I recently dedicated a chunk of my afternoon deciding which of the California Propositions to vote for this coming Tuesday. After reading the arguments and rebuttals for and against each proposition, I decided I'll be voting Yes to only three of the twelve propositions, although my opinions could still change in the next two days. Curious as to how my opinions compared with others in the Muslim-American community, I checked the recent MPAC publication, "Activate 08: An Analysis of the California State Propositions," which turned out to be an immensely interesting reflection of the Muslim-American community's precarious political position today and its alienation from the right-wing conservatism associated with the Bush administration. Take, for instance, MPAC's uber-PC tip-toeing around Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage as a heteronormative institution. It seemed to me as though MPAC's indecisiveness on the matter was an attempt to not alienate the Muslim community's liberal allies. I guess that's just how the political game must be played nowadays, huh?
Another one of MPAC's indecisions concerned Proposition 4, which I had already decided to vote against. Entitled "Sarah's Law," Prop 4 would call for a "waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy." Both sides of the issue argue that they would be protecting the girls involved. Proponents are arguing that a law would prevent girls from getting abortions against their will, especially if forced to do so by the men who may have raped and manipulated them. Opponents argue that mandating that parents are informed about their daughter's decisions would force many towards unsafe, underground procedures in desperation.
The proposition isn't about the issue of abortion itself, but I'll digress a bit to talk about abortion because it's something that American faith-based groups have found themselves quite polarized over. My sense is that the discussion of abortion hasn't played out so strongly Muslim-American community, and this maybe because of apathy or alienation from those segments of the Christian population who are strongly opposed to abortion. But the silence may also be due to juristic allowances for abortion based upon some statements attributed to the Messenger. Islamic scholars have pointed out that the "ensoulment" of the embryo does not occur at conception as Christians may postulate, but rather occurs after a period of 40 or 120 days. This has led some scholars to deem abortion before the "ensoulment" to be permissible, although reprehensible.
Still, I feel there's a general uneasiness in the Muslim community over abortion, but this uneasiness may have less to do with the Islamic prohibition of killing one's children and far more to do with a fear that abortion would lead to a greater freedom of sexuality in society. "Allowing even juristicly permissible abortion," the argument goes, "would lead to greater sinfulness in society because sexuality would not have consequences." And to prevent such loose sexuality, some may advocate banning or extremely restricting abortion along with other juristicly permissible things like condoms, birth control, or even vaccines against sexually transmitted diseases. Society's health and psychological consequences from these actions would simply be brushed aside as a due God-given punishment for enjoying forbidden sexuality. This fear, in my opinion, can cause far more harm than good, driving the existence of sexuality's undesired consequences underground and placing a heavy social stigma on the very people who, after making mistakes, may need the most help.
(By the way, I recently watched a troubling film, Four Months, Three Weeks, and Two Days, set in Communist Romania where abortions had been banned under Ceauşescu. That didn't stop desperate girls looking to manipulative men for underground abortions. And if medical problems from these abortions were to arise, where could these girls turn? Not to the hospitals run by a government that would promptly incarcerate them as criminals.)
Back to Proposition 4. The arguments in favor of the proposition are very emotional, arguing that there are girls who are forced to have abortions under the pressure of the men who have manipulated them. Under the current California laws, such abortions can take place without parental notification, and proponents argue that these child predators could continue to prey on young girls without anyone "having to know." Although this is a problem, I can't see Proposition 4 doing anything to adequately solve it. The predators who do take advantage of girls could easily manipulate those girls into protecting their identity even when parents are informed. Or they may place a greater pressure on the girls to turn towards unsafe underground abortions. All the while, the law may harm those many girls who don't have supportive households and who may go through considerable emotional distress if their parents were involved.
I believe the arguments of those in favor of Proposition 4 would be better addressed with laws that require medical professionals to be more in tune with the possibility of child-abuse and create a safe medical environment where girls can seek confidential help (not that I'm saying that many of those laws and structures don't exist already). In Prop 4, however, I see a thinly disguised attempt to portray medical professionals who perform abortions as dangerous practitioners. Furthermore, in attempting to place greater impediments for girls in obtaining an abortion and limiting its availability, "Sarah's Law" seems to be an effort born out of a society's fear of sexuality where we would rather maintain the undesirable societal consequences of sexuality than risk letting people "get away with it."
Another one of MPAC's indecisions concerned Proposition 4, which I had already decided to vote against. Entitled "Sarah's Law," Prop 4 would call for a "waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy." Both sides of the issue argue that they would be protecting the girls involved. Proponents are arguing that a law would prevent girls from getting abortions against their will, especially if forced to do so by the men who may have raped and manipulated them. Opponents argue that mandating that parents are informed about their daughter's decisions would force many towards unsafe, underground procedures in desperation.
The proposition isn't about the issue of abortion itself, but I'll digress a bit to talk about abortion because it's something that American faith-based groups have found themselves quite polarized over. My sense is that the discussion of abortion hasn't played out so strongly Muslim-American community, and this maybe because of apathy or alienation from those segments of the Christian population who are strongly opposed to abortion. But the silence may also be due to juristic allowances for abortion based upon some statements attributed to the Messenger. Islamic scholars have pointed out that the "ensoulment" of the embryo does not occur at conception as Christians may postulate, but rather occurs after a period of 40 or 120 days. This has led some scholars to deem abortion before the "ensoulment" to be permissible, although reprehensible.
Still, I feel there's a general uneasiness in the Muslim community over abortion, but this uneasiness may have less to do with the Islamic prohibition of killing one's children and far more to do with a fear that abortion would lead to a greater freedom of sexuality in society. "Allowing even juristicly permissible abortion," the argument goes, "would lead to greater sinfulness in society because sexuality would not have consequences." And to prevent such loose sexuality, some may advocate banning or extremely restricting abortion along with other juristicly permissible things like condoms, birth control, or even vaccines against sexually transmitted diseases. Society's health and psychological consequences from these actions would simply be brushed aside as a due God-given punishment for enjoying forbidden sexuality. This fear, in my opinion, can cause far more harm than good, driving the existence of sexuality's undesired consequences underground and placing a heavy social stigma on the very people who, after making mistakes, may need the most help.
(By the way, I recently watched a troubling film, Four Months, Three Weeks, and Two Days, set in Communist Romania where abortions had been banned under Ceauşescu. That didn't stop desperate girls looking to manipulative men for underground abortions. And if medical problems from these abortions were to arise, where could these girls turn? Not to the hospitals run by a government that would promptly incarcerate them as criminals.)
Back to Proposition 4. The arguments in favor of the proposition are very emotional, arguing that there are girls who are forced to have abortions under the pressure of the men who have manipulated them. Under the current California laws, such abortions can take place without parental notification, and proponents argue that these child predators could continue to prey on young girls without anyone "having to know." Although this is a problem, I can't see Proposition 4 doing anything to adequately solve it. The predators who do take advantage of girls could easily manipulate those girls into protecting their identity even when parents are informed. Or they may place a greater pressure on the girls to turn towards unsafe underground abortions. All the while, the law may harm those many girls who don't have supportive households and who may go through considerable emotional distress if their parents were involved.
I believe the arguments of those in favor of Proposition 4 would be better addressed with laws that require medical professionals to be more in tune with the possibility of child-abuse and create a safe medical environment where girls can seek confidential help (not that I'm saying that many of those laws and structures don't exist already). In Prop 4, however, I see a thinly disguised attempt to portray medical professionals who perform abortions as dangerous practitioners. Furthermore, in attempting to place greater impediments for girls in obtaining an abortion and limiting its availability, "Sarah's Law" seems to be an effort born out of a society's fear of sexuality where we would rather maintain the undesirable societal consequences of sexuality than risk letting people "get away with it."
0 comments:
Post a Comment