|
|
|
|
Home Archive Submit About Contact Us |
COUNTERPOINT Who is Really Pro-Choice? By VANESSA BOUCHE 03.02.04 1:09AM CST The op-ed entitled "Watch Out Einstein, Here Comes the Preacher" is primarily a religious piece; its central theme is the quest to remove all faith save the tenets of secular humanism. I will center my response on this general theme and hopefully provide an alternative viewpoint that will provoke reflection and healthy debate. To quote Albert Einstein himself: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein recognized that science and religion are inextricably linked, imbuing meaning and purpose into one another in a mutually beneficial and efficacious manner. Further, Einstein said, "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." Religion gives science a purpose. By religion, I do not mean Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or any other world religion; by religion, I mean faith. Atheists and agnostics-who claim to completely separate religion from science, policy, society, government, and education-practice a religion. They, too, have faith-not in God, but in the absence of God, and thus the centrality of man through the process of time and chance. This religion drives their quest for knowledge in every discipline, including science. This religion of secular humanism is proselytized in our society as the only scientific and rational way to perceive the world; and just as the followers of this faith criticize Christians when they use values to shape policy, secular humanists shape their policies based on their own set of values such as relativism and sexual freedom. They defy any attempt by conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, to "coerce" their values on the public, while they do the very thing they so vehemently condemn. The bottom line is that both conservatives and liberals base their policies on underlying value systems. Science is never divorced from religion; science is never entirely unbiased. Rather, science is used by both sides to build their cases, both of which rest on a set of "values." To deny this would be intellectually dishonest. The secular humanist camp has a discriminatory eye towards science and chooses to ignore that which may make its position appear inhumane. One example is abortion. Embryology shows that there are measurable heartbeats 21 to 24 days after conception. It also shows that at seven weeks, the time at which most abortions are performed, a zygote has taken the shape of a human body with arms, legs, a head, and ribs, not to mention brain formation. Some of the most recent embryology textbooks refute the term "pre-embryo" and state that the formation of life commences at fertilization or conception. Yet, anti-life-or "pro-choice"-advocates refuse to acknowledge these scientific facts regarding life, perhaps because it makes their position look inhumane. Not only do they ignore scientific facts, they also repress scientific studies from being conducted when they don't conform to their position. They don't allow pictures of live fetuses or discussion as to what happens to live fetuses when aborted. They also will not allow research as to whether or not a fetus feels pain and if fetuses should be given pain medication when they are mutilated. This scientific research would hurt their position and therefore they ignore this side of scientific inquiry. Thus, they use secular humanist values to rationalize the suppression of scientific facts and research to the detriment of human life and, ironically, scientific integrity. As Einstein said, "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." Their narrow views are also evident in their evaluation of abstinence programs. Reproductive rights activists have vehemently attacked the Bush administration, accusing it of being "unscientific" in promoting abstinence-only education in schools. They purport that the administration is ignoring numbers which show that abstinence-only education does not alter school-aged kids' sexual behavior. They cunningly ignore the scientific facts that some abstinence-only programs have been highly effective, such as the Not Me, Not Now program. They also fail to point out that all sex education programs, including comprehensive programs, are questionable in terms of effectiveness in reducing the number of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. They also turn away from the fact that abstinence among young people is overwhelmingly supported by majorities of adults and teens nationwide (see National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001). And they refuse to accept the scientific fact that abstinence not only is the only sure way of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, but also is the best way to instill values such as respect, honor, commitment, and self-control, to name only a few. But regardless of statistics, any number that is divorced from values should not be the determining factor in creating policies and programs. Again, to quote Einstein: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." I would also like to address the double standard relating to the word "choice." Choice is considered an inherent, inalienable right when it comes to female reproductive decisions. But choice is criticized when it comes to conservatives. In defense of Bush's choices, the doctors mentioned in my colleague's op-ed have come under attack by reproductive rights groups not because of their lack of expertise (feel free to explore any of their bios) but because, ironically, they offer more choices to women. None of them are against birth control. They simply offer other choices such as the natural rhythm method. They are not against medication to treat PMS. They simply offer other choices such as holistic cures like diet, exercise, counseling, and meditation/prayer. They are not irrational, under-qualified, unscientific men. It is only because they are Christians who offer more choices that they come under attack. Another double standard regarding choice relates to the fathers' rights in the case of abortion. Shouldn't they have a choice as to whether or not their flesh and blood has a chance to live? If "choice" is so imperative, so inalienable, so fundamental, shouldn't it be extended to all parties in all situations, not only to women and reproductive rights? I would encourage each reader to honestly examine your accusations of the "right-wing" and to honestly examine your own underlying belief system. Ask yourself why you think the "right-wing" poses such a grave "threat" to our democracy. Ask yourself why you are so offended by what they value. Ask yourself why you believe what you do. Ask yourself why it's okay for the left to proselytize secular humanism but it's not okay for the right to proselytize Judeo-Christian values (which happen to be similar to Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist values, especially when it comes to reproductive rights). Everyone practices a religion. Everyone puts their faith in something. Is it in a Higher Power or in fallible humanity? |
for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author.
Direct questions about permissions to lbjjpa@uts.cc.utexas.edu.