Diversity is a wonderful thing. Diversity in opinion is particularly great, as it can generate all sorts of discussion and ideas, not to mention stimulating arguments, allowing us to see the different shades of grey between the black and the white.
Often, because of recognising the different opinions in between, you form a strong conclusion. Neutrality on anything but cleaning products, socks and pencils is a fool's stance.
However, what about when one is at loggerheads with a person on the other end of the scale? I'm going to refer now to my beloved 'The West Wing', that America television series created by the exquisite Aaron Sorkin, and in particular to a scene with the crazy Christian, Mary Marsh. It comes towards the end of episode 1, season 1 and she wants to know "whadda we get?" for being insulted the day before by the deputy chief of staff, Josh Lyman, on television. She brashly provides a list of options that she wants the White House to arrange: school prayer, the eradication of pornography (!) or getting rid of condoms from schools. Although aware that they reduce the risk of teen pregnancies and HIV, she asserts that abstinence also does the same trick.
Well of course it does, but not eating also reduces the number of fat people, and taking cars of the roads reduces the number of cases of asthma and bronchitis.
I couldn't help but watch in awe the first time that I saw this, because this opinionated character is in the White House making crazy demands from the government! Trying to force teenagers to stamp down on their curiosity and unsettled hormones, and deny them the education that allows them to make safe decisions? How does she even get the meeting?! How is somebody who is striving to eradicate key parts of science and social studies, not to mention responsibility, even allowed such a prominent voice? How is such strongly worded ignorance allowed any kind of place in public? Obviously, it's not only in America, but for this topic to get such serious attention in such an advanced nation blows my mind, and I could never see anything like this happening over in the UK or in Australia, and certainly not France or Germany.
Except that now this is happening in the UK. An anti-abortion/pro-abstinence group, 'Life', has been drafted in as a sexual health adviser to the government.
It would be funny if it weren't quite so troubling. Sexual health advice from a group of people who are against an individual's right to choose and to make informed decisions about their lives? It's likely that the drafting in of this group is merely a political manoeuvre, one that allows certain groups to feel like they are being listened to when in reality they should be keeping their distinctly skewed observations to church meetings.
Remarkably, 'Life' compares behaviour in 2011 to that in the 1950s, claiming that the 1950s was a time when people celebrated the notion of waiting until one was mature enough to deal with the consequences of having sex, that "it was a culture that supported and cherished marriage and faithfulness". Of course, a vital bit of information is left out about a woman's right to work and have a career, to be taken seriously as a working woman, to receive a decent wage to live off, and to be able to live independently and make informed decisions about themselves.
It was more of a patriarchal society then than it is now, and women had no choice but to submit to the repressive tactics of men - if a woman were to become pregnant, what were the chances of her making a 'respectable' marriage? Slim. Consequently, without this chance of a respectable marriage, how would she be able to have a life outside of her ageing parent's home if she is not allowed a living wage? How would she be able to have any material comforts and make any friends with the label that the male-driven society has given her?
Women in the 1950s didn't choose not have sex, they were forced to behave how men wanted them to behave, whilst observing the very same men choose their own fun without the same possible visible consequences of unsafe sex. For 'Life' to be melancholic about this limited existence is a sick and ignorant mistake. For the UK government to allow them a public voice is a disgrace.
In response to the government's move, The Telegraph's Ed West comments about how contraception is only effective with "sensible, responsible people" and that it is "vastly less effective with semi-literate 14 year olds who half want to get pregnant to fill their lives with some meaning". Not a ridiculous comment in itself, but surely, then, this semi-literacy and boredom or 'lostness' is the thing that needs addressing? The alternative cannot surely be to preach abstinence as the correct and sensible course and so narrow the semi-illiterate's education even further? What a stupid idea.
If abortion rates need to be tackled, then we need to be looking to the women who are having the procedure. The most recent figures (as of 24th May 2011) outline that around 80% of abortions in the UK are carried out on women over the age of 20, and 29% of these are carried out on women over the age of 30. (About 12% of abortions were for 18 and 19 year olds.) Now, presumably, the latter of these women have been out of the education system for some time - is Mr West suggesting they go back to school in order to learn that abstinence is key?
An interesting figure in this context is that 16% of all abortions occurred within marriage. Again, for West and co to suggest that this married 16% would listen to sexual advise from a group that preaches abstinence is ludicrous.
What is also ludicrous is the idea that these numbers can explain a situation. Every individual that decides to have an abortion does so in personal circumstances. In times when 2 million young people (those under the age of 25) are unemployed, with few prospects to get good work, and when thousands of people have been made redundant due to the incapabilities of the country-controlling banks, how could it be a bad thing for people in uncertain times to make the decision not to give themselves more financial insecurity?
And perhaps the financial aspect of raising a child isn't the main factor for these women who choose to have an abortion. Perhaps they are not healthy. Perhaps they are physically fine but mentally unstable. Perhaps a full time job that they feel pressurised to have in a society that demands time and money to be given is their priority. Sex is often the release from the pressure and the stress. And I'm going to say it: accidents happen.
If trying to limit the number of abortions is more about the financial strain on society that the government is trying to stem, then perhaps they could also place limitations on other factors that put a big strain on the health care system. Perhaps a fat person should be restricted to just the fruit and vegetable and the meat aisles in the supermarket. Fancy some bread? You're over 14 stone? I don't think so, go back to the veg aisle, buddy, we don't want to operate on your straining heart - can't afford it.
Of course, that's ridiculous. Everybody has a right to choose what they eat, just as everybody has a right to choose on the massive impact of having a child. A woman has a right to decide about what happens to her own body if she is able to - and yes, a foetus is part of the woman's body via the umbilical chord. (The latter comment had to be clarified as 'Life' are unsure about it, according to their website.)
Am I missing a point? The Christian/moral point. Excuse me, but until the Christian soldier with that weapon hands it over and never kills another human life again, until pigeon shooting and deer stalkers hand over their guns, until farmers cease to slaughter lambs for food, I cannot consider morality in absolute terms, and certainly not in relation to abortion. 'Thou shallt not kill... except for when it suits you' often seems to be the missing part of this commandment. You cannot claim to be absolutely religious or moral only when it is convenient. Or at least, you cannot claim to be strongly moral and expect me to listen if you also advocate war, believe in the death penalty and you eat meat.
The sex education that I received was excellent. This education came through school (science and religious education), magazines and common sense. There were no cartoons or bananas, there was no condescension but instead a respectful relaying of useful information about all of the types of contraception available, how to use it and why we should use it.
There was encouragement not to be promiscuous because sex is a big deal and it is intimate! You are placing much trust in your partner and there needs to be mutual respect. We were told of all sorts of diseases and how they could be contracted. We were not scared off, but informed that in this fun activity there can be consequences, and you need to be prepared for the risks. We were prepared, and I am sad that students in other countries are not offered the same information to be prepared, or that poor schools in the UK cannot reach their children properly. Abstinence is a fool's message.
I had a Catholic upbringing, so I am not insensitive to the argument that we should respect the sanctity of life. And this is an important point: the woman earning £15,000 a year with an unemployed partner, or the 38 year old woman whose own life is statistically more physically vulnerable if she has to play house to a foetus for a while, or the woman who was raped, or the 26 year old phd student who forgets to take a pill for the first time in 5 years... I find it hard to believe that any of these women find the decision an easy one to make. But it is theirs to make, and if she has the support and love of a partner, then so much the better, and they can make the decision together. An informed decision.
An informed decision similar to the one that the 16 year old should be able to make about being sexually active and about contraception with information provided at schools, clinics and in magazines. Ignoring the facts will help no one - ignorance is the biggest and most troubling disease.
 |
| Mama monkey & her baby |
