrying the child to term would risk the life of a developed individual for the sake of the potential life of another.
Overall, though, I believe that an abortion should only be conducted under extreme circumstances, not as a way of skirting an unwanted complication in a woman/couple's life.
Once a week (roughly) I work in a very quiet office as a weekend receptionist. I've decided to try to use this time, or at least a small amount thereof, to have a ramble and a play, to try to define some of my scattered thoughts and my meandering musings and work out a more solid idea of my beliefs, interests and ideas. Hopefully it lasts longer than my old blog did.
Because of an ongoing conversation between myself and friend D, this post's going to explore my thoughts on abortion. Polite comments and suggestions are welcome, as challenges to my beliefs are the best way I have to re-think and improve them.
So, to my mind, there are two (very basic) positions on abortion. On the 'pro-life' side, there is the argument that abortion at any stage of a pregnancy will end a human life, and is thus equated to murder. The foetus has the potential to become an individual human being, a unit whose right to life is held as inalienable in most societies.
On the other hand, there's the 'pro-choice' lobby, which argues that the foetus is not yet a child in any way, but a collection of cells with, to a point, no self-awareness or individuality. The foetus is simply a part of it's mother, and as such the mother should be able to choose to keep or terminate it as she sees fit.
Personally, my default stance on this issue is to side with the 'pro-choice'ers. The idea of a foetus only weeks old being the automatic equivalent of a newly born child - with the same right to life - seems ridiculous to me. In fact, six months ago if I had become pregnant, I expect I would have considered an abortion as my logical solution (depending on the wishes of the father, etc).
However, to work beyond my own emotions and instinctive moral relativism, I need to find a reason for this view that is based on fact, rather than rough and changeable emotion. So, we start of with an accidental pregnancy. (Let's restrict this to a healthy pregnancy created by two consenting, responsible adults for now. I'll address pregnancies under other circumstances later.) I'll begin with the morning after pill. I have no problem with this. It is essentially a form of contraceptive and, in most cases, still works to prevent fertilisation. To my mind, there is little difference between this and typical contraceptive use, other than the obvious urgency.
The type of pregnancy I'm concerned by is the type that is not immediately realised at fertilisation, but that continues for a number of weeks before being recognised. In this case, as I understand it, there is a recognisable foetus with, in the case of a healthy pregnancy, a high chance of becoming a living, breathing human being in their own right. So, by what logic is it right to deny this foetus their opportunity to live? Some of the common reasons:
1. It will ruin the parents' lives.
Perhaps. But what's to say that they would have lived their lives the way they wanted to had she not become pregnant? And an abortion completely removes the child's opportunity to experience life in any way at all. Through the appropriate use of contraceptives in an appropriate combination, the couple could have prevented the pregnancy. If they did not make the effort to, they should have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Similarly, the argument that they were uneducated - while carrying far more weight - does not hold out, especially in western society where public access to information in libraries or over the internet is near universal. In the case of people who are illiterate, there are facilities for learning provided by a range of public health services aimed at this demographic.
2. It's the woman's body, so she should be able to do what she wishes
Yes, it is her body. Which, at least in the cases that I make this argument for, she has used to participate in consensual sex without taking the appropriate precautions against unwanted pregnancy. She (along with her partner) is responsible for the foetus, and should act responsibly towards it, rather than disposing of the problem because it is convenient to do so.
3. It's irresponsible for the woman to bring a child into the world when she cannot care for them and herself.
I would find this argument far more persuasive if there weren't other options available to families unable to care for their children. It seems far more humane to me for a mother to have her child adopted than to prevent the life from ever having existed. Especially considering the number of families who are unable to have children but would like to.
This argument is one of the most persuasive in my view, largely because it ties in well with my opinion on population control. In general I support a lower birth rate for the sake of environmental sustainability, however abortion is an inhumane way to achieve this. Instead, the proper use of contraceptives and family planning should be encouraged (oh, for a perfect world!) and, if a woman becomes pregnant and cannot support the child, she should give birth and then have someone else adopt the child.
I am entirely aware that there are circumstances in which these arguments don't apply. For instance, I can understand, and morally agree with, abortion in a number of extreme cases. If the mother was raped or the pregnancy was the result of incest, the health (mental and physical) of both the woman and child would, in my opinion, outweigh the arguments above, as long as the woman made an informed choice to have an abortion. Similarly, if the life of the woman was at risk, an abortion would be reasonable, as carrying the child to term would risk the life of a developed individual for the sake of the potential life of another.
Overall, though, I believe that an abortion should only be conducted under extreme circumstances, not as a way of skirting an unwanted complication in a woman/couple's life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)