(77) S3E14 Day of Peace - Abortion and the Modern Compromise

• A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/
• Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/
• Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751 
• The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/
• The Case Against Abortion: https://thefourthway.transistor.fm/episodes/43-the-case-against-abortion-the-foundational-question

Dear Scott, 

What is this quelled inside me? I cannot really say.

It’s certainly not dread, Scott. That came on another day.

It feels more like fuzzy warmth. A rashly rationed rationality

Standing partially on reason’s leg, to support desire’s partiality

But of desire, why condemn it so? This, nature’s guide to truth.

For survival, reason validates these means and ends that we intuit

Yet at moments my intuitions falter, as I see my fallible humanity

Until I’m brought back to reason’s side, guided by infallible Humity

I’m reminded that man has no plan except that which does play out.

Each’s goal, oneself. Nothing else. Even altruism, a selfish route

So what is this quelled inside me? I still can’t really say. 

But damn it, I don’t care to know. I’ll say what I want anyway.

And if you care not to agree, I’ll take care not to care.

For the winner won’t win on empathy’s plea, but by exerting more force than other can bear.

So what do I want for society? Or should I say, what do I want for me? 

I want no restraints that impede my class. I want the power to be beyond free

I want to restrict those who are far removed from me. I want to remove their ability to impede.

And as the Humian that I truly am, I’ll strip away their humanity

If those in my way are no longer like me,  then there’s no person to consider – 

Like all obstacles that come before me, I discard them as rubbish, refuse, litter.

But to throw things away seems so absurd. Nothing but cavalier waste.

For it’s not only meat that gives utility, but also bone, sinew, hair, carapace.

So what of this class that’s so unlike me? Those without presence, no cries? 

While too burdensome it is to provide their support, surely them we can still utilize

We need not mandate that others preserve these lives, if the voiceless become hindrance, 

In order to punish some for taking same life, though really punishing for inconvenience

We also need not apply personhood to this group, these dejected who are so like us

To subjectively choose some objective ground to define humanity so it includes us

So if I have right to take this life, then this life is mine to own.

But since this my life can’t speak on its own, why not give its owners their vote?

I propose that we count all voiceless at hand as three fifths woman and man,

To keep them inhuman, yet still useful to me, as I further my narcicized plan.

So what is this quelled inside me? I finally think that I can say.

It’s certainly not dread, Scott. But it’s just as inhumane.

                               Sincerely, 

                             NatashaYuri

The title is a reference to the Missouri Compromise. Basically, it was a compromise whereby the United States allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state, despite relatively strong objections, and a notion in some that it just wasn’t right. Throughout this poem I will be making many slavery references, in hopes that I can parallel it to the abortion issue. Speaking to the abortion issue, the first line of the poem alludes to the major question that must be asked in the abortion debate: “what is inside the mother?”

This is the second reference to slavery, in the case of Dred Scott. Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom on the grounds that he should be considered a citizen, or at least a free man. This was not only due to his “inalienable” rights as a human being, but the government’s own laws. At one time, Scott’s owner traveled with Scott through free territory, where by law, Scott was a human being with rights. So even on the government’s own grounds, they were hypocrites. In regard to abortion, we end up asking a similar question of humanity. What is inside the mother? Here, she admits that she does not know.

I liked the play on words at the end here, but I also think it describes well the stupidity and gutlessness of the lack of a stand for morality against slavery. People thought through things very rashly. Instead of thinking about the big picture for the nation, they did what was going to get them through the moment. And while compromises were made, people rationalized their reasoning in an attempt to justify themselves.

Playing off number four, it seems as though people leaned on the voice of reason as their pillar of foundation, as their desires were shortsighted. They want their generation to be at peace in the land, even if it means war within morally. Slavery was not affecting the majority group – the group in power. There wasn’t much of an incentive to take slavery away, as it was very lucrative and not hurting those who mattered (WASPs who owned land). Desire won out over moral reason and long-term thinking. Desire, however, is often partial, leaving out those whose desires don't align, or those who impede the success of the majority's desires. Moral reasoning is intended to uphold inalienable rights, but when used only in part, it is often crafted to prop up desires. 

While most would agree that slavery was a bad thing, as it was shortsighted, how can we say it was wrong? Desire is what nature has given us, and what has evolved to guide us towards survival. If it weren’t for the desire to eat, I’d starve. If it weren’t for the desire to have sex, our species would die out. Desires are the life force of humanity’s survival. It is impossible for desires to be remain faulty, as if they were faulty, they wouldn’t survive and get passed on to future generations. The only way a desire can be faulty is if it is no longer useful. However, its existence for any significant period of time implies that it at one point was indeed useful, and therefore not wrong by naturalistic standards based around survival. So how can we condemn slavery other than from our limited frame of reference? Slavery bolstered an economy, created rich traditions, etc. Likewise, how could we condemn abortion if we are upholding someone's choice, preventing a poor quality of life, or lowering the crime rate? [ http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ ] Who can judge?

When one thinks about desires, they can seem so wrong. How can one really endorse the atrocities that occur as a result of slavery? It causes one...