Somebody had to say it.
I'm not speaking of religious tenets about the status of human life; what I'm talking about is policy. There are no leaders anywhere (well, except just maybe Bhutan) who put human life first when making the rules. Life wasn't sacred when we invaded Iraq. It wasn't sacred when we decided that it's worthwhile to have all these death machines on our streets, either - cars kill 67 people each week in the UK, and 825 each week in the USA. Life isn't sacred when we talk about climate change - zillions of reports on the human cost of the crisis resulted in mere hand-wringing, while the Stern report on the economic cost of inaction was what made climate change a political priority. When the hell do we ever talk about the importance of human life when we're deciding on policy?
Oh. Yeah. Here. (a link I totally stole from here). Why is that, I wonder?
Honestly, there's no need to invoke conspiracy theories there - it just looks like a vicious cycle of silence. Because human life is sacred, celebrating the economic and social boon of free, legal abortion is a supposedly icky thing to do. (All the while, we're meant to cheer on those lovely liberated Iraqi statue-squishers while a million of their compatriots lie dead at their feet. I'm just saying.) Maybe this silence stops people from seeing it in the same way they do road deaths. Or maybe it's because the benefits are bound to the 'ending' of life in a way that's more obvious than - no, no, wait, it's pretty bloody obvious in the case of that stupid war. Or maybe these losses are seen as preventable by other means - which often isn't true. (More to the point, why were you even driving that car? Why didn't you take the goddamn train?)
So as a political position, it's very hard to consistently defend the right-to-life. As a religious view, that's your call, but it's not mine - I don't think life is simply created and destroyed, I don't see human life as being intrinsically above other forms, and I think personhood is of far greater importance than life. (By 'personhood' I really mean presence in the world, physically, socially, intellectually and spiritually; being part of a great structure of things that touch you and relate to you. Everyone engages at their own level, but that of a 24-week fetus is negligible - certainly when compared to that of a newborn baby, in my totally uninformed and liberally-biased view.) Were I to become troubled about the needless killing of persons, abortion would be a long way down the agenda.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yeah, point taken, but then again you are the same person who was more outraged by some American magazines portrayal of Aung San Suu Kyi as a pretty female than the fact that SLORC was shooting monks and protestors in the street.
Somebody lacks reading comprehension skills. Firstly, it was the BBC News website that I was poking sticks at; secondly I never indicated I was more outraged by that than by what was happening, because I wasn't. However, I can't do anything to challenge what was happening in Burma by hiding behind a keyboard and writing about it. I can, however, challenge the words of others when those words are blithely insulting towards a great person.
I also love how you're invoking the idea that because one awful form of oppression is occurring, everyone should shut up about other, less significant forms of oppression. Why? Even if it's petty wrt Burma (and I am never afraid to be petty) the way the UK (and other) media repeatedly calls upon women to be gender performers rather than people actually, whichever way you swing it, however much Burma affects my conscience, has more direct effect on my life than those dead monks do.
You are correct, I was talking about that post from memory I thought the quote was from Time, not the BBC. That doesnt stop me thinking your priorities are wrong though. You are right, you can't do anything about the human rights violations in Burma, but really you can't do a great deal about the media interpretation of women either - so why bother. Oh right, because it affects you more directly because you are a woman. Do you actually know if Ms.Suu Kyi considered that reporting to be an insult or are you just assuming that she probably did?
You are right, you can't do anything about the human rights violations in Burma, but really you can't do a great deal about the media interpretation of women either - so why bother.
Believe it or not, I'm not so gloomy as you - maybe because of how much portrayals of women in popular media have changed even in the last fifteen or twenty years. I bother because I think it can change more, and I can take five minutes out of my day to type a rant on the topic.
I don't know how Suu Kyi feels about journalists rating her gender performance; would that she were the only politician who's portrayed in the media as a woman rather than as a person (see Hillary Clinton, Jacqui Smith, etc - Smith has been vocal about how insulting she finds this form of reporting). If you really don't understand why I find it troubling that politicians who happen to share my lack of the precious y-chromosome cannot be considered neutrally, well, wake up. Imagine for a moment that reporting about male politicians frequently included subtext like: 'he has a cock! look, he's doing stuff because he has a cock! isn't it nice that he's good at the cock-wielding duties of cock-wielders! he reads exactly what his cock should be reading! he looks like a proper cock-wielder! or, no, today he has failed to look like a proper cock-wielder, oh noez!! ...I think you'd be a bit confused by this petty focus on genital form as opposed to policy. I maintain that it's not my priorities that are skewed here - it's theirs.
Wow, Anonymous has quite an ad hominem bee in their bonnet:
"you are the same person who was more outraged by some American magazines portrayal of Aung San Suu Kyi as a pretty female than the fact that SLORC was shooting monks and protestors in the street."
And why not? This isn't an either/or situation. Is *another* article typing about Burma likely to change what happens over there? This kinda reminds me of all these Facebook campaigns about Burma. All they do is relieve the conscience of the masses. They will not accomplish anything; but if you don’t sign up you’re a heartless bastard actively supporting the Burmese oppression.
“Oh right, because it affects you more directly because you are a woman.”
Hold on matey: why do you have to be a woman to be indignant about Suu Kyi’s media portrayal? Poking fun at a patronising and belittling media attitude that permeates our culture is a perfectly valid angle worthy of examining regardless of an individuals gender. That people are also being shot in Burma doesn’t make it any less true or any less right to point out.
"I can't do anything to challenge what was happening in Burma by hiding behind a keyboard and writing about it. I can, however, challenge the words of others when those words are blithely insulting towards a great person."
Absolutely spot on.
Sorry, I don't mean to fill up your comments box! Just been amazed at what 'secretionbydeletion' has been coming out with in that CiF blog.
(I'm also curious as to how he sees the New World Order behind everything--although, I suppose you have to if you believe in that kind of thing.)
Seriously though - you're right (in my opinion, for what it's worth).
Post a Comment