It’s your choice. Sort of.

I’ve always found the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life debate interesting. The recent US Presidential election saw this issue being debated again in the media while being conspicuously ignored by both candidates. There were other interesting issues that were put before voters too, like the legalization of Marijuana use and the “Right to Die”. This got me thinking again about the issue of personal freedom and human rights and how the US in particular seems to be moving toward a more liberal moral agenda. It is being dragged a little further to the political and moral centre, kicking and screaming and biting and proselytizing, but is being dragged there all the same.

The core issue that society must deal with is one of choice. Should a private citizen have the right to make choices in their life without oversight from the government? I think that most rational people agree that there needs to be law and order, but many laws are starting to be seen as overreaching in scope. Legislation which is facing more regular scrutiny these days includes anti-abortion law, laws which prevent same-sex marriage, laws which govern the use of recreational drugs, and laws which prevent people from a right to choose to die peacefully and gracefully. I would add another issue to this list, which may raise a few eyebrows, but bear with me if you think I’ve gone crazy when I suggest that Polygamy could be considered a moral gray area that we should examine and talk about as a society.

My own position on the role of government in defining liberty and freedom is this; The government should ensure that any action that an individual undertakes should come under scrutiny if it has a direct, adverse ACTUAL effect on society as a whole or seriously infringes on the ACTUAL liberties and freedom of another person. So, using that as a template, it shouldn’t be a surprise if I said I was “Pro Choice”. I don’t think that a government “for the people and by the people” should step in and stop people making choices about what to do with their own bodies. Especially when these laws are governing what are essentially morality-based decisions.

I’ll address the issues I’ve outlined above, which I believe are the current key “morality-based” items, but  I have omitted Stem-Cell research, which is possible the most important of any moral issue we are currently addressing, because I do not know enough about it to speak with any intellectual credibility on the subject. I’ll start by making an overall observation.

Many of the laws concerning gay marriage, abortion, right to die etc. are based on a western morality that comes directly from Christianity. Christian morality has evolved over time, at different rates in its dozens of different sects, as a direct result of societal influence. Let’s not forget that it is less than 100 years since women had to fight for the right to be treated as equals. Misogyny is a morality that was necessarily selected out, to use evolutionary parlance, to adjust to societal pressure and intellectual reason. Divorce, though still frowned upon, is accepted by the Church when it was an abomination worthy of excommunication in the not-too-distant past. In recent times, gay marriage has become perfectly acceptable in many parts of the world, proving that homophobia is another morality that has been evaluated by society and found to be in error. It is then reasonable to predict that in future, other moralities will be considered and measured against scientific understanding and societal demand. I include scientific reason in this argument because understanding has long been the enemy of prejudice and the weapon of progress. For example, once society learned that homosexuality was not a lifestyle choice, but a genetic predisposition, the issue of its morality could be discussed a lot more objectively. As these moral advances have been made, most Christian faiths have adjusted their dogmas to take into account such advances and so western morality has changed in equal measure.

The main argument I intend to make in this essay is that I believe that governments overreach in morality-based issues and should play a much smaller role in governing what a person may or may not do with their body. With that general thesis, I’d like to discuss some of the areas I outlined above.

[EDIT:2013-05-10] I’ve taken out the section on recreational drugs as I need to do more reading on the subject after talking to a few more people about this particular subject.

Pro-Life is not the Opposite of Pro-Choice
Let me begin by clearing this up. “Pro-Choice” was a term adopted by the National Abortion Rights Action League in the US in the late 60s. This group wanted a repeal of abortion laws and was vindicated in part when the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe vs Wade. The term “Pro-Life” was adopted later by various groups that were formed to campaign against abortion. The original designation of “Anti-Abortion” was dropped in favour of “Pro-Life” and anyone with any marketing or PR experience will tell you why. This was a clever trick by the Pro-Life movement because it allowed them to defer the negative ideology that they were espousing by using a seemingly obvious antonym; “If you’re not Pro-Life, that makes you Anti-Life”. This is simply inaccurate and, quite frankly, intellectually offensive. I don’t know of any advocates for abortion who do not also advocate education, counseling and support for women who find themselves in a position where the are considering abortion. The massive majority of Pro-Choice advocates also still have misgivings about abortion in certain circumstances and find it morally wrong in other circumstances. However, as with rights like Freedom of Expression, you have to accept that some boundary cases will exist in order to give people those rights.

The argument over abortion is centred almost exclusively on opposing definitions of life. Scientists who study human biology and genetics agree that a group of cells in the early stages of “life” is no more a person than the sperm and embryos that joined to start the whole process off in the first place. Until there is sentience, there simply is no “humanity” and therefore, no “person”. If this is not true, then we must prosecute people for “murdering” plants, as they too are alive, even if they lack sentience. A tiny group of cells that has not formed a nervous system or cognitive function cannot be considered the same as a larger group of cells that has. Based on current evidence and understanding (and not some arbitrary number as some people seem to think), science can show when sentience begins. We know that pain receptors start to develop at around the 8-week mark of pregnancy. This DOES NOT mean that an 8-week-old fetus can feel pain. This is because, based on current understanding, the part of the brain that routes information – such as pain – to other areas (the thalamus) does not develop for a further 16-20 weeks. This means that to all intents and purposes, a fetus cannot feel any pain until the 24th to 28th week of pregnancy. Because the thalamo-cortical complex does not develop until this relatively late stage, we can also say that the fetus does not have “consciousness”. Yes, it may be difficult to accept that the writhing little blob on the ultrasound with visible arms and legs has no awareness, but it is simply a medical certainty based on current evidence. This means that emotion and attachment play a large part in the personal choice of whether or not to abort a fetus, but emotion should not be considered when creating laws that indiscriminately impact people who may not have the same emotions or attachments.

If we can determine when sentience begins and when a fetus can feel pain, what then is the argument against allowing women to abort an unwanted, non-viable  or (morally repugnant as it may be) inconvenient pregnancy? If you look at the demographics of those who oppose abortion, you will find an overwhelming majority do so purely on religious grounds. It doesn’t help that the “Holy See” has repeatedly weighed in on an issue it has no capacity to address. The assertion from the Vatican, that life begins at the moment of conception, is made without any supporting evidence and is based purely on how a very small group of old men interpret a very old book. It is fine for the Church to have a position on this issue, but it should not impact legislation governing it or scientific inquiry into it. The church’s role should surely be to advise its adherents on the dogmatic reasons to reject abortion. There is a legislative overreach however when adherents of one faith manage to force their beliefs on everyone through policy and law.

If we accept the notion of secular government and remove the religious argument from the equation, what then are we left with in terms of a defensible, rational argument against abortion? The only thing that remains is sentiment. Innate in most human beings is a desire to protect the young and the helpless. None of us enjoys the thought of a baby dying, either in utero or once born and I suspect that it is this sense of injustice that we find repellent. A baby who has never had a chance to live is one of the saddest concepts we ever deal with. Unfortunately, this is mainly due to the emotions and experience we project onto an unborn fetus. Yes it is sad, but curiously, when a fetus must be aborted due to complications during pregnancy or because birth endangers the life of the mother, there is usually very little debate about what is the correct, moral thing to do. To me, this suggests that our sentiments play a larger part in our opinions about abortion than our intellect does.

Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- abortion, I think it’s important to use useful, accurate designations, so there needs to be a more accurate opposite to Pro-Choice. Anti-Choice is as accurate as  you can get in this regard and truly explains the position of its apologists.

Adam and Eve vs. Adam and Steve
Same sex marriage is another highly polarizing issue in today’s society, but thankfully is one that seems to be becoming less so as younger generations grow up with more liberal beliefs than their parents and grandparents.

Of all the moral issues that are legislated by governments, I find this one particularly curious. Same-sex marriage does not affect straight people in any way. Same-sex marriage does not threaten the faith or religious convictions of straight people in any way. Same-sex marriage does not undermine “heterosexual culture” in any way. Same-sex marriage does not infringe on any heterosexual person’s rights, freedoms, or privileges in any way. Why then do some straight people seem to care so vehemently about gay people wanting to marry? The only people who are “affected” by same-sex marriage are people who have their prejudices challenged and that is not a valid reason for legislation. Legislation should never prop up bigotry.

The main basis for opposition to same-sex marriage generally is again a religious one. Because the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, many people use this as a crutch to support their own prejudices, but I suspect that there is a deeper-lying reason for many people’s objection. There are (self admitted or closeted) atheists who believe that same-sex marriage is immoral or wrong because it is “not natural”. The argument goes that the reason that people and animals have sex is for procreative reasons. This argument is so clearly nonsense that it is hardly worth rebutting, but for the sake of completeness I’ll highlight a couple of fairly important distinctions.

Sex is not just about procreation. This is an inalienable fact that cannot be argued against successfully. For starters, there are other mammalian species, notably Bonobo Apes and Dolphins which have been proven to engage in “regular, consensual” sex with partners of the opposite sex when there is no possibility of fertilization. Also, there are a great many species who engage in autoerotic activities which could not possibly be considered procreative. Add to this the fact that, currently, around 1500 species have been found that engage in homosexual activity, it quickly becomes obvious that the argument from procreation does not stand up to even fleeting scrutiny.

Another objection is that “Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman”. OK, so let’s change the definition. Marriage within the context of a given religion is one thing, but marriage as defined in the Constitution of a state is a legal term and is rightly subject to legal or legislative review, not religious or prejudicial opinion. This is another example of overreach by governments via pressure from religious groups. If your personal belief is that homosexuals are dirty and immoral, that’s entirely your right. I think skateboarders should grow up and find something less childish to do with their time, but I don’t think that the government should legislate against half-pipes and baggy pants. After all, the skateboarders aren’t really affecting me, they’re just offending my prejudice, which is entirely personal and something that I should deal with, not them. Of course the argument is raised that “Marriage” is somehow inexorably linked to religion. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Many people are married every day in registry offices or public places by public officials and not clergy. I daresay that most people have been to such a service but I’ve never heard anyone say that these people should not be allowed to “marry” if they do not do so under the watchful gaze of the church. Why is the same standard not applied in these cases? If marriage, as is argued, is a sacred bond endowed by God, why do the moralists not argue that atheists or people of religions other than their own should not be treated as married? It’s exactly the same thing.

Another fairly common argument I’ve read is that same-sex marriage will somehow lead to a complete collapse of morality. “Where will it end? Should people be allowed to marry horses, or children?” The answer is “Of course not”. It is particularly offensive that this comparison is quite frequently made; most recently by a Republican presidential nominee who was defeated by Mr. Romney). The very sinister implication is that there is no difference morally between homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality. While this may be the case neurologically (a pedophile can no more change his sexual preferences than a homosexual can), it is not the case morally or intellectually. A child cannot consent to an intimate relationship with an adult. A horse cannot consent to an intimate relationship with a human. An adult in good mental health however can consent to an intimate relationship with another adult.

Consent is surely the only legal factor that should be considered when judging whether or not two people should be allowed to marry. Whether or not it offends certain prejudices or beliefs should have no bearing on legislation that governs basic human rights.

Killing Them Softly

This is an issue that I didn’t know a lot about until fairly recently and so I hadn’t really thought too much about it. I then learned that one of my favourite authors, Terry Pratchett, was diagnosed with Alzheimers. This is a debilitating disease which strips away the ability to lead a full life slowly but surely, ultimately robbing a person of their memory or recognition of loved ones and an inability to function independently due to the degradation of motor skills.

The particular form of the disease that Pratchett suffers from has basically robbed him of his ability to type. This means that his work has to be dictated to his assistant so that he can continue to publish his work.  Pratchett is a strong advocate of a person’s right to die and has stated that he wishes to end his own life before his condition worsens to the point where his quality of life is next to nil. I watched a documentary he made called “Choosing to Die“. This was a difficult film to watch as it follows the lives of several people who have either made the decision to end their own life through physician-assisted suicide, are considering this option, or are faced with a slow and painful descent into an undignified and unpleasant death but have decided against ending their life early. The documentary actually shows one of the main subjects drinking the cocktail of drugs which stops his heart. This was very difficult to watch but was not at all voyeuristic or cheap. It also really made me think about this subject in more depth.

Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg are the only countries where euthanasia is legal while Switzerland and the States of Washington, Oregon and Montana allow physician-assisted suicide. The difference in the two terms is in who administers the lethal dose. Euthanasia occurs when a physician, or other, ends the life of someone who has no quality of life. Physician-assisted suicide is the process by which a person can end their own life under the supervision of a medical practitioner.

There are many issues that complicate the topic of euthanasia/assisted suicide, but the driving force that prevents its legalization is a vague moral certainty that this is “not right”. The most common arguments against euthanasia are that it cheapens the value of human life, that it would eventually become physician-determined rather than voluntary, or that it would be open to abuse.

Any system or process is open to abuse, so effective measures must be put in place to prevent such abuse. The Swiss system is particularly effective as it requires that the person confirm three separate times that they wish to proceed. They must have a 24 hour period before the second and final confirmations and must sign paperwork confirming their choice. They must also be judged to be of sound mind by a psychiatrist before they are finally given a lethal dose of chemicals which quickly and painlessly arrests their heart and breathing and allows them to take control over their own death peacefully and comfortably. This procedure is undertaken in a licensed premises (in the case of non-Swiss nationals) or, optionally, in the person’s home (in the case of Swiss nationals) with qualified, licensed medical professionals in attendance.

I am more skeptical about euthanasia than assisted-suicide as it would be far easier for someone to end someone else’s life without their consent. This is one of the abuses that is raised as an argument against this process and is perfectly valid. However, if someone knew that they were not going to recover from a given condition, I feel strongly that at their own discretion, and with the sort of “get out period” in place such as the Swiss use, such a person should have the right to end their own life as they see fit, with dignity and in comfort. I really fail to see how this is anyone else’s decision.

Another obvious objection is the impact that this may have on the family of the soon-to-die, but selfishness is not illegal in other contexts so I’m not convinced that it should be considered in this one. Whether or not the person making the decision has either arrived at this decision with or without the support of his or her family, I believe that this is an individual choice that should be as basic a human right as freedom of speech and freedom of movement.

I do, and you, and you, and you
The issue of plural marriage is another topic which is pretty much seen as morally addressed in most countries. It is generally agreed that it is not acceptable behaviour and that laws and sentences to deal with offenders are perfectly justifiable. I think the objections against plural marriage (or Polygamy, to give it is other common name) fall into two categories. Again there is the religious argument which I will reaffirm should not be valid in terms of defining legislation, but there is also an actual valid argument, or one that seems valid on the surface.

As with arranged marriages, most Western cultures view plural marriage as a misogynistic subjugation of women. I’m sure that in some cases, perhaps most actual cases, this may be true. But as with arranged marriages, I’m sure there have been situations in history when the arrangement has worked very well for all concerned. Most mammals are not monogamous, so there is no particular biological imperative for humans to partner exclusively. This then leaves only a moral judgment made by people who are, as usual, unaffected by the action they are judging.

I’m quite sure that it could be possible for a man to love two women, or a woman to love two men, for all three to agree that a cohabitation arrangement can be agreed that is conducive to all sides and that is as healthy and loving as any traditional two-person relationship. In theses cases, where there is consent between three people, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? Morally, I don’t see too much of a difference between the argument against same-sex marriage and plural marriage. It comes down to what an individual considers moral and what politicians enact into law in order to entice voters. Society is generally moving toward complete (legal) acceptance of same-sex marriage, so if you apply all the same economic, legal, and moral arguments against plural marriage, I’m not sure that the discussion would really have a significantly different outcome.

Historically, the issue of polygamy has been linked inexorably with the LDS church. In the Fundamentalist LDS church, the elder of the church is allowed to assign wives to men when they are of age and to move wives from man to man based on the man’s “worthiness”. This, I think everyone should agree, is abhorrent. This is no more than slavery dressed up as religious belief and it is no surprise that it is the men who hold all the power in that type of arrangement. However, this view of plural marriage is not one that I, or any rational human, should or would espouse. It is also not one that most adherents of the LDS faith approve of or practice.

To draw an obvious parallel, there are a great many arranged marriages which are forced onto people every day which cause nothing but misery and suffering. Yes, many work out well and I have met people who are with their partners by virtue of this tradition. I still don’t believe that it is morally right, but this section isn’t really dealing with arranged marriages so I won’t comment further on the issue. It is curious however, that the law does not intervene in this cultural practice, while it does interject in the case of plural marriage.

It is also strange that infidelity is not only legal, but completely accepted as a part of modern society by most people. Other than the aggrieved party, their family and friends, society does not generally vilify every man or woman who has been unfaithful. I would further argue that being unfaithful to one person is morally worse than being faithful to two people as long as their is consent.

I bring this argument back an earlier point about consent. If three (or more) people agreed that they wanted to marry one another and no-one was being coerced, I don’t really see any good reason why this should be treated as morally repugnant. I certainly don’t believe that it should be a criminal matter. This is a waste of tax-payer money and doesn’t really solve any social or economic issue. In cases where men or women are being forced into marriages that they do not wish to enter, then the legal system needs to step in, but that is true of any marriage where one party does not consent. This however is an issue of consent and the protection or human rights which should not require an blanket ban on “nontraditional” marriages.

Conclusion
When I started writing this (two or three weeks ago), I had a general idea that there would be a common thread between  my ideas about these topics. As I have written down my thoughts, I have consolidated a central idea that most of the laws that govern morality-based activities are simply the pandering-to of established prejudices, either societal or, commonly, religious. I have further concluded that in fact, I believe that morality-based legislation is inherently and necessarily flawed because of the biases it imposes. There is a critical need to separate consensual relationships and actions from those borne of coercion or intimidation. The legislation in those cases is well established and is pragmatically and logistically justifiable. Legislation that covers purely moral questions however, I think is outdated and immoral in and of itself.

The simple fact is that political parties have one of two objectives, neither of which is really anything to do with the country they serve. The two objectives are, the party that is in power makes every decision contingent on whether it will give them the best chance of remaining in power. The other party or parties’ mandate is to make every decision contingent on whether it will give them the best chance of assuming power. Many governments make sound decisions and help the citizens under their care, but the prime driver for legislation is, I contend, what is best for the political success of the party. This is a system that is subject to interference and undue influence from special influence groups like corporations, wealthy individuals, and commonly in the case of morality-based issues, religious groups. In secular nations, this constitutionally should not be the case (such as Canada and the US), but the reality is that it absolutely is.

I realize that the argument is that “if you don’t like -it- go and live somewhere where -it- is acceptable.” But is this really an intellectually or morally defensible argument in 2012, when we are more technologically, scientifically and yes, morally advanced than at any previous point in our history? Do we want to move backward into socially exclusive groups who treat others with mistrust and, quite often, hatred and suspicion? Or would we rather progress to a point where we accept that not everyone has the same ideas as us but actually, probably has pretty much the same subjective morality?

Left to their own influence, people will generally choose to act rationally and morally. I don’t think that we need other people’s morals forced on us and I think that this is a major hurdle that we need to overcome as individuals, nations and globally, as a species if we are to realize our full potential.