Sometimes I wonder how arguments are formed and guided due to the type of language we use. This isn't some reflection on the most obvious side of how you word you argument. No, this is more about the limitations of a language and how words can carry multiple meanings, or infer multiple assumptions, that then lead us to certain conclusions that may sound logical but in fact are not.
Being bilingual myself, I know how words in one language don't quite grasp the full meaning of what I want to say. This results in me code-switching- flipping from one language to another- in order to feel like I have expressed exactly what I want to say.
Being an English teacher and meeting so many people from different parts of the world means I get to find out a little bit about certain words in other languages that may or may not have an English translation. Take Portuguese, for example. There is a word used a great deal in Brazil called "saudade". This singular word captures a certain longing or homesickness, or a nostalgia that google dictionary claims is characteristic of the Portuguese temperament.
Yes, language can be a tricky tool to use, and while we use it on a day to day basis with great success, I have come to find that on some occasions we fall short. On some occasions we exploit its limitations and its nuances to 'get what we want' out of someone or something.
The topic of abortion came up a while ago, and the whole class seemed to be in agreement. Everyone was in favour of it. For a teacher that's pretty annoying, because the purpose of having discussions in class is for there to be different opinions and everyone talks and discusses. When everyone agrees, the conversation stops dead in its tracks and I am left with 20 minutes of lesson time to fill at the drop of a hat.
The thing is, I am personally against abortion, so instead of trying to mix things up I simply asked questions seemingly to push students to use certain phrases and structures. My ulterior motive, however, was to listen to what they had to say in order to either confirm or refute my own view on the matter. Here is what I changed, and what I have not.
From what I understood, abortion is that last and final moment for a woman to decide whether or not she wants to have a child. Getting pregnant is not something one can easily predict, and can often be difficult for some couples. While you can prevent pregnancy, you can never really know when you're going to find out you're expecting. So abortion seems to give women the chance to grab the unpredictable by the horns and have that ultimate control over their lives. This is a clear and fair desire, and something I never considered until now.
Why would a woman want to have this type of control? Because getting pregnant in some countries is very problematic. Doctors fees can cost a lot, and having a child is too expensive, for example. University is also expensive in some countries, and so throwing that opportunity out the window because you won't be able to support yourself in the long run only serves to make you poorer in the future and even less able to afford to raise a child. This can be a heartbreaking situation to be in, especially if you don't have affluent relatives to fall back on. This doesn't mean that children in poor families are definitely going to have a worthless life, but it does involve a great deal of suffering on behalf of the parents. Abortion seeks to solve this problem and give women a way of taking control of their life and their body.
So far so good.
However, my problem starts when we start to discuss when an abortion can take place. We end up with a 'grey area' argument, where people perceive 'personhood' to start at different shades of grey. And here we end up with a language problem.
When is a mound no longer a mound? If you had a mound of seeds and removed one seed at a time, when will it stop being a mound? This is a popular question to ask someone to see if they clock the ambiguity of language and its limitations. The conversation is perhaps a wonderful exercise in debating skills and discussion, but, personally, I find it lacks any real solid conclusion. A mound of seeds isn't defined by the amount seeds there are, but by how people see it. Change it suddenly by removing nine-tenths of the seeds and it is very obviously not a mound. Remove things bit by bit and really all you have is a long and boring point to make that has nothing to do with the seeds or the mound, but all to do with how language isn't that empirical all of the time.
Also, in terms of the pro-choice argument, we tend to stumble into the area of 'undeveloped' and 'inferior' as words that justify exercising power over life. These words are part of a discourse of power, and it is my belief that such discourses are unethical. Why are you trying to decide when something doesn't matter enough?
Science uses these words to merely highlight the stages of growth of a living organism. It does not use these words to exersize power to destroy, but to comprehend. Taking these words out of the context of science and medicine is, in my opinion, a nasty strategy.
As a gay man, I too have been referred to as ' undeveloped'. I remember one religion teacher telling me that homosexuals are stuck in an early stage of development and haven't fully developed like everyone else. Black people have also been subjected to such classifications of "not fully developed", as shown in that mindblowing scene in 'Django Unchained', with Leonardo DiCaprio's character explaining that a black person's brain is not developed enough. Women have also been subjected to such ideas of under-development.
Our view of other countries is also tainted by these words, even if they are to some extent considered 'true'. The 'Undeveloped World" or "Third World Countries' get treated very differently, and that is one of the reasons why I dislike such labels in general anyway.
Animals, who are all wonderful, have also been subjected to such arguments and as a result been treated terribly. Thankfully, today one cannot say " It's just a dog" and get away with animal cruelty. Yes, a dog is not a human being and you would never put a human being on a leash, but that does not mean it doesn't deserve respect. Even the animals we eat require a certain level of care, and the way they are killed must also be humane.
So we are not ignorant of the power of these words, nor are we unable to change our viewpoint on a matter of cruelty where cruelty was once perfectly acceptable. But in the case of animals, for example, there still is the temptation to give in to the power of those words, and a palpable effort-no matter how small- to overpower the words that once governed our view.
So when I hear people refer to an unborn human as " Just a bunch of cells", even when very early on in a pregnancy it is most certainly not a 'bunch of cells', I can't help but question the use of words. Suddenly people go about locating signs of inferiority with the spine, the brain, the heart, or even the shape of the hands being their saving grace. This just feels wrong. Playing with language like that may be a fun passtime when it comes to a 'mound', but when we enter the domain of life it tends to sour for me.
I prefer to stick to empirical definitions which don't allow for much flexibilty. I have never heard of a woman pregnant with an elephant. Humans are pregnant with humans, and all humans have their Human Rights. I believe Human Rights are universal, and apply to all humans born or not.
However, what about the problems abortion seeks to solve? Well, I'll just round off by pointing out that I am pro- free healthcare, free education, fair support from the welfare state, and also that all fathers are actively pitching in to support their children. All women who get pregnant due to violent crimes should be given a red carpet to any medical or psychological assistance, and more support for children who have been put up for adoption should be shown.
It's not that I think women should be punished, it's that I don't think a baby should be killed.