with debate over abortion, gay marriage
By GUEST COMMENTARY BY ROGER SWANSON
In order to expand its grass-roots support at the national and local level, the Republican Party promoted two wedge issues: Abortions and gay marriage.
This is a clever way to avoid discussing the real issues, such as the war in Iraq, the job market, deficits and health care, at the same time connecting with the beliefs of conservative, fundamentalist voters. In short, beliefs carry more weight with these voters than other issues, which they often do not understand.
A brief review of these issues will shed some light on the misconceptions of conservative, fundamentalist beliefs.
Abortions: An abortion is a classic measure of failure of the reproductive process. The need for an abortion results from an unwanted occurrence, either controllable or uncontrollable. Uncontrollable events include rape and instances where childbirth would result in the death of the mother. All others are likely controllable.
Most controllable events can be prevented. Sex education of adolescents is probably the most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies that lead to potential abortions. The argument that sex education in schools will lead to more adolescent sex is a very weak argument. It assumes that parents do not teach their children appropriate moral and ethical values. To argue against sex education implies that appropriate values have not been shared. Parents can’t have it both ways.
The demand for abortion fits several categories of unwanted pregnancies. An exploration of each follows: Pregnancies from rape: Is it right to ask a woman who has been raped to give birth to an unwanted child? Is it fair to ask this woman to raise this child, who will be a daily reminder of a violent event? Other than an abortion, is there a more humane way to treat these victims?
Pregnancies from incest: Is it right to ask a child, or woman, who has had sex with another family member to give birth to an unwanted child? Is it fair to ask her to raise this child, a daily reminder of this unfortunate event?
These pregnancies occur because parents do not instill the appropriate moral and ethical values, and sex education is lacking. Should the pregnant child, or woman, be blamed in these instances? Other than an abortion, is there a more humane way?
Pregnancies where the mother will likely die during childbirth: Is it right to ask a mother to sacrifice herself to save an unborn child? Is it fair to ask this woman’s family to raise this child, a daily reminder of an unfortunate death? Abortion seems to be the right answer, but this is a medical decision that the mother should make. It is not unlike the decision that cancer patients make: Treat the disease or die.
Pregnancies involving stupid people: No preventative measure will help here. There is no IQ test before people conceive children. No level of sex education will help. These pregnancies are likely not preventable. Solution? Either allow these women to have abortions or force the anti-abortionists to adopt and pay for raising the children who are born. Let them put their money where their mouths are.
Pregnancies involving ignorant people: Clearly, having the right moral and ethical values and appropriate sex education is the long-term solution to this source of abortion demand. Using a con-dom is the single most effective method of preventing abortions.
The anti-abortionists should look to preventative measures, such as sex education, not the failure itself, the abortion, which is the symptom of the problem. The lack of sex education is a root cause of the failure. For the anti-abortionists, fighting symptoms have become an end in itself: It is the one strategy that not only does not solve the problem, but also gives them the attention they want.
Gay marriage: The potential constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages failed in both houses of Congress, and will likely not get the needed majority of states to ratify it. The Republicans know it will never be adopted. So why do it? To divert attention from real issues and to get out the vote. And to show their true hypocrisy.
The argument against gay marriage is that it would destroy family values and lead us further down the road to moral decay. If we truly wanted to ensure that families raise children, we should prevent divorces where children are present. Then we would be forced to deal with many of the problems that lead to divorce, including chemical substance abuse (alcohol and drugs), domestic violence and poverty. But it is so much easier to attack gays, who seldom cause divorces, than to solve these problems.
If the hatred of the gay lifestyle and sex for pleasure, not reproduction, are the primary issues, then we need to speak to sex for pleasure among heterosexuals. All sex by heterosexuals that cannot lead to reproduction (e.g., use of birth control devices or pills and sex after menopause) should be morally banned. This is where the conservative fundamentalists use their religious divining rod over a Bible and make up an answer that suits them.
What else contributes to moral decay? Pornography, violence on TV, violence in movies and violence in video games to name a few. So why don’t we stop this? Well, it is censorship, but more importantly, it often impacts profits of media giants. They control the content and the pipeline that delivers content to homes, hotels and stores. Sex sells, violence sells, pornography in hotels sells. So why wouldn’t media giants want to cut their profits by taking the moral high ground? They wouldn’t. They are the Republican moderates. Again, it is easier to attack gays than to control violence, pornography and immoral, unethical behavior. (Roger Swanson is a management consultant living in Ocean Park).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 1, 2004. Read the original PDF.