I was watching Steven Fry In America the other day.  Did you know, that in Oregon or Washington, if evidence of a Red Tree Vole’s habitat is identified, then an area of 10 square miles is protected from development?  This is the value we put on the life of a red tree vole and its potential family.  Quite incredible.

 

The magic of humanity is in our ability to adapt.  We adapt in two ways.  The first way is the way that all life adapts to change on this planet – we evolve.  We change to suit our surroundings both physically and mentally – we learn.

The other way we adapt to change – and this is where humans have been able to dominate the life-forms on the planet – is we manipulate the world around us.  Too cold?  We don’t grow more hair, we build a shelter.  To hot?  We make protective clothing.  Going hungry?  We invent agriculture.  Need protection?  We build walls.  The ability to be able to use the environment around us to suit our needs is an evolutionary step that other animals are a long way behind us on.

 

Both of these methods of adapting are equally important.  One compliments the other.  Earth has created a natural singularity – as we learn we build, and as we build we learn.

 

So we do with society when dealing with diversity and ‘other tribes’.  It can take us a while to adapt and accept changes, but it is generally understood that in a modern progressive society we must learn to adapt to change and diversity.

Look at multiculturalism.  Do we force new cultures within our borders to become more like us?  No, we co-exist.  We may not have liked it at first, but eventually we changed.  The problem was not with them – it was with us.  For our society to become more tolerant to multiculturalism we did not make it easier for them to change into what we wanted, no – we changed for them.  We became less racist, more inclusive, more open-minded (or at least this is the ideal).

Look at feminism.  When women (and men) began to ask for equality among the sexes, what was the tactic?  To make women more and more like men?  To make it easier for women to act, think and behave like men?  No – society changed.  Women could stay the same, but society had to make allowances for them giving us new jobs, laws and lifestyles.  Women wanted to be part of society so society changed – not women (or again, this is the ideal).

It’s the same with homosexuality.  When homosexuals began to make their voices heard and stories of their struggles and everyday prejudices they faced, what did we do?  Did we simply say “Sorry, we must make it easier for you to pretend you’re not gay” so that homosexuals could fit into the society we created?  Or did society change?  Did we become more tolerant, understanding to their needs and learn to treat them with the same dignity and respect that is owed to each and every human being?  The latter, it is hoped, it what will be achieved.


Apparently not.  For instance, what’s all this talk about banning the burkha?  Why?  Multiculturalism – if that is what we advocate here has to accept these burkhas.  If we have a problem with not seeing the face of a person we are talking to; if we have a problem not being able to see what someone looks like; if we have a problem with someone dressed dramatically different from us: who’s at fault?  We are, we have the problem.  Hopefully, over time the burkha will be fazed out, but as it stands we as a society have to learn to adapt to this change.  It is what we preach.  It is what makes immigrants want to come here in the first place.  If we have learnt to enjoy the presence of cross-dressers and punks, I am sure we can accept the burkha.

 

I try to remain consistent in my philosophies.  In philosophy you cannot quantify concepts, you have to work in general rules.  “Stealing is Wrong” is a general rule.  “Stealing is wrong, unless it’s only something small and the victim is very rich” quantifies the rule, making it redundant.  Unless you can logically justify each and every variable, these variables become fallacies.

I suppose this is my problem with the issue of abortion.  A human is a human whether it is inside or outside the womb.  It is genetically identical and there is an unbroken progression to becoming a child outside the womb.  Calling it an ‘embryo’ or ‘foetus’ is quantifying the concept.  They are names for what the human looks like, that’s it.  Unless we can justify these variables, then they are a fallacy.  How is an embryo different from a foetus?  How is a foetus different from a baby?  When these quantities are sufficiently justified, I might back down.  Until then, it is not a question of choice, it is a question of whether or not the organism inside a mother’s womb is human or not.

 

So that’s my stance on abortion.  I have reluctantly arrived at that conclusion.  Now, going back to my original point.  Abortion has become necessary to many women in a society that (a) does not support single mothers (b) does not have the capacity to deal with unwanted children and (c) attaches a stigma to pregnancy outside marriage.

These are the things that we have to work on.  My problem with abortion is that it is seen as the solution.  It’s not a solution.  A solution to the problem of an “unwanted pregnancy” is to make it not a problem – take away the “un-”.  It is us, we who are at fault here if the only way that a women can deal with an unwanted pregnancy is to terminate it.  Meanwhile, the stigma attached to single mothers and bastard children sticks.

What’s bizarre is that this state of affairs is happily admitted:  “A woman in her position cannot possible have that child.”  So who’s at fault here?  The child?  No way.  It’s us.  If we cannot find it in our hearts to make space for these unwanted children in our society, then abortion is a sign of our failure, not of our success.

Are cosmetically enhanced breasts a sign of the success of medicine or a failure of society’s to make the woman feel happy with her own body?

Did we demand that black people change their skin colour, or did we learn to treat them for what they are – humans?

Look at the effort that is made to save the red backed vole in the US.  Can we really not extend that care and compassion to the human mother and child in the same position?