The Abortion of Reason: Reflections on Moral, Political and Legal Reflections on Today's Anti-Choice (Putatively Pro-Life) March

Introduction

As today is the so-called March for life, I thought I would take some time to explain why we have no abortion law, and why I think we should not have one. Often, there is a lack of clarity in the debate, so maybe it is helpful to offer some rather than getting lost in the mire of choice and life rhetoric. Let me just say from the outset that I applaud democratic engagement on all topics, especially this one.

Relevant historical considerations

·       Abortion laws arose alongside the development of gynecology and obstetrics, at the time a predominately male field of study and practice. Gynecologists resented the control the undisciplined practices of midwifery had over women’s bodies and the subject area, so they used abortion as a discursive tactic to discredit midwifery and assert their own authority. Concomitant with this development and, indeed, in part, because of it, women’s bodies were subject to an increasing patriarchal medical gaze.

·       It is no surprise, therefore, that laws attempting to regulate (primarily women’s) reproduction, sexuality, and parenting, have disproportionately targeted and/or affected citizens who were already marginalized by an unjust capitalist system.

·       Criminalization was not very effective in stopping a significant number of abortions. And it is difficult to gather statistics, because many went unreported by virtue of being illegal. Because of their clandestine nature and lack of proper safeguards, these abortions were rather dangerous. It’s more difficult to treat a botched abortion than it is to perform a proper one.

·       There has never been a legal, nor even a Christian, consensus on “the sanctity of life” or when life begins. This has changed with science. For several centuries, the Catholic Church allowed abortion until quickening.

·       Any claims to “sanctity of life” by religious authorities and their pretensions to ethical superiority, should be tempered with the observation that the Catholic church once seriously debated the question of whether women and Indigenous peoples possess souls at all, and especially the very “important” question of whether they were equivalent to those of European men.

Legal Arguments against Abortion Law

COMMON LEGAL PRINCIPLES

·       There is an important distinction between individual morality and the political (shared) morality of the community — as these principles are embodied by laws as an overlapping consensus, and/or societies general will.

·       Criminal law ought to be based on only those issues on which there is an overlapping consensus

·       To prevent important violations of liberty from the state, citizens ought to be afforded liberty unless and until actions are prohibited by the state. If it were otherwise, citizens would not be able to govern their conduct according to legal principles.

·       Individuals ought to respect laws on contentious issues; for law is a product of compromise, and without compromise and mutual fair play, society could not function.

·       The government is constitutionally prohibited, both by section 28 and section 15, from discriminating based on sex. Section 28 is not subject to the notwithstanding clause, so if abortion laws were found to violate section 28, which I think they do, this judgement could not be overridden by Parliament, as for example, same-sex marriage — at least in theory — could be.

·       Both empirically and normatively, Canada is a multicultural society with many visions of the good life, which hold widely differing conceptions of what human personhood is and when such personhood begins. Domination of the majority or a minority is both ethically unacceptable and impracticable in the current context.

WHY WAS ABORTION STRUCK DOWN?

 In the first charter Morgenthaler case, the Supreme Court struck down the Pierre Trudeau’s administration partial decriminalization of abortion because it was found to violate section 7 rights. Section 7 guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of person, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. At the time this case was decided, the court had identified arbitrariness as one of the fundamental principles. Hamish Stuart describes section 7 as a test of instrumental rationality. In layperson terms, it would be bad if legislatures made irrational laws. In order to assess a law, adjudicators look to its pith , substance, and purpose. This is determined by several factors, including, but not limited to, legislative debate, preambles, structures of acts, canonized rules of interpretation, and so forth. At the time, the Trudeau administration decided to institute therapeutic abortion to protect the health of women. This was the policy that was democratically chosen by Parliament. They did not reference the sanctity of life, the dignity of women, or any other theological principle.

Since this was the obvious legislative purpose, the abortion regime was found unconstitutional because it was administered unevenly and unfairly throughout the country. Far from promoting women’s health, that regime endangered the health of many women. While presenting serious liberty infringements, the main issue was the security of person interests of women affected by the law. As a side note, one can also argue that the law infringed equality concerns on several grounds beyond sex discrimination, favouring those who were married, had money, and lived in certain areas. Importantly, this was not “an activist” decision. The court did not rule that abortion restriction is unconstitutional (with respect, they should have), rejecting Justice Wilson’s link between abortion and conscience. They did not say that Parliament could not legislate on abortion. They merely said this particular law was unconstitutional. It was a bad law. Parliament may legislate on abortion. I believe it would be unwise to do so, but as the law stands they are free to do so. They have not managed to pass any bills on this matter. And it very well could be found unconstitutional now.

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS IN LAW

Additional principles of fundamental justice — Following  the Morgenthaler decision, the court has recognized overbreadth and gross-disproportionality as principles of fundamental justice. Though it is unclear what role, if any, overbreadth would play in judicial challenges to an abortion regime, it’s clear that gross-disproportionality would invalidate the law because the law would infringe section 7 interests, out of sync with any reasonable objective; it is would be a grossly disproportionate burden for many women, and indeed possibly women as a class. In addition, cases such as Carter and PHS have a much broader definition of the right to life, and when it is infringed, particularly in the case of matters of health. Moreover, the Hutchinson case recently established that unwanted pregnancy, because of the complications that may arise, constitutes risk of bodily harm. This would engage section 7, and it would almost certainly render abortion laws unconstitutional.

Developments in section 15 jurisprudence — Following Morgenthaler, equality jurisprudence recognizes the importance of human dignity, historical disadvantage, stereotypical treatment, and the value of feminist jurisprudence and charter interpretation. While abortion may or may not offend the dignity of fetuses, they do not have rights, whereas women residing in Canada do. Forcing women to carry fetuses they do not want perpetuates historical disadvantage and stereotyping, by suggesting that the primary function of women is to carry children, and they are not capable of making decisions affecting their own bodies. By subordinating her desires to the interests of the state, the state is essentially treating her as a means and not an end. This is only justifiable in a state of emergency or war .

Developments in State Neutrality Towards Religious Belief and conscientious convictions — Though there are many putatively secular arguments against abortion, nearly all of them rely on some sort of essentialist ontology of the human person, and most persons who oppose abortion come from a religious background. Just because a law comes from religion, it doesn’t preclude the state from enacting this provision of law. Indeed, many religions, as well as nonreligious worldviews, create overlapping consensus on moral questions, arriving at similar convictions through different means. Nevertheless, the ongoing connection between religion and pro-life advocacy ought to give us pause, considering that the state has a duty to be neutral in matters of personal conviction where there is considerable disagreement.

WHY AREN’T FETUSES LEGAL PERSONS

Numerous decisions have stated that fetuses are not legal persons. The reason fetuses are not legal persons (entities bearing rights capable of legal [e.g. corporations] and natural [e.g. born human beings]) personhood at law is that they cannot be invested with rights or responsibilities because they do not have agency and/or an independent biological existence from their mother. Strictly speaking, Parliament is not prohibited from legislating that unborn babies are persons. It has not done so, however. It has chosen to maintain the common law definition. The reason it has chosen to maintain the common law is mainly pragmatic. If the fetus were a legal person, this would create a host of complicated problems. Is it permissible for a disabled child to sue her parent for possible conditions acquired during pregnancy? If the life of the mother is at stake, which life ought to take priority and why. Should we incarcerate reckless pregnant women. These are complicated questions, which ought to be decided by Parliament, not the courts. Again, as part of the democratic process, Parliament has — wisely in my estimation — chosen not to change the common law definition

Moral Arguments

IS NOT A FETUS A HUMAN BEING?

A standard argument against abortion is as follows: anything that exists in potential has the right to develop to its full actuality, so because the fetus could develop into a functioning human being, Mozart or whoever, it ought to be protected and given the rights of a full human being. There is a deep problem with the Aristotelian ethical logic that undergirds Christian theology. According to traditional moral theology, if I think about stealing or murder, long enough, if I really dwell on that, it is equivalent to me having actually completed this activity. It is true that in very special cases, mainly for public safety, the law punishes acts that have been committed in potential, as it were, like conspiracy to commit murder, but generally modern persons have a much more developed conception of actuality and potentiality. If abortion were made illegal once again, it is difficult to see where this chain of causation would end. At least the Catholic church is consistent in opposition to contraception, but if any action or technology that disrupts the putatively natural process of procreation is unnatural, then one could conceivably argue that potential sperm are part of future life, and so masturbation ought to be punished as well. Good luck enforcing that law. As a popular battle cry goes — if abortion is murder, fellatio is cannibalism!

ONE CANNOT CLAIM THAT ABORTION IS EITHER “NATURAL” OR “UNNATURAL”

The Naturalistic Fallacy is a basic principle of modern ethics, whereby one cannot derive an ethical command from a descriptive or putatively natural fact. Nature cannot serve as a guide for ethical judgement. My response to those who call anal-sex, for example, an unnatural form of intercourse is to argue that even if it is an unnatural form of intercourse — itself a premise flying in the face of zoological evidence — rape is a form of intercourse perfectly natural to most mammalian species; yet most of us would consider it to be reprehensible. The opposite holds true as well. If the naturalistic fallacy did in fact tell us anything, we would have to conclude that abortion is acceptable because it is natural. Somewhere around 20% of all pregnancies miscarry. I am in no way trying to minimize the pain of such losses: I merely suggest that nature cannot be a guide either way.

BODILY INTEGRITY AND PERSONAL CONSCIENCE

One must not use moral agents entirely as means because they deserve respect as an end themselves. Supposing for a moment that the fetus is a fully grown adult, capable of usual intellectual reasoning, feeling the full gamut of pain, and entitled to all the same legal rights, it is unethical to tie someone to an intravenous machine and impair her functioning, so that that person can remain alive. This would still hold true if we use a less drastic metaphor like forcing someone to remain in a wheelchair for nine months, so that another person who they don’t know can stay alive. And it would still hold true even if they had partial culpability in her dependency. I think pregnancy is much more drastic than being in a wheelchair for nine months, however. As natural and joyous as some may find it, the end process is incredibly painful, and, yes, even with modern technology, it is life-threatening. Forcing someone to give birth when she does not want to  essentially inflicting the world’s most excruciating pain upon her without her consent. As morally questionable as some choices to abort may appear, I would never do this to someone against her consent. Pregnancy, wonderful though it sometimes maybe, forces a woman to carry a parasitic life form that may kill her and jettison this life form, by means of violent muscle contractions, outside of her body. “In sorrow thou shall conceive,” indeed. Women should be allowed to refuse the patriarchal edict of the chauvinist Israelite war-God!

Being used as incubator or respirator for a developing life form or an adult person would be more reprehensible, if I hated the person in question, and being with him cause me great suffering. They could be a constant reminder of my sexual assault, bad relationship and/or social subordination . This action may be commendable; it ought not to be obligatory! The point is it is unethical for a party possessed with the power of the government to compel me I must do so. That is equivalent to torture. The situation is different when the fetus has left the pregnant woman’s body. Then she can access support; move independently of her child; and even give the child up for adoption. The child is not actually part of her body, and so she does not have the same ownership and interconnection with it as she did when she was pregnant. The fetus, or, indeed, the person I kill, by removing myself from the intravenous life-support machine may or may not feel pain; it may be bloody, gruesome, unpleasant, bad for my health, indicative of the culture of nihilism, or whatever other social ill persons who sanctimoniously claim to be pro-life level at those who believe in abortion. The fact is one cannot ethically force me to be tied to that machine for nine months, if one cares about anyone’s life beyond the life of an imagined fetus. As a person with a disability, I am particularly aware of the lasting damage caused by ongoing and unwanted corporeal violations.

WHY IS IT ONLY HUMAN LIFE?

I am always struck by the pro-lifers who are meat eaters. A pig, for example, has the intelligence of a five-year-old child. Whatever suffering is experienced by the fetus, it is nothing compared to the excruciating misery caused by factory farming. This isn’t to deny the importance of anthropocentric religious conceptions of the human person for some citizens. Nevertheless, once the argument admits this point, it becomes difficult to justify legal prohibitions against abortion: they have moved out of the overlapping consensus of political life and become part of a particularistic and environmentally problematic worldview.

QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PERSONS LIVING

Persons frequently inquire of me something like the following: how can I, as a person with a disability, actively support abortion when so many persons with disabilities often don’t get to live in this world precisely because of abortion? Are not our lives equally valuable? Does this not amount to a kind of cultural genocide? To which I must answer yes, in part. In general, the world is overpopulated, and human beings are wreaking havoc on the planet. Persons in the global North are consuming far more than those in the global South: the last thing we need to do is be having more children. Clearly, I would like to see the kind of structural transformation that has every person regardless of her perspective disability, race, and/or socioeconomic status supported.

At present, however, it is difficult, if not nearly impossible, to see beyond the unjust structures of neoliberal capitalism. I realize that this is a-chicken-and-egg scenario, but, frankly, my support of abortion, at least in part, comes from principled self interest. We do not take care of the socially disadvantaged persons we have in our society. Persons with my level of mobility impairment must fight for is every resource which we acquire, and I live with guilt because I live in a modicum of comfort. Remember too that this is in Canada, which is an extremely affluent postindustrial society.

Can any of us really comprehend the abject subaltern condition of disabled persons in the global South. It isn’t to say that once they are here, disabled persons do not live lives of quality with tremendous interdependent love. To maintain that and protect that, we must staunchly refuse abortion laws, and I find the deployment of disability to support antiabortion laws, simply because a particular person may or may not have existed on account of abortion, to be a strange example of narcissistic egoism as erroneous, if not more so, than my narcissistic self interest in supporting abortion. The pro-life movement does not have moral legitimacy until every child is fed and loved: only then may abortion become an issue of moral significance.

AGAINST THE FETISHISTIC IMAGE OF THE CHILD, NATURE, AND MATERNITY

The Nazi practice of euthanasia is well-known and comes up as a red herring in many arguments. Nevertheless, what is less often discussed is the other sinister side of these sorts of dark biopolitics — namely, the Nazi breeding program. Every totalitarian regime, starting from the Persian Empire, has relied on control over women’s bodies and the maintenance of heterosexist ideas concerning sexuality as primary indicators of national health. The Jews were a threat to the purity of the German blood, and some women had to reproduce like cattle to ensure the health of the German nation. In his book, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, Lee Edelman labels this sort of rhetorical strategy reproductive futurism. While not endorsing all of his theory’s hedonistic implications, I do resent that the child, and particularly “the poor and innocent fetus,” which pro-lifers parade around like some idyllic-yet-macabre talisman, becomes the primary means through which the modern biopolitical state exerts unwarranted control over its citizens. It is for the sake of the imaginary child that we are deferring enjoyment. Yet we ignore the suffering done to fully developed children, as well as the suffering and ideological pressure exerted on women’s bodies.

Nowhere is this more apparent than the nauseating speeches given by women who regret their abortion at pro-life rallies. Voluntarily re-assuming their subjugated role as feminine helpmate, they speak of their horrendous transgression as crowds of men and women cheer. In this pantomime of self-righteous repentance, the women brand themselves with a proverbial scarlet letter. This signification of, “woman who once had an abortion” becomes a badge of honour and a mark of shame as the women are consumed and effaced by the ceaseless and destructive cycle of heterosexual reproduction, ready and willing to be submissive and inseminated like cattle.

Children and pregnancy are wonderful aspects of the human experience: persons should enjoy these when and if they want to do so.

Conclusion

Restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional, heterosexist, antidemocratic, patriarchal, irrational, presumptuous, and unwise, bloody fetal tissue be damned!

Reflections on "Woman's World" by Cher: Critiquing the Narrative of Normative Diva Empowerment in Popular Culture

Woman's World by Cher

Unsurprisingly, this is my prewriting warm-up song! :-) I find this video particularly fascinating, and Cher's career fascinating and general, for the ways in which they express some of the contradictions in modern gender politics in popular culture.. I do not question her authenticity, strength of character, struggles in the entertainment industry, and/or talent; but the contradictions in the video give us cause for reflection about the confused contemporary ideology of gender.

While the video takes special care to "represent" cis women of all ages, colors, body sizes, and abilities, it is Cher, a white (" and part Cherokee") cis woman, who is the focus. , She has maintained iconic status into her elder years. Nevertheless, she has only accomplished this by virtue of considerable plastic surgery that maintains an impossible body image, notwithstanding the positive effects of her status on public perception of the elderly. She proclaims emancipation for cis women in a manner that contradicts reality, yet it is reiterated everywhere you turn, from cosmetic commercials to government policy documents.

And she does so in a masculinist discourse, which will primarily appeal to gay men, who are now her principal and loyal audience. These men, including myself, keep her and Madonna alive by means of a crypto-misogynist pastiche to the Virgin Mary; for pop culture — and gay culture in particular — loves the Diva as an enduring form of feminine idealization and subordination. We keep these women alive through repetitious drag queen performances, and there is no consensus as to whether such performances help or hinder the cause of transgendered persons and, if so, to what degree. One's allegiance seems to be defined by whether one takes "bell hooks' approach to Cher" "or Judith Butler's". And what a drag they both seem to be, in very distinct ways.

And this, like all other issues of genuine intellectual interest in the study of culture and politics, seems at once incredibly trivial and vital to and emancipatory politics. In addition, such musingsare likely to "trigger" someone's insatiable urge, even if this desire is eventually suppressed,  to shame me, as a natural, yet disproportionate, response to a world that is, alas, quite unresponsive to those who are in pain and need assistance.

So who's world is it really? It's the same world we've always had but with more confusing contradictions. I pity the putatively "general public". I'm fairly educated in this stuff, reasonably intelligent, and queerness as part of my daily experience. I can't make sense of what's going on and what the future will hold. Maybe, since rigid categories have been used to subjugate persons, that will prove to be a good thing in retrospect.

But it is these very contradictions that make contemporary forms of heterosexist, colonial, ablest, cissexist, and patriarchal oppression more insidious and enduring, and, unfortunately, increasingly difficult to challenge. I see no utopia in anyone's future, either coming from the left or the right. Queer theories, religions, feminisms, deconstructions, Indigenous critiques, Marxisms, and liberal democratic theories cannot in and of themselves make society great again. What we need is constant vigilance, struggle, dialogical engagement, and the fearless pursuit of free critical Inquiry. In a time of near global disaster, it may seem self-indulgent to analyze pedestrian cultural products. Nonetheless, in such products, we see ourselves more clearly than in our grandest aspirations and the contradictions arising therefrom. Consequently, the line between political and cultural critique is as false as the vision that Cher offers, yet it is perhaps equally compelling to our enjoyment as the catchy pop song she and her characteristically outlandish hairstyles

The Shylock heart: queer online dating and disability discrimination

As a useful thought experiment, let’s imagine that there is a modern interpolation of Shakespeare, in which the disabled outcast, Shylock, says the following:

[I] am a Crip.

Hath not a Crip eyes? hath not a Crip hands, organs,

dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with

the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject

to the same diseases, healed by the same means,

warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as

a ‘Normal’ is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?

if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison

us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not

revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will

resemble you in that. If a Crip wrong a ‘Normal’,

what is his humility? Revenge. If a ‘Normal’

wrong a Crip, what should his sufferance be by

‘Normal’ example? Why, revenge. The villany you

teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I

will better the instruction.

— Adapted from William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act III, Seen I               

This monologue of indignation perfectly expresses how I feel after most dates.

With the exception of an amazing fellow, whose beauty, intelligence, caring , gentility, and quiet courage, almost eclipse the below and many other far worse stories, online dating has caused me to lose faith in humanity and brought into sharper relief the marginalization disabled queers confront. Hence, while I am thankful for the love and support I do receive, I felt compelled to write about online dating both as a critique of my own conduct and ideological interpolation and rebuke of the attitudes expressed by others.

                                                                                                                                               

I don't know why persons believe it is socially acceptable to be casually cruel and benignly bigoted toward their fellow [disabled] human beings. The guy I went on a date with, who knew I was disabled and the extent of the disability, said sharing my disability was not the kind of life that he wanted. I don't know why I didn't say being with a guy who is physically and emotionally repulsive is not the kind of life I want, so that is okay — nevermind the fact that this was the second date, so I wasn’t committed to sharing very much of my life. Of course, I did not say this because what is the point of vengeance. I wasn’t going to make him any better. He had already made up his mind, which was made clear from his further admission that he agreed to himself that he would “try it” — and I’m still not clear precisely what the it was — and now that he had seen what my life was like, after a few hours, spread over two meetings, he had come to a rational decision. Even more, he required me to reassure him that this decision, in addition to the way in which it was phrased, did not make him a rather selfish individual.

Everyone goes on bad dates. And everyone meets terrible people, but this is indicative of a general pattern of which I have many more disturbing examples.

On good days, being disabled and gay, of course, on account of my other privileges, can be really fun. I love who I am most of the time; I love my friends and their support, and I love the progress that has been made, the caring that I have been given, and the opportunity it has engendered. I’ve definitely received a warmer welcome in queer communities than anywhere else, and that needs to be stated and nurtured with gusto.

Nevertheless, I, and from what I gather owing to personal experience and research, any queer who significantly deviates from the white, homonormative, cisgendered, masculinist, able-bodied, STBBI & drug-free, mentally-well, and economically privileged ideal, often feel like something of a Shylock character within many traditional Gay spaces and social interactions. And this is very saddening for a community already ravaged by the scars of oppression and caustic heterosexist callousness.

Acknowledging the misogyny and anti-Semitism of the play, I’ve always thought that the Merchant of Venice was a brilliant work of art and Shylock a brilliant character, precisely because he can’t win. Usery (lending of money at interest) was forbidden by Christianity, but it was necessary for the continuance of society. Jews were made to do it because of social stigma; this action, in turn, created more social stigma. The other characters, rightly, criticize Shylock, the Jew, for his lack of humanity. Yet it is precisely his profound humanity, in addition to the pain he feels at the denial of it, which causes him to lash out so violently and plaintively against his accusers. He must ask two fundamental and yet humiliating questions those who are significantly marginalized must implicitly ask or deny asking themselves: why don’t other persons recognize that I’m a human being who feels pain as they do? When do unjust circumstances, for which I am often blamed, demand redress, even by unsavory means? I remember disturbing my grade nine teacher by stating, quite matter-of-factly, something like the following: “I thought Shylock was justified in the quest for a pound of Antonio’s flesh.  If someone had treated me as Antonio had treated Shylock, then asked me for a loan, and subsequently was unable to pay said loan, I would cut the bastard’s heart out and eat it for breakfast — mercy is for weak idiots!” I do not believe that that is the reaction anticipated by Ontario’s mind-numbing curriculum.

It seems that Shylock can’t win, and neither can I. The same goes for others who are marginalized in all communities, particularly queer communities.

On the one hand, if I yell like Shylock and demand retribution, or at the very least, justice, I am branded as someone heart of heart, who won’t convert to dominant ideologies and receive my inferior status, as Shylock is made to do at the end of the play. If I don’t accept my putative natural inferiority and express gratitude for the social standing I have achieved, I become an unnatural ice queen. People become perplexed when I laugh derisively after hearing statements, such as, “it is what is on the inside that matters”. I wish very much that that were true, but it doesn’t seem to reflect the world in which we live. And curiously it is often the conventionally attractive who say that.

On the other hand, if I express frustration or sorrow at the current state of things, I am labeled as an “eternal Jew”. I become a strange object of tragicomic contempt, who is resiliently obstinate in his pain and will to live despite years of oppression. I become a lesson in pity and scorn that is both at once necessary for the functioning of the social order, as well as the monster that creeps outside it. Like Shylock, and like everyone, I am an agent of my own pain. And this is as perplexing as it is nauseating.

In fact, what is most disturbing to me is not necessarily the subjugating actions of others. Rather, I am far more appalled by the fact that I am both an unwilling and willing participant in this immorality. The times we hung out I was disgusted by his general demeanor, interests, grooming regiment, teeth and oral hygiene, unibrow, career development, lack of muscle, definition, emotional intelligence, and the list goes on. And yet, I was trying, despite all evidence to the contrary, to see the good in this person. And I’ll never be able to separate ethics, what little I have left in these types of situations, from an overwhelming desire for convenient sex and intimacy. I probably did like him a little, but it was difficult not to erupt in sardonic laughter when he said “I feel bad, because you seem like you really like me and were looking forward to us dating”. Because I had a very strong urge to reply, “even though you are genuinely intelligent, your idiocy is marvelous. In future, when gay men show the slightest bit of interest in Renaissance dance reenactment troop choreography, and how you accomplish this using permutation mathematics, it’s because there is a slight chance of sleeping with you, and you’re the only one available; it’s not because they’re interested”.

What really bothers me about online dating is I’m always figured as the one to be tolerated, when most of the time, from any kind of more neutral standard, I ought to be the one tolerating. So, because I exemplify some of the very stereotypes I detest so strongly, though am working to change, this is a fitting situation. It has made the violent reality of external and internalized stigma all the more apparent.

To reiterate, it has also made me cherish those who do love and appreciate me as an equal. But I am fairly certain that the monstrous side of me was created by circumstances similar to, though distinct from, those that created such a complex character in the mind of Shakespeare. And I’m also fairly certain that all of us, most especially myself, need to consciously challenge internal and external stigma, lest the theatrical personas that we create for ourselves solidify into iron masks from which it is difficult to escape. In addition, however spiteful this may be, I don’t think I can be entirely blamed for coveting one, if not several, pounds of queer flesh, in anticipation of the time when I may finally desecrate the hearts of those who would deny me full humanity. Monsters exist in all of us; they are made, not begotten — to invert the formula of the Nicene Creed, in a blasphemous move that I think Shylock would appreciate.

Not just for me,  but for for everyone wanting a fuller experience humanity and the diversity of life, there must a way beyond martyrdom ,on the one hand , and vengeance, on the other. It's a shame that despite all my learning and diligence in trying to practice ethics, even I have difficulty breaking this  cycle.

An ambivalent apology for pornography: opposing, in part, fightthenewdrug.org

This response to the article Sex before kissing: how 15-year-old girls are dealing with porn addicted boys

The article offers many valid and disturbing points for discussion, so I thought I would use it to discuss sex negativity, adolescent sexuality, pornography and sex-work in general. Here's why things the strategy of "fighting pornography" is very misconceived and one of embracing pornography and gaining control over it may be better.

As a general observation, because what society considers to be intimate behavior has varied widely across region and time, I see no logical reason why placing ones lips on someone's mouth is categorically different from placing one's lips on someone's genitals. Granted, I am fully aware of the historical reasons why this is the case, but many persons can and do find oral sex less intimate than kissing, and it is conceivable that this social value could change without severe catastrophe.

 My second general observation is that anti-pornography activists invariably betray their theological underpinnings, even if argued from secular premises, by the heterosexist and uniform way in which they characterize pornography. Though a minority, gay male pornography is a huge part of pornography. It has similar but separate issues. So while I have sympathy for campaigns against coercion and forced sex-work, the image of the fallen/vulnerable girl that this website propagates is pernicious. It perpetuates the violence it is trying to fix. What is needed is to reinforce, again and again and again and again, principles of autonomy and consent. I also find polemics against pornography circular. The only way persons involved in pornography understand what they do as dehumanizing is if we keep suggesting that it is dehumanizing.

Adult sex workers, from pornography to individual sex exchange transactions, ought to be unionized, educated, tested, protected from violence, and fairly compensated for their labor. This is not a nihilistic view of sex; this is a realistic view of sex. It is one that recognizes that an individual has the right to dispose of her body as she sees fit, and the state should, as far as possible, remove coercion and barriers to safety when she does this. Canada already has stringent regulations about the importation of pornography and its manufacturer in Canada. The problem with making pornography [more] ethical is that it is impossible to police the Internet. I think regulating sex-work in the way proposed is the best policy option because monitoring and licensing sex-work in this way gives the state more ability to prosecute human trafficking. While we might like law for moral reasons, the state often achieves more social control through bureaucratic regulations. So I think we be better able to crack down on human trafficking, if the state had a more active role in the regulation, education, and promotion of sex work. Think of all the regulations we have around food and drugs. If you want to protect children from sex-work, this is the best shot.

First, I am against the premise of this website, because I don't think prohibiting or combating drugs/drug use works as a matter of social policy. Without question, many persons, myself included, have varying degrees of unhealthy dependency upon pornography because it helps release dopamine. virtually every human being exhibits some addictive behavior, particularly in adolescence. I live with a lot of chronic pain, and so my choices coping with that are food, alcohol, cannabis, narcotics, or pornography. Whatever combination I use, or the things I add, I will be dependent on something. Human beings are always dependent on dopamine responses. Calling pornography the new drug that we must fight is a rhetorical tactic, which I find distasteful because it further marginalizes persons who use substances. As I have said to many persons previously, and as with substances, we require an open and honest dialogue about how to use pornography in the context of sex positivity that gets rid of this Virgin Mary /fallen woman/naïve girl as victim melodrama. Undoubtedly, women are continual victims of sexual violence. I do not condone this. Instead, I demand responsible education, empowerment and more and better sexual activity for everyone, including teenagers within their age bracket. If you demystify something, you take away the power of taboo/intrigue, so I agree with education and harm reduction.

Second, given the historical record, I am deeply suspicious of neurological arguments used to enforce moral reasoning, as exactly the same ones were used against masturbation as such. Third, though we must protect children from sexual assault and harassment, "save the children" has always been the battle cry of those wishing to force their sexual morality on others — just something to keep in mind. Fourth, children and adolescents have the right to explore and develop their sexuality in a healthy and age-appropriate way. I think a big problem that causes the overuse of pornography among teenagers is that they experience a lot of sexual frustration, and are not given the proper techniques, tools, and lubricants to masturbate effectively. Because the images they receive are not healthy and unrealistic, vigorous masturbation (“jackhammering”) in pursuit of an explosive orgasm can cause damage to the genitals, dissatisfaction, erectile dysfunction, and problems with sexual performance. Very few persons, young or old, know how to pleasure themselves well, or the very many things that are out there to help them, if they want to have a good orgasm but finding a partner to do so is difficult or not desired.

There is still a lot of shame around this, so adolescents don't know how to cope with the hormone spikes around puberty. Growing up, my parents and I had an agreement about drinking: I could drink whatever I wanted of good-quality alcohol, so long as they controlled it and I was under their supervision. Because of this agreement, I would wager, I rarely ever drink, and when I do it is always controlled. Because I was gay, I did not have similar conversations and arrangements about sexuality/sexual material. Consequently, I hope that I would make good-quality sexual material available to my children, which was ethically produced and not violent, along with whatever else they wanted by way of accessories, if any, to explore their sexuality. Clearly, teenagers are going to go beyond these limits, and or not want to discuss this with their parents, but the key I think is understanding in order to maintain the possibility of open, nonjudgmental, factually based, and compassionate discussion. And if they were uncomfortable talking to me or my partner, I would try to connect them to another role model and or mental health care professional.

There are websites like make love not porn.com and XXXartfilms.com that attempt to reduce degrading images of sex and challenge the mythology surrounding pornography. But more deeply, I seriously doubt whether or not we can categorize behavior or image “X” as dehumanizing, without an eye to context. This is how the feminist anti-sex-anti-queer lobby succeeded in regulating gay male pornography with the 1993 obscenity test, still valid law, delineated in the case of Butler and reaffirmed in the case of little sisters books. Against all logic, and historical understanding, gay mens’ BDSM images are said to cause attitudinal harm to women. Pornography is often causally linked to a great number of social ills. In reality, however, it is an interdependent network of things, and we need a better strategy than calling pornography an epidemic or drug. Furthermore, even if pornography can be demonstrably proven to be in some instances dehumanizing, surely one of the joys of being human is the ability to renounce one’s humanity. Absolute humanity is a very heavy burden to carry, indeed, and it is not precisely clear to me what this concept entails

The strongest case against pornography is that we must never treat human beings, including ourselves, solely as a means and not agents in their own right. As essential as this fundamental norm of political life is, there are circumstances in which we do, in fact, use ourselves and others solely as instruments.

While this is not ideal, it may be healthier to accept this, than justify worse evils in the pursuit of moral purity. As soon as one has a standard of absolute humanity, one must figure the persons one treats “inhumanely” as themselves outside the category of human. If one is going to have a principled stand on the exploitation of labor stemming from some version of the Kantian categorical imperative, one cannot profit from contemporary capitalism. As such, I am always amused by the moral hypocrisy. Given the choice between being or having one of my relatives as a sex worker, as opposed to working for minimum wage for a multinational corporation, or far less if  I lived in the global South, and sex-work, I would choose sex-work without a moment’s thought or regret. 80% of pornography and sex-work in Canada is done indoors under relatively safe conditions. Sex-work of all types takes long hours, a lot of skill, and has many occupational hazards. Nevertheless, the hourly rate of pay ranges from 100 to over $1000. There is absolutely no logical reason to argue that the exchange of sexual services for money is inherently less demeaning than being a Walmart greeter, or that the consumption of pornography is any less unethical than buying from a multinational or consuming meat. This is why we must  situate discussions of pornography within larger debates about globalized capitalism and its attendant exploitation. I realize that many people have to shop at and work for places like Walmart. The point is to demean neither and recognize that everyone is implicated in very many forms of moral evil. Though often a vice, and not a necessity, pornography is not a particularly grave ethical problem. We ought to educate children to make more responsible consumer choices, so that they can do the same as adults.

In terms of pornography, wider rape culture, and women's rights, the conversation has to start very early and emphasize consent and egalitarianism. I think the broader question we have to ask is the role of violence in our culture. The only reason pornography is so violent and graphic is because our culture is violent. If we show more scenes of love on TV and fewer images of violence, love would begin to infuse our culture, thereby having an affect on sexual images. What we also need is more authentic nudity in television, movies and pornography to give us a realistic understanding of what the human body ought to look like and be able to do. Sometimes there is nothing more ridiculous than non-pornographic images of naked persons, and we should be aware of and comfortable with those images.

There are two theological biases of which we should be aware. First, Christianity historically and at present has deep discomfort with the fact that human beings are embodied creatures, who have vulnerability and produce many gross fluids. The irony of pornography is that while it claims to be about embodiment, it actually creates an apotheosis of the body, thereby allowing the viewer to transcend embodiment. We never see the porn star prematurely ejaculate for example, except in gonzo porn. The second theological bias we ought to consider, coming from a culture that is descended from the Protestant Reformation, is the Christian, and especially Protestant, bias against vision. The eyes are often imagined as the window to the soul. And the culture in which Christianity developed had a strong belief in the power of the evil eye. Images, more so than other stimuli, are thought to have an impact on the soul. This is partly why Luther was against icons and also why he wanted persons to focus on the spoken word. Christians historically have feared visual stimuli as particular occasions of possible sin. This is no doubt because men are more affected sexually by visual stimuli, but it seems hypocritical to not also condemn the volume of erotic fiction produced, simply because it does not involve images or actual persons.

To this day, much of the erotic enjoyment for me that comes from pornography gets back to behaving badly. I suspect if we work to have a more realistic picture of sex and sexuality, by removing the strange dynamic of transgression-experience of the sacred-hyper praise of sex, that occurs from both sex positive and sex negative persons, pornography with lose some of its appeal. Working against Christian prohibition has created this situation as much as nihilistic capitalism. Many contemporary conservatives make an idol out of sex within marriage, as though conjugal satisfaction and fidelity will bring heaven on earth. I don't see how this is categorically different from the secular humanists’ assertion that a good sex life is the root to transcendent happiness.

For the record, I find this article disturbing, and it is sad that children feel this way. Nevertheless, fighting pornography is not an effective strategy, and it would have morally unacceptable consequences. We are not experiencing a pornography epidemic, we are experiencing profound and rapid social change, and we need better strategies to help children in general adjust.

Queer Theory, Crip Theory, BDSM, the Death Drive, and Kantian Ethics: #No Future?

I was trying to do four things.

1) I was making fun of Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe," which Walter Benjamin critiques in  "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". It shows the commodification of sexuality and art under Capitalism.

2) I was trying to visibly explain the antisocial argument in queer theory. This argument states that the place of queers is to embody the "death drive. We must reject what Lee Eddleman calls "reproductive futurism". This is the idea that the child, or, the injunction that society must reproduce itself, can serve as the totalitarian image that perpetually denies pleasure in the present and can justify violence and/or disproportionate legal regulation. We need only think of the unconstitutional discrepancies in the age of consent for anal sex. The place of queers is to say no to reproduction. This is why I'm wearing a bondage belt and smoking. Why I find BDSM and smoking philosophically interesting is because their pleasures are in direct opposition to so-called "genital sexuality". Their enjoyment is the antithesis of reproductive biopolitics; for they are not attached to any particular organ. Though Leo Bersani is right to point out the masculinist and totalitarian potential of leather culture, I disagree with his characterization. One of the purposes of bondage is to disable the power of the phallus, or at least regulate it through deliberate performance and negotiation.

3) To that end, I was also interested in critiquing the politics of forced freedom/subjection of the disabled, hence the contractures in my hands. And this is, of course, linked to the Kantian notion of the autonomous moral citizen , upon which we base so much contemporary liberal democratic theory In a sense, I am already bounded by my disability and bounded by the state. Consequently, in taking on this narrative I challenge the social construction of "nature" and relocate disability discrimination in unjust social conditions. This is also a direct challenge to the assumption that persons with disabilities are asexual. And, as well, I wanted to denounce the proposition that states have "a legitimate" monopoly over violence, as Max Weber would have it. We are all under varying amounts of subjection. Because subjection constitutes the subject: we are entities already tied up and tongue-tied by language and power.

4) I intended to highlight the continuing importance of discussing the political politics of death and ACT UP around HIV-AIDS.

Queer pride popularized fellatio & cunnilingus, so suck it:: responding to #heterosexualprideday

My first response to “heterosexual pride day rhetoric” is always BITCH, gay men gave you fellatio. The United States is the blowjob capital of the world because this sexual practice was made popular in the 20^th century by gay men. So if you’ve ever enjoyed giving or receiving a blowjob, along with many other gems of Western culture, such as the Sistine Chapel, you have gay pride to thank. Straight men in particular, therefore, should be on their knees in gratitude instead of opposing or making light of gay pride. Alas, straight men are particularly talented at arrogance and ingratitude — at least they have something. To include women in this discussion, ladies, you can probably thank distorted representations of lesbians for your boyfriends’ increased willingness to go down on you. And both women and gay men owe an unimaginable amount of debt to the trailblazing work of radical feminist lesbians, who remain constantly underappreciated.

Every year during LGBTQ pride month , a familiar debate surfaces. I even had to hear this debate while in the closet. Why have pride at all? There is no heterosexual pride festival. Heterosexuals do not make a big deal out of their sexuality, and now that we have inclusion, why must sexual minorities highlight their differences?

Choosing to come out, many times to many different people, continues to be a great challenge and a great joy. When I came out, I was honestly prepared to give up everything. My parents had made it quite clear that they did not desire a gay or gender nonconforming son, and I grossly underestimated their capacity to change and be loving human beings. Because I’m physically disabled, at the time I was completely dependent on them. As such, my years spent in the closet were years of fear for my physical safety. If this were not enough, I also felt — and still feel from time to time — that, were I to act on these desires, my immortal soul would be in danger. I felt shame at being a horrible man. Not only was I a cripple, I was also a faggot, and probably a bottom. Dreadfully misogynistic, I, therefore, thought I was a subhuman creature worse than a woman. And, despite years of counseling, the feeling is not entirely eradicated. No one wants to be different, and I certainly did not need extra burdens.

Nevertheless, I came out. It was the right thing to do; it was the honest thing to do. And one ought to do what is right, regardless of actual or imagined consequences. I continue to be an active member of the gay community, despite exhausting stigma from inside and outside; I participate because my insistent position as a disabled gay men makes our community more compassionate as well as society in general. If I let shame, from whatever source, control my life, I would suffer and so also would everyone else. Shane doesn’t go away with coming out for a lot of people. It took me the longest time to realize it was okay to hug another man or say I love you to a man outside the family and actually have strong emotion. You can say that I’m particularly damaged, but I think this is a common experience. And how sad it is that in a society allegedly as free as ours, I still put so much symbolic weight on touching another man’s hand? Why should it matter what precisely is one’s sexual orientation in this instance or relationship status? Do we not want to create a world that is more sensitive, just, and compassionate? Presumably, heightening the many ways in which human beings can love and have sex is a good way to do this. My problem with traditional sexual ethics is not simply that they are archaic. My problem is far deeper than this: truly, I believe that “traditional heterosexuality” — a modern discourse — creates morally defective human beings. It seems odd to me that violence is completely normalized, but sexual displays at pride Festivals are upsetting to many. Soft, the penis looks rather comical, when hard the worst things it can shoot almost always will not kill you or even hurt you. Sadly, the same is not true of an assault rifle. And I wonder how many deaths in world history could have been avoided if heterosexual men in power learn to be more chill about their cocks

I feel bad for lots of heterosexist straight people. Being gay, despite all its problems, cause by community members and outside pressure, is more fun than what I believe the majority of heterosexual people get up to. This is not because heterosexuality is intrinsically inferior. Rather, to be gay, or to be marginalized in any other or additional way, can make one a better person. There are some horrible gay people out there, usually because they are unable to overcome shame and guilt and/or because they think pornography represents real life. Pursuit of sex to an unhealthy degree is endemic to contemporary gay life, and, in some versions, I find this disturbing. As a disabled man, I know firsthand the pain caused by the idolatry of male body worship. Even so, I don’t think “becoming normal” is a satisfactory answer. I am proud of almost all of the alternative lifestyles we had built, simply for the courage it takes to show that it is possible to exists beyond convention.

Particularly, I am proud that sex positivity can often create more caring and inclusive environments for disabled people. In my personal experience, the more sexually repressed you are, the more likely there will be a lot of space between you and my wheelchair, regardless of whether you know I’m gay or not. “sluts” touch, and I find physical contact 10 times more honest than anti-oppression liberal sympathy. We all have boundaries. There comes a point in life, however, at which a person of sound judgment and courage has the fortitude to smash his with a sledgehammer, even though this may be uncomfortable temporarily. The point is obvious and simple, but it is worth making. As we become more comfortable with our bodies and ourselves, we learn to love others more compassionately and deeply, not in spite of their differences but because of their differences. I have met so many extraordinary gay people, each one of whom has had a shaming event owing to his sexual orientation that ought not to have happened. These shaming events, however, make many of us better people.

There is nothing intrinsically meritorious about being gay, indigenous, disabled, gender variant, and economically disadvantaged, or whatever other intersections of categories. These are historical accidents. Nonetheless, something in which one ought to take pride is the integrity that is necessary to live one’s life in accordance with one’s convictions, in the face of immense pressure not to do so. In addition to this, what takes more effort is the courage to pursue what one wants. This is so because we are taught that certain desires, though harmless, like much of kink and drag cultures, are perverted. I find this hilarious because most often BDSM harms no one and strengthens intimacy, whereas the mass consumption of coffee and animal protein causes untold suffering. Which, I ask, is more perverted and sadistic? Every time you think about or engage in sex with another man, you are consciously and unconsciously being courageous. And every time you love another man as a man you are perhaps even more daring. Love in general is a bold move. Yet you have to have “giant balls,” so to speak, in order to experience any kind of love outside the norm. And anyone who has substance will tell you, whether she is lesbian/bisexual or straight, that it is the kind of affection worth having and the only kind that will last throughout the vicissitudes of time and adversity.

We do not just perform pride for ourselves, though this is a sufficient justification. We perform pride for all the people still executed. All the people who are kicked out of their homes. Who are bullied at school. Who struggle with depression, suicide, and/or drug dependency. Who have eating disorders, HIV, and or inadequate  healthcare. Who cannot get the operation required to make them feel at ease with the external manifestation of their gender. We perform pride to encourage people like me to experience the full range of love and sex. We perform pride to make the world more compassionate and accepting.

            If you think queer politics are somehow now “in your face,” try living our lives. Every fucking day is a heterosexual celebration. Every Valentine’s Day tells me that I don’t belong, even though we have more media representation. I rarely see mass celebrations of “heterosexuality” make the world more compassionate and accepting. Nor has heterosexuality frequently been considered shameful, and so it does not constitute an identity by dint of which the same kind of personal growth and/or celebration may be achieved. The thing straight should take pride in is their willingness to surrender many aspects of an incessantly maintained system of domination, in favor of a more egalitarian world for all. Those types of actions take real courage. And if the spectrum of gay sex can have moral lessons for everyone, they will be found by exploring the conviction that one can remain a man while surrendering dominance and poise from time to time and exploring the caring that that abnegation can engender.

"Die so we can live better lives": The message of me before you

I was expecting to go critique a movie with the standard plot line of — “bitter disabled guy becomes ideologically able-bodied, by participating in a heteronormative romance, therewith teaching his female caregiver to be a better person”. And, for a while, I wasn’t disappointed. Much to my shame, I even bought into this trope, since the actor who played the disabled guy was breathtakingly gorgeous — big surprise there. And, of course, this shy girl fell in love with him, because she did not have to do anything actually associated with quadriplegia. There was no shit, or piss, or catheters, or spasms, or blood clots, or representations of pain, or anything that would require her to actually experience life outside her small world. For you see, unlike the vast majority of persons with severe disabilities (acquired or not), who live in abject poverty, the main character happened to be part of the British aristocracy. He was even so fortunate as to have an estate complete with a castle, and he somehow managed to get to the top of this castle in his wheelchair. Owing to his resources, he had competent nursing care, so she never had to encounter the shameful parts of his life, except when he tragically lied in bed with pneumonia, resembling a romantic tuberculosis victim from 19th century art and literature.

Sure, it’s a romantic movie. They are inherently ideological and silly. I cried when they went to Mozart. I laughed when she sat on his lap to dance. I was happy when they went to a tropical island. I dreamed when they talked about going to Paris. I long desperately when they kissed. But the whole time I was watching, absorbing the ideology even while critical, I think I was placing myself both in the position of caregiver and cared for. What Hollywood does not appreciate, among many other things, is how much disabled people can care for others. Indeed, the main character didn’t appreciate this, so the film went from annoying to disturbing.

You see, the melancholy main character had made arrangements with the assisted dying organization DIGNITAS. He had made an agreement with loving parents, that he would kill himself in six months if things did not improve. He was a physically active and vibrant man before his accident, and so he could not withstand living this kind of life, one very similar to mine with more money and better care, anymore. It may be right for some people, but it wasn’t right for him. I can’t begin to imagine the different kind of loss one experiences with an acquired severe injury. Nevertheless — and this proves that heteronormativity is operative and dangerous — I don’t think the inability to have an erection or see all the sights in Paris are legitimate reasons for suicide. Fortune was quite cruel to me in some aspects — and so also to the majority of the people in the developing world, who are not British aristocrats. But I don’t have erectile dysfunction, whatever other issues I may have, owing to our hyper- sexualized culture. So I don’t know what that is like. I do, however, know that unrealistic standards of able-bodied normative masculinity, if left unchallenged, cause depression and, in many cases, actual suicide. The man had everything I’ve ever wanted in life — someone to love, Mozart Concerts, and the ability to travel. This is more than most people get. Still, he was unsatisfied. He selfishly threw everything away to maintain the man he thought he was, and the audience is encouraged to think this is romantic, noble, and or a difficult moral situation. It isn't. He is a very selfish man, and she is facile and incredibly weak for indulging this childish outburst against fortune. Neither of them is mature or selfless enough to actually understand what love is. The movie is like a more awful and ablest version of Romeo and Juliet without any redeeming poetry. Glorifying this on film sends a very clear message that such prejudicial attitudes are acceptable. They are not; they cause devastating harm.

I cherish each and every one of my friends and family. I gained so much from them, continue to learn from them every day, and I am extremely grateful to be alive, so that I can be with them, and hold them, and love them, and teach them, and help them. Any partner or friend that I have is going to miss out on things, and he or she will have to do more for me. Honestly, I both want that and need that. Disabled people are more work than able-bodied people. I would be in denial, if I claimed otherwise. I have put incredible strain on parents, friends, teachers, care providers, administrative staff, and politicians. It’s probably empirically true that life would be easier without people like me. “The walking man” does enjoy the easy path most of the time. Nevertheless, good people like to hike, and even more virtuous people — whether disabled or not — like to climb mountains. From those high peaks, they give the middle finger to the unfortunate mood swings of fortune.

The main character chooses to end his life because he doesn’t want to hold his new girlfriend/caregiver back. He goes so far as to leave her money, so that she can go to France on vacation and begin a new life without him, when returning to the United Kingdom. The movie closes with a “touching scene” of her reading a letter describing how he is much more good to her dead than alive. She’s seemingly is okay with this, even though she begged him not to commit suicide, but somehow then traveled to Sweden, in order to condone his needless, selfish, and cowardly death. I am not a burden to anyone remotely strong. “Carrying” the disabled allows everyone to become stronger and our world to be more egalitarian. I have striven to make the world a better place, and I deserve to love and be loved in return. The only thing tragic about my life is that people keep seeing it as a tragedy.

When someone decides to be with me, they will have to sacrifice a lot. Indeed, they will have to sacrifice more than most people. It will be painful. Even though most of what you sacrifice when you interact with disabled people is an allusion, it doesn’t mean that the loss of allusion doesn’t hurt. Such concessions notwithstanding, I make it a personal mission to make sure almost everyone receives more than they give. We should all do this as a way of resisting the implicit capitalist logic of exchange that governs most interactions. It is a wonderful and scary feeling to be completely vulnerable and loved for who you are unconditionally. Very few people get that, but everyone deserves that, no matter who they are or what has happened to them.

I’m pretty sure my cat attacked my birthday flowers, and they’re starting to die. I love flowers. I cry when anything dies. I remember being a kid and becoming so mad because people ripped birch bark off of trees, because they look like they were in so much pain. Truthfully, I still cry when I see this in a forest, and I have to avoid ecological disaster videos, if I want to have a good day. My flowers were so beautiful. Everything, no matter how beautiful, is subject to death and chance, even though I took many photos of them. As with Christmas trees, as silly as this sounds, I had to psychologically prepare myself for the eventual fact of their death. I get sad every January, which is why I don’t have a Christmas tree. Life is so fleeting and beautiful. Everything I love I will eventually lose, no matter how hard I tried to hold onto it. My body will decay. My family will perish. My friends will leave. My standard of living may change. That doesn’t mean, however, that I can simply ignore what a tremendous gift life in more varieties than I could possibly imagine is.

To be clear, I support the right to access safe and legal abortion and assisted dying. I wonder, however, whether in some cases we conflate what is legally permissible with what is morally right. One could suggest that I am using covert theological arguments, but my objection to the widespread acceptance of abortion and euthanasia have much more to do with virtue ethics. I think abortion and suicide are wrong, in the same way that eating large amounts of animal protein is wrong. I’m not going to make any of these activities illegal, however. I don’t think it speaks well of a person or society, when the typical response to a problem is to ignore it or get rid of it. There is something so aesthetically unappealing and in human about that reaction, understandable though we may find it. There may be instances in which suicide and abortion are preferable and laudable but, I don’t think those cases represent the majority, constitutional protection notwithstanding.
People must make their own choices. The state cannot compel matters of conscience on which there is disagreement. We lose something, nevertheless, when we too readily surrendered to death, as I personally have been tempted to do many times. I would be the last person to condemn anyone for 'depressive thoughts or committing suicide. I also would be the last person to advocate state control over individual bodies, when the actions of those bodies do not cause direct or immediately foreseeable harm to already existing legal persons. I also believe that legislation is not morality, but it does raise the sticky problem of what kind of world the liberal order creates, and how will we collectively handle its unforeseen consequences. I don’t by the slippery slope argument against assisted suicide. Yet, if this movie is any indication, it does seem to cause ideational harm on an already beleaguered, underfunded, and underrepresented minority group. The state ought to do a better job at redressing this crisis. We need to focus on creating meaningful disabled lives, as opposed to deifying disabled deaths. I noticed that in discussions of “death with dignity” we rarely mention the evacuation of bowels and bladder postmortem.

I believe the Stoics were wrong. There is no honor in killing yourself willfully, unless perhaps if pain is excruciating and incurable. It shows a weak constitution. We show strength when we strive relentlessly and joyfully against the absurdities of life, never settling for anything less than what we want. And what does it say about our society that perhaps the majority of persons with intellectual and physical disabilities are now aborted? Is this the world in which we desire to live? Do we really want a movie such as this one to be acceptable and seen as sentimental? I hope not. There is much talk about building compassion and interdependence. Nonetheless, this film raises the question of how exactly we are going to do that, if we eradicate individuals who may be dependent or need care before they are born and systematically marginalize the ones that do not get eradicated once they are born. As the movie demonstrates, this is performed for the sake of fictive romance and able-bodied normativity, against which everyone is compared and made to feel inadequate
.Thankfully, as my life and so many others demonstrate, real love, real disability, and real mortality are far more complicated. As a result, they are extraordinarily more wonderful