Commentary: Objectivity and Subjectivity's Clash--Abortion.

Ladies and Gentlemen (Or, to attain it to more realistic proportions, “Lady and Gentleman”), I was going to briefly muse about the self-pitying obese and delve into yet another work complaint, however I find it necessary to regale that tale at a later point in time.

If you haven’t heard, Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who performs late term abortions, was shot to death today…in a church. Police apprehended the man responsible, however my feathers are still very much ruffled. I suppose I am most upset that the naive notion of mine (you know, the one where after Obama came into office all of these social problems would be erased), was obliterated today. And now, I will engage in a musing that rivals even the most epic Strom Thurmond filibuster in length. Just kidding, mine will only take approximately 23 hours to read.

I feel like it is important for me to disclose the following information before proceeding. First of all, I dislike a radical liberal as much as I do a radical conservative. Moderation is key, boys and girls. It is of utmost importance to maintain your beliefs, but to respect (or at least try) the opinions of those who disagree. Unless their opinion is based on completely unfounded knowledge; then it is your duty to tell them the truth. In some of my darker moments, I find even that futile; what do you or I really know about what is “true” when it comes to politics, anyway? The media conceals and twists plenty, and the government hides even more. However, there is no hiding a smoking gun, and there is only one truth when a dead body is splayed on an altar.

Continuing. Regardless of your stance on abortion (ultimately, none of our opinions matter unless we’re in the situation) I find this act absolutely obscene. Most could agree, even OperationRescue, a pro-life group who coincidentally called Tiller a “monster” on their site, said this was an atrocity. The fact that one who finds every life “sacred” would regress to certain primordial tactics of ceasing those whom they fear (ie killing them) is almost as astonishing as it is hypocritical. And yes, friends, this literally brings together church and state.

Hearkening back to Notre Dame and the Victor Hugo era, the hideous Quasimodo found solace and sanctuary in his church. And yes, so did this alleged “murderer.” How ironic it is that a man described by many as a sadist goes, or, I should say “went”, to church. A church, synagogue, mosque, what have you, is a symbol of peace and salvation. And for one who advocates that so ardently, the assassination of a human being in one is no less abominable than said person performing a third trimester abortion.

Personally, I feel that when a woman enters a third trimester, she might as well have the child and then put it up for adoption. Not only is said child (to me, at least) an actual human and therefore able to feel pain, but it also poses a grave danger to the woman involved. Although, as always, childbirth is more dangerous than any stage of abortion. But really, my opinion doesn’t matter. There are always extenuating circumstances that you and I will never fully understand, and it is both arrogant and ignorant to impose our beliefs on those of others, and especially on those who are just doing their job. And to be frank, there is never a long line for third trimester abortions; they are quite rare. I’ll never be able to delve into the psyche of a doctor who performs the operation, therefore it is impossible for me to glean whether they condone it. I’ve said this before, but it remains true: just because you perform a task, it is not necessarily indicative of a condonation.

For example, I bought my cousin cigarettes once. She’s fifteen, and yeah, I helped contribute to the blackening of her lungs. I don’t smoke; I think it’s a disgusting and stupid habit. However, my lungs aren’t going to dissolve to the consistency and color of tar—hers are. She paid me, she knows the facts about smoking, but wanted them nonetheless. So, I anxiously and nervously (it was my first time buying a pack, and I felt rather silly) purchased a pack of Marlboro Reds from the gas station clerk. Am I morally responsible? No, it was still her choice; I merely provided the means. Maybe Dr. Tiller disagreed with third trimester abortions, but he too provided the means. I would never have bought the cigarettes had she not asked me; he would have no abortion to perform had a woman not paid for one. I could have contributed to the ending of a life, but does that make me deserving of being shot to death in a church?

An argument may be that buying cigarettes and performing an abortion are two entirely different things, however objectively speaking, both accomplish the same result; they only differ in the amount of time each takes. To expand on the opposing view, one might also say that my dumb ass cousin has a choice, whereas the fetus does not. And my answer is, well, of course it doesn’t have a choice; it’s a fetus. But really, some may say that said fetuses are not given the opportunity to live, but to be honest, if a mother is even considering aborting a child, chances are the future child doesn’t have much of an opportunity anyway. Women…generally…do not have children when they cannot support them emotionally, financially, and even physically. If you really are a product of your environment, and said environment cannot support even the most physiological of needs, you probably will lead a life inundated with adversity. Just saying.

I don’t know, none of what I say or think really matters, just as what you may say or think doesn't really matter. How ironic it is, then, that the definition of a single word is the only thing that does matter. And that word is "life." How funny it is that we all, at some point, experience it, but cannot agree on a universal definition; let alone when it begins. We strive to know its purpose, yet how can we know purpose when we don't even know its definition? That's almost as useless as telling someone that a "baker" is "someone who bakes something." Merriam-Webster defines "life" as the "existence of a human being," but Christ, what does that help? Even from an objective definition, it is vague enough for many interpretations. What constitutes being human? DNA, or a soul?

And that's when subjectivity and objectivity clash. For instance, we all recognize the color red, and when working in HTML we use the code FF0000 (sorry, nerdy ex-myspacer throwback), however, we each may interpret the color differently, even oppositely. Some may think of red as romantic, others may think of red as angry and abrasive. But with abortion, we cannot even recognize and agree on a most basic definition of what is at stake.

An objective world could, in some ways, be easier, however the era of subjectivity is and has been cyclical. Arrogance, ignorance, and intolerance are the big words of humanity—that’s nothing new. Some say that which separates man from animal is his ability to reason; I consider it any of the words mentioned above. It’s just rather disheartening that we resort to murder to end murder.