Behind the Redwood Curtain

Cannonball Read #3: At Long Last: High Fidelity by Nick Hornby

2010-01-19T08:45:00.000-08:00

I've seen High Fidelity the movie many times, but this was the first time I've read the book. I read it two months ago, and I don't know why I've had such a hard time sitting down and writing the review. Even now I've written several sentences, only to delete them seconds later.

It's not a difficult plot to summarize. Girl breaks up with man, man has identity crisis, decides to contact his ex-girlfriends and figure out what went wrong, and (SPOILER!) man ends up with girl after hijinks. Meanwhile, music is the soundtrack of his life. That's one thing that I thought translated well into film, because while reading the book there were several albums referred to that I wasn't familiar with. I liked that in the movie the music was just there, so I didn't have to wrack my brain trying to figure out what he was referring to.

Anyway, the movie was so well adapted from the novel, that I almost felt like I was reading the novelization of the movie, and scenes from the movie played in my head while I was reading the book. I wonder how I would have visualized things differently if I hadn't seen the movie so many times first, but all in all, I still enjoyed it. Things were a little fleshed out, but not much because the book really isn't all that long. I give it two thumbs up.

Cannonball Read 2 1/2: Pussy, King of the Pirates by Kathy Acker

2009-11-20T10:34:00.000-08:00

I wanted to make sure that I finished reading every book I started for the Cannonball Read, but this book was impossible for me to finish. I struggled for a week to read more than a few pages before my eyes crossed with frustration and incomprehension. I got about halfway through, and I have no idea what Pussy, King of the Pirates was supposed to be about. I could never tell whether what was going on was a dreamscape, or "reality." So, when I misplaced my copy of the book a few days ago, I couldn't really be bothered to look for it. I just started reading the next book on my list, High Fidelity.

#2:Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahniuk

2009-11-09T11:07:00.000-08:00

When you understand...that what you're telling is just a story. It isn't happening anymore. When you realize that story you're telling is just words, when you can just crumble it up and throw your past in the trashcan...then we'll figure out who you're going to be.

About 15 pages into Chuck Palahniuk's Invisible Monsters, I almost put it down. Normally I'm not into books that rely heavily on flashbacks, and in this case the entire novel is a non-chronological flashback: the beginning is the end, and vice-versa, with the meat of the novel jumping amongst story lines from paragraph to paragraph. I kept slugging along though, and I'm glad I did, because this book ended up twisting my head into circles. This little novel managed to explore notions of God and parenting, sexuality and gender, the ephemeral nature of beauty, and the thin line between love and hate, all while meandering through past and present, and told from the viewpoint of a mute "accident" victim.

It almost sets up like a lame one-liner: a mutilated former model, a pre-op tranny, and an ex-vice cop pile into a Lincoln Town Car... but nothing is as it seems. The relationships among the main characters are revealed gradually, and they are convoluted and surprising. I feel like a plot summary beyond this would would contain too many spoilers, and I don't want to ruin the experience of trying to figure out what the hell is going on. The plot though, is almost secondary; in fact it's more of a vehicle for the ideas about life, and letting go of desires, and purposefully making mistakes to become more human. One of the characters, says as much:

I'm only doing this because it's just the biggest mistake I can think to make. It's stupid and destructive, and anybody you ask will tell you I'm wrong. That's why I have to go through with it... Don't you see? Because we're so trained to do life the right way. To not make mistakes... I figure the bigger the mistake looks, the better chance I'll have to break out and live a real life.

Not telling you which of the characters says this is deliberate, because the feeling behind the quote seems to be universal in the novel. Screwing up and going against the mold is the only way to be alive, to not just exist but live, and grow, and change.

God comes up a lot in the novel. Over and over, the protagonist apologizes. "Sorry, Mom. Sorry God." We ourselves are compared to God when we watch television, and in the same vein, if we are, in fact, imbued with free will, isn't that what God does? Watch us on television for entertainment? "Somewhere in heaven, you're live on a video Web site for God to surf," intones the narrator with a heavy dose of irony. At one point, our parents are compared to God, and we become Satan when we decide that it's time to run our own lives.

Sexuality and gender are huge themes to contend with. Parents who only support Gay Rights after their son has died of AIDS, men who want to become women, men with ambiguous sexuality, women who used to be men, women who love men who love men... it's pretty much all there, but it's hard to go into too much detail without spoilers.

Beauty, gained and lost, is also explored. Our narrator, a former model, keeps stumbling upon images of her former self, before her horrific mutilation. In contrast, her transsexual companion goes through many voluntary rounds of expensive self-mutilation in order to become beautiful. Neither is happy before or after the changes.

I feel like I'm just meandering around, and not really making the points that I want to make about this novel, because I can't reveal the events that make the novel truly worth reading, but I also want to include some of the insightful little quotable quotes that I enjoyed:

"The one you love and the one who loves you are never, ever the same person."
"When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat?"
"I'm an invisible monster, and I'm incapable of loving anybody. You don't know which is worse."

I truly enjoyed this book, and I enjoyed it for reasons that went beyond the story. I enjoyed the telling of the story, and the characters who were real to me, and the very real emotions that run beneath the text. For anyone who has ever tried to shield themselves from pain with snark and humor, this book will ring true.

Bloodsucking Fiends: Cannonball Read #1

2009-11-03T09:39:00.000-08:00

Whenever you get ready to read a novel by Christopher Moore, you can expect a quirky and offbeat look at whatever subject matter he happens to be tackling, and Bloodsucking Fiends is no exception. When protagonist Jody wakes up under a dumpster with a burnt and blackened hand and heightened senses after having been attacked the night before, it doesn’t take long for her to figure out that she is no longer exactly human, but it takes the entire novel for her to realize what being a vampire really means.

The tag line on the cover describes this novel as “a love story,” and it’s true that there is as much focus on self-discovery and falling in love as there is vampirism and murder. The plot is driven forward by the harassment of Jody by her creator, the ancient vampire Elijah ben Sapir. He keeps leaving the bodies of his victims, necks broken and bodies drained of blood, near her hiding places, so that the homicide officers in charge of the cases draw ever nearer to Jody.

Jody is more than just a vampire in the story. She is a confused young woman who is afraid to be alone. At twenty-six, she is already a serial monogamist, with ten live-in boyfriends under her belt. Whatever emotions she feels for one, are automatically transferred to the next. She knows that what she feels is less real love than desperation, but she is so in need of companionship that she can't stop herself. When she is turned, she is more alone then ever; with no one to share her new senses with, the wonder of being able to hear the fog brush up against buildings and to see the heat signatures and health levels of people is lessened, and she looks to fill the void with more companionship.

There are many colorful characters throughout the novel. C. Thomas Flood (Tommy to his friends) is the fresh-out-of-the-midwest wannabe Kerouac that Jody clings to as her protector and love interest. He works graveyard stocking shifts at Safeway with the “Animals” who like to party first, work second. Turkey Bowling is one of their many nocturnal activities, but when one of their number is victimized, they form a merry band of misfits and help save the day. Their leader is the Emperor of San Francisco and Protector of Mexico, known as Your Highness to the good people of the City, but by all appearances he is simply a crazy old homeless man with his two dogs in tow, Bummer and Lazarus. He is one of the few who realizes that the city has been besieged by a vampire, and he wanders the city at night wearing make-shift armor and wielding a wooden sword. The two detectives in charge of the homicides, Cavuto and Rivera, slowly reach the same conclusions, though they continue looking for reasonable explanations to the bitter end.

As with other Christopher Moore novels, Bloodsucking Fiends is a light, entertaining and quick read (I read it in about a day and a half). Its look into the life of a fledgling vampire is somewhat original, what with the tests that Tommy performs on Jody to see which of the vampire legends are true, but I don’t think that Christopher Moore will be winning any Pulitzer Prizes any time soon. The ending of the novel comes quickly and is somewhat unsatisfying, though Moore does a good enough job of characterization that I actually cared about what happened to them next. Character development is a strong point in the novel, and Moore excels at drawing detailed portraits of colorful characters. The Emperor alone makes this a novel worth checking out.

I would recommend this novel to others, though I don’t hold Moore in the high esteem that many of my other friends do. He may have fun takes and interesting story ideas, but I think he’s quirky for quirks sake, and sometimes it seems a little forced.

Pajiba, etc.

2009-10-27T13:13:00.000-07:00

I've been reading Pajiba daily for better than five years (which is easy for me to keep track of because I started reading it at around the same time my son was born), and have commented for much of that time, but have never considered myself an "Eloquent," simply because the volume of my posts was too low. Imagine my surprise when I read The Official Pajiba Dictionary today and saw this:

"Contributors to this Dictionary include, but is not limited to, the following Eloquents: Sean, Ranylt, Cindy, Skittimus Maximus, Tamatha, BWeaves, Julie, Optimus Rhyme, Alexandra, JP, : Saint Saturn Sunshine, TK, branded, Alex the Odd, Anna von Beaverplatz, Jamiepants, Double H, Marra, superedna, PaddyDog Bierce Ambrose, Melody, luckycat, Sofia, cubicalgirl, Wednesday, The Pink Hulk, DeadBessie, Mike R., admin, bucdaddy, becks, admin."

I thought, could it possibly be to me they are referring? No, it's not possible! And yet, I did remember posting something to the original Pajiba Dictionary Comment Diversion, though I couldn't remember what it was. So, I went back and read through the comments and found my post which was in response to another post:

SkankCancer: an ugly on the inside actress who shall not be named. Enjoys pilates, yogurt, and bitching about movies once she's already finished making them.

Posted by: VeinsRHiways at November 19, 2008 3:43 PM

Rainbow Killer See above. Also enjoys eating kittens and baby tears for breakfast.

Posted by: Alexandra at November 19, 2008 3:46 PM

It seems that my definition for Rainbow Killer was used, and I got credit for it! I feel really geeky that I'm so excited about this, but there it is.

Awesome Mashup

2009-10-14T10:45:00.000-07:00

Found this awesome mash-up at Pajiba.com

Slacker

2009-10-13T10:53:00.000-07:00

I've been a total slacker about posting on my blog because no one ever reads it, but I'm going to be doing Pajiba's "Cannonball Read" this year, so I'll be posting my reviews to this site. That should mean about one post per week. Maybe if I do an alert on Facebook I can get some readers up in here!

From Michael Jackson to Cleveland School

2008-11-15T14:38:00.000-08:00

I was reading through awfulplasticsurgery today, and I found a few posts on Michael Jackson. For some reason, this sent my mind to Cleveland School in Stockton, CA, because Michael Jackson visited there in February of 1989, shortly after the shooting there occurred in January of 1989.

I was five years old when the shootings occurred, and I lived in Stockton as well. The day of the shootings coincided with the first time that I ever saw my father cry.

I remember it vividly. I came out into the backyard, and my father was sitting at the bottom of the slide on our backyard swing-set, and he had his head in his hands. He was crying. I'd never seen my father cry, and it scared me. What had happened that could make this big, strong, invincible man cry?

I went over to him and said, "Papa, why are you crying?"

My father picked me up, sat me on his knee and cuddled me, and told me, "A bad man went to a school today. He shot a bunch of children, and he killed some of them."

I started to cry as well.

Looking back, I'm sure that my father was crying not only for the children who were wounded and killed, but from fear, as well. Cleveland school was only miles from the school that I attended. When friends and relatives who knew where we lived, but didn't know the name of the school we attended heard the news, they frantically began to call my father and mother to make sure that my sisters and I were okay. What parent wants to think of the possibility that his child is not safe when she goes to school? It's terrifying.

I was in kindergarten and the time, and I remember talking about it in school. I remember my teacher asking us what we should do if a man came into the playground and started shooting? We were told to drop to the ground and stay still. What kind of a world is it when we need to drill five-year-olds on proper procedure when under gunfire?

I haven't thought of Cleveland School in a long time, but I looked up stories on the internet. Five children were killed that day, all of them under nine. Twenty-nine more were injured, and one teacher as well. I went to middle school and high school with some of the children who attended Cleveland School. I knew the son of the teacher who was injured. I had forgotten how it felt when I heard the news, but today I cried. I cried for a long time.

I have a four-year-old son now. I guess that any image or story involving children in horrific situations affects me more than it used to. I cry every time I read a story about dead or kidnapped children. These children died almost twenty years ago. But I still mourn their deaths.

I understand now why my father was crying.

"Star Wars"/ John Williams Tribute

2008-11-13T13:07:00.000-08:00

I can't stop watching this. I laugh out loud even after five viewings.

What!?! Zac Efron on Firefly?

2008-11-11T17:23:00.000-08:00

It's crazy, but true! I've been watching Firefly today, and in the episode Safe, River Tam has a flashback to her early life. As I was watching, I thought, "Boy, that actor playing young Simon bears a striking resemblance to Zac Efron. I wonder who does play him, anyway?"

So, I looked it up. Lo, and behold, it is Zac Efron! I've had my mind blowing experience for the day now. I can't find the clip, but you can watch the full episode here, on Hulu.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights

2008-11-06T19:06:00.000-08:00

I'm still pretty young, so I didn't get to see the best Mel Brooks movies in the theaters (thank goodness for VCRs), but I distinctly remember going to see Robin Hood: Men in Tights in the theater when I was 10 years old. Cary Elwes was my first (actually, probably only) celebrity crush, and my sisters and I had already worn out several VHS copies of The Princess Bride from so many repeated viewings. I remember seeing the trailers for this film on TV, and just going absolutely batshit giddy with excitement over it. I think that this was the first movie that my mother ever just dropped me off with a friend to see. It was a milestone: my first in-theater Mel Brooks experience, my first "grown-up" movie experience, and the first movie that I over-played on VHS that I actually got to see on the big screen.

Let me tell you though, I had to tape record that movie off of some abc family night special or something, and I missed a few scenes in my repeated viewings. I didn't even remember them until I finally bought the DVD as an adult. These kids with their interwebs, and youtubes, and pirated movies don't know the pain we went through, the commercials we had to fast forward through, and the utter hopelessness of the dreaded tape-eating VCR. Ah, yes, the good old days...

Anyhoo, this isn't the best scene in the movie by far, but it's very funny. I also developed a crush on Will Scarlett O'Hara over the course of my 10,000 viewings... to bad he hasn't done much I've seen since.

More Lighthearted Geek Fun

2008-11-06T15:50:00.000-08:00

I saw this one on youtube, and I just couldn't resist sharing it.

More Prop 8 Bad News

2008-11-06T13:36:00.001-08:00

Well, it looks like it's official. They've officially stopped issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in Los Angeles County.

This is striking a very personal chord with me. I lean mostly toward straight, but I have been involved with women before. I hope to someday find a soul mate, but that person may not necessarily be a man. Does that mean that I may not be able to marry my one true love in the future?

Even taking my personal future out of it, I'm just sickened that people are HAPPY to be taking away the rights of others. For the life of me, I will never understand why there are so many people that want to run the lives of everyone else. Worry about your damn self, and stop concentrating on whom you consider to be "sinners," for god's sake. I'm sick of it. So what if your Bible says that homosexuality is a sin? It also says that eating meat on a Friday is a hell-worthy offense, and, oh yeah, to love your neighbor as yourself! If you're going to quote the bible at me, please bother to read it first. If loving your neighbor means calling him/her a fag and killing abortionists, then hate me. Please.

A commenter on Feministing today mentioned how the hate that the prop 8 supporters feel cannot stop the love between her girlfriend and herself. I believe in that. I believe that love is stronger than hate. I believe that we can overcome bigotry. It may take longer than we would hope, but in the immortal words of Obama himself, "Yes, we can." And we will.

On the Lighter Side...

2008-11-06T13:06:00.000-08:00

I love me some funny or die!

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Tell me that's not hilarious. I dare you.

Prop 8 Update

2008-11-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

Apparently as I write the margin between yes and no on Prop 8 is only 400,000 votes, out of 10 million cast, and there are still about 3 million absentee ballots to count. Technically this vote is still too close to call, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed!

Is this really California?

2008-11-05T10:31:00.000-08:00

California has long been the leader of the country in passing controversial laws, and the rest of the nation often follows our lead. While I am very happy that Barack Obama won the presidency, I'm am literally sick to my stomach at the passing of Prop 8 in California, keeping the right to marry from gay and lesbian couples.

Seriously, folks? 52% of Californians are still stuck in the 1950’s? This is discrimination, pure and simple. Remember anti-miscegenation laws? This is just another one of a different name. Keeping one group from doing something that everybody else is allowed to do, merely because they are on the “fringe” is discrimination. While we’re at it, why don’t we give the queer community their own water fountains? Scared of exposing your children to homosexuality? Send the children of gays to their own schools. While we’re at it, why don’t we send “at risk” children to their own schools, and keep them from infecting the other children? And I couldn’t possibly share a public swimming pool with a fag. Yuck.

I’m sorry if I sound upset, but I really am. I’ve got tears leaking from my eyes as I write this. I just can’t get behind this at all. This is a step in the WRONG direction, California. On the day our nation elected our first president of color, I thought we were better than this.

The Truth is out there...

2008-11-04T17:32:00.000-08:00

My roommate and I disagree on just about everything. Luckily, we generally like and respect each other, but we argue pretty much constantly. If I make a statement, he generally disagrees, and we argue. If he makes a statement, I generally disagree, and we argue. In fact, I think that the only thing that we have ever agreed upon is that Volvos are good cars. That’s pretty telling.

The problem is, we have a huge fundamental disagreement, and that is this: he does not believe that there is such a thing as ultimate truth; he thinks that there is no point in arguing with people’s beliefs, because their beliefs are true “for them,” although he constantly refutes his own belief by arguing with me. I don’t believe in subjective truth. I believe, no, scratch that, I know that there is such a thing as objective truth. Just because I don’t know what it is, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.

Let me give an example: Copernicus and his ilk believed that the earth was the center of the universe; that the planets, the stars and the sun revolved around it, and the earth stayed stationary. This was a belief that endured for many hundreds of years, and it was believed so fervently that Galileo was persecuted for presenting his theory that the earth and planets actually revolved around the sun, and he eventually recanted. Because it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe, did that mean that it was true? No. They were just wrong. In fact Galileo was wrong too, because the Sun is not the center of the universe either. Now, we don’t know what the center of the universe even is, but that doesn’t mean that Copernicus was right, and that the earth was the center of the universe.

Another example: At one point in time, it was widely believed that the world was flat (of course, this belief persisted much longer among the uneducated, but that isn’t the point here). Does this mean that the world actually was flat for them? No. They were just wrong. They believed the earth was flat, but it wasn’t. It is round, and it always has been, whether or not people believed that it was.

It used to be believed that the four elements (earth, wind, water, fire) were the fundamentals of all things, but that didn’t make it true. Now we believe in atoms, and quarks, but that could be wrong too. My point is not that we know the truth. My point is that believing in something doesn’t make it any truer, or more false. There is a truth, whether or not we know what it is. Even if everything in the world is just a dream, then that’s the truth, even though we think that it’s reality.

It may be true that nothing can be proven, or known absolutely. But we try. We learn from our mistakes, and maybe we’re getting closer to knowing the absolute truth about things. Maybe we aren’t. It doesn’t matter. It’s there, even if it’s unknowable.

I’m agnostic. This doesn’t mean that I don’t know whether or not there is a God, this means that I don’t believe that the existence of God can be proven, or disproved. It is a simple matter of belief. You can argue about the bible, but that doesn’t prove the existence of God to me. It proves that there were people who believed in God a few thousand years ago. Conversely, you cannot prove to me that there is no God. But either way, there either is, or there isn’t a God, and neither my belief, nor your belief is going to do anything to change it.

I can’t even prove that the world is how I perceive it. I believe that I live on earth, and that it is made up of millions of people, and that there is a sun, and a universe, and I drive my car to work, and type on my computer. But I could be wrong. This could all just be a dream. I don’t know. But if it is, then that’s the truth, and my beliefs, and your beliefs are all wrong. The only thing that I can prove to myself is that I exist.

Descartes said it best when he said “Cogitot, ergo sum.” “I think, therefore, I am.”

I may not be able to prove my existence to you. You may not be able to prove your existence to me. But I can certainly prove my existence to myself, because the very fact that I can consider my existence proves to me that I exist. And that, my friends, is the truth. Believe it or not, but think about it.

Long Hiatus

2008-10-28T09:46:00.000-07:00

I haven't written in my blog for a very long time, which is the result of having both a really buggy computer, and a really slow wireless connection. Now that both problems have been solved, I'm going to try to be a little better about blogging.

I had a really interesting weekend. Last Friday was a VERY good day. I was finally offered a bartender job after four long months of searching (three of which have been spent working a dead-end retail job), and then I went to a suspension show. At the suspension show, I was offered a free corset piercing, and I jumped on that opportunity eagerly.

I think it turned out pretty well. It's a temporary piercing, so I had it taken out yesterday, but it was fun while it lasted.

Feministing all night long....

2007-12-21T10:52:00.001-08:00

I've been lurking on the blog Feministing for quite a while now, but last night I finally decided to register and make some comments, and I think it definitely enriched my experience to be able to interact with other readers, and input my own opinions rather that just reading what other people had to say. In fact, I went a little crazy with the commenting and wound up staying up until 2:30 in the morning because I got into a few discussions with people.

It's so interesting how many different kinds of feminists read and comment on that blog. The funny thing about any kind of forum or even any kind of movement is that disagreements are rampant. I think that's fine, in fact, I think it's good. I don't think I've ever come out of a discussion with people who entirely agree with me feeling enriched (although maybe a little validated.) Some of my most interesting and memorable discussions were with people who entirely disagreed with me, because I got to hear arguments about WHY that particular belief is held, and have strengthened my own opinions many times by arguing against others. Also, I've heard many valid points that make me rethink and reshape my own opinions. All in all, I think that argument is a very good thing, as long as everyone is respectful and stays away from name-calling. I also don't like it when people are just trolling for a flame war, and twist everyone else's comments. I guess I just ignore those ones (or read them, but don't feed them).

Pet Peeves

2007-11-29T11:58:00.000-08:00

I participated in a "Pet Peeves" comment diversion over at my favorite website, Pajiba, and do you know what? I think that almost every pet peeve anyone else had, I had too! I had just ceased to notice the things that I found irritating, but after reading all of the rants that other people had, I found that these things were magnified infinitely.

On my way to pick up my son from pre-school, these are some of the things that irritated me:

- I think that out of the 50 or so people that changed lanes near me, only one or two actually used their blinkers.
- I stopped at Blockbuster, and almost everyone irritated me! I had:
-A rude/apathetic cashier
-Not one, but three families in front of me in line with loud and uncontrollable children.
-A person standing behind me talking loudly on her cell phone in a different language.
-On the way back home, I was tailgated excessively. Listen up all of you tailgaters: If I am driving at or above the speed limit, and you tailgate me, I will slow down just to piss you off!

Also, just as an aside, I hate it when people say "expresso." It's eSpresso, people! Not that hard.

Okay, I'm done now.

Ethics Paper

2007-11-28T10:31:00.000-08:00

I just found an Ethics paper that I wrote back in 2003. I love finding old papers, because I can read them as though I didn't write them. I thought this was actually quite good, so I'm going to post it, even though probably no one will read it but me. It makes a lot more sense if you've actually read the papers, because I certainly regurgitated a lot of arguments.

In Defense of Moderation

In this paper, I will defend L.W. Sumner’s moderate view on the issue of abortion. I will consider, but ultimately reject Judith Jarvis-Thompson’s liberal view and Sydney Callahan’s conservative view of this issue.

Sumner begins by stating that a fetus is a peculiar sort of being because it occupies the earliest stage in a particular life history beginning at conception. A pregnancy, therefore, is a particular kind of relationship between a fully developed human with full moral status, and a developing human with indeterminate moral status. The closest analogy we can approximate is the relationship between a human and a parasite, but this is imperfect; a fetus is not a parasite because, if left alone, it would become a fully developed person with full moral status. How then, do we define a fetus’ moral status? We can compare a fetus with two related things: gametes at one end, which presumably have no moral status, and an infant at the other with presumed full moral status. The fetus is somewhere in between, so it is difficult to determine exactly when moral status is acquired. Does it happen all at once at a specific time, such as conception, or birth? Or is it a gradual process?

Along with the difficulty of determining the moral status of the fetus comes the difficulty of determining the morality of abortions. Abortion can also be compared to its two temporal neighbors. Contraception, at one end, we generally consider benign. Infanticide, on the other hand, we generally consider morally serious. Abortion is also hard to define by these counterparts. It is difficult to determine whether it is infanticide, which is the killing of a morally significant being, or contraception, which is merely the prevention of one. Exactly where the delineation lies is not obvious. In order to make the decision whether abortion is more like contraception or infanticide, we must determine whether the fetus is more like a pair of gametes, or more like an infant. In order to have moral status, a fetus must have intrinsic value rather than just instrumental value. Therefore, in order to determine the morality of abortions we must ascertain the moral status of the fetus.

There are two standard Western stances on the abortion debate: the liberal or “pro-choice” position, and the conservative or “pro-life” position. Liberals claim that the fetus has no moral standing during the pregnancy, and therefore abortion has no victim, or (like Thompson) that the moral status of the fetus is irrelevant. They claim that there is no better reason to restrict abortions than to restrict contraception because it is only the prevention of a morally significant being. The reason for the abortion is irrelevant. The conservative, or pro-life view, holds that the fetus has full moral standing from the moment of conception on. Killing the fetus is as wrong as killing a fully formed human adult, and at all stages of pregnancy abortion is as morally serious as infanticide. Again, the reasons for performing the abortion are irrelevant. The problem with these two views is that they are too rigid and uniform. Both hold that all fetuses have the same moral standing throughout the pregnancy, regardless of whatever differences they may have. A fetus goes from a simple one celled organism to a highly complex six million celled organism in the span of nine months. It is difficult to believe that the single celled creature has the same moral standing as the six million celled creature. Another problem is that both hold the reasons for abortion to be irrelevant, but some of the reasons for abortions seem to be more pressing than others. These views are also somewhat different from common practices and opinions. Most public opinion polls reveal that most people feel the timing and reason for an abortion to be very important. Legislation in many Western countries places limits on abortions based on both timing and reason, but this legislation gets no logical support from either side of the debate. Although public opinion and governmental legislation hold no sway in a good argument, they do give us cause to wonder whether the traditional conservative and liberal views are the only two options.

Many people find an early term abortion less objectionable than a late term abortion, and there are some reasons that appear less objectionable than others. Sumner places the reasons most abortions are performed into four categories: therapeutic, eugenic, humanitarian and socioeconomic. A therapeutic abortion is performed to save the life or health of the mother, and a eugenic to prevent the birth of a seriously deformed infant. Humanitarian abortions are performed on victims of rape or incest, and socioeconomic abortions cover almost everything else: age, poverty, illegitimacy, etc. Public support for these vary, most people being in favor of therapeutic abortions, and opinion being split equally on socioeconomic reasons. The issue of abortion is not at all simple, so perhaps the flaw in the established views is their simplicity. There must be a complex solution for a complex problem.

The difference in moral standing between a pair of gametes and an infant is obvious: the gametes have no standing and the infant has full standing. Moral standing, therefore, is acquired at some point during the pregnancy. We cannot draw an arbitrary line, before which there is no moral standing, and after which there is; there must be some justification. It seems that whatever criterion we found moral standing on is developed gradually during the pregnancy; as all of the other developments occur, moral standing is acquired gradually as well. The main problem is pinpointing when this happens, but when the threshold is found it follows that abortions performed before it are as innocuous as contraception, and abortions performed after are as serious as infanticide. This threshold will not be a hard line, but a soft line, easily blurred.

Because of the problems presented in the uniformity of the established views, we must differentiate between fetuses --some will be awarded moral status while others will not. In order to find out which of the fetuses have moral status, we must ask what the criterion is for having moral status. One may say that moral status is given to those who can reason, but then infants and the mentally deficient would have none. These obviously do have it, so it is not our reasoning capacity that gives us moral status. Our criterion for moral status must include all people, so perhaps it includes some non-human animals as well. Sumner defines sentience as “having the capacity to experience pleasure and pain and thus the capacity for enjoyment and suffering.” This criterion would include all humans and many animals as well. This seems to be a sufficient criterion, because only those who are sentient can have any interests to protect. We do not feel it is right to kill a dog without a good reason, however we do not feel any qualms about cutting worms in half with our shovels because it does not even notice. We recognized the difference between a worm and a dog, so it follows that we recognize the difference between an early term and a late term fetus.

Our use of sentience as a logical criterion may be derivable from any of the welfare-based moral theories, from Kantian Deontology to Utilitarianism. Only sentient beings have interests, and all of them do whether they know it or not. So being sentient is both necessary and sufficient for having welfare. To apply this criterion for humans we must find the threshold of sentience and find with it the threshold for moral standing. Sentience is acquired at some time during the pregnancy because a freshly fertilized ovum has none, while a full term fetus is sentient. With our current technology it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when sentience is acquired, but we can approximate it. A fetus at the beginning of the second trimester will probably not be sentient, but it probably will be at the end of the second trimester. Therefore it is relatively safe to say that sentience, along with moral standing is developed at some time during the second trimester.

With sentience as our threshold, and that occurring during the second trimester, we can now flesh out our moderate view. Before the second trimester, abortion is as morally innocuous as contraception because it merely prevents the development of a morally significant being. The abortion decision should be left to the parents and any of the four reasons would be acceptable. After the second trimester, however, any abortion must be seriously considered, and not only by the parents. A therapeutic abortion would be acceptable regardless of the moral significance of the fetus because killing is not murder when it is done in self- defense. Eugenic abortions would be acceptable as well because some deformities would not show up until after the second trimester. Humanitarian and socioeconomic abortions would not be acceptable because they should have been performed before the second trimester. This abortion policy includes a time line for reasonable abortions, and some guidelines for later term abortions, but the time line is the important thing. Sentience is acquired gradually during the second trimester, so at that time moral standing is unclear. We must, however, pick a sharp dividing point for the sake of the law somewhere at the beginning of the second trimester.

Judith Jarvis-Thompson would raise some objections to this argument. She would claim that the moral status of the fetus is irrelevant because a woman has a right to expel anything from her body at any time for almost any reason, no matter what the time during the pregnancy. She would argue that a woman who has not intentionally become pregnant has no obligations to let the fetus keep using her body. The fetus’ right to live does not include the use of his mother’s body. But this is not a sufficient objection because Sumner agrees that during the first trimester an abortion may be had for any reason, so where does Thompson’s argument go? Therapeutic or eugenic abortion may be had in the late term, so why would Thompson want people to be able to have humanitarian and socioeconomic abortions in the late term, killing a morally significant being, when they would be allowed to have them during the first trimester? Yes, a woman has a right to her body, but her rights end when it comes to killing a morally significant being after the second trimester merely because it is inconvenient to let it live. Thompson’s objections fail because Sumner’s argument accommodates her position.

Sydney Callahan would also raise an objection to this. She claims that we think murder is wrong not because it hurts the victim, but because it cuts off any future possibilities, and abortion is wrong for the same reasons. Contraception cuts off the future for those gametes, yet she seems to have no problem with it. It is wrong to cut off the future of a morally significant being, yes, but there is nothing wrong with preventing the existence of a morally significant being. She herself advocates this position because she is not opposed to birth control.

In this paper I have presented and defended Sumner’s argument for a moderate abortion policy. Thompson and Callahan’s objections fail because they are too rigid, and treat the fetus as if it were the same throughout gestation, which it is not. The fetus has no moral significance before the second trimester, and full moral standing after, so only a moderate stance is appropriate.

Works Cited

1. L.W. Sumner, Abortion

2. Judith Jarvis Thompson, A Defense of Abortion, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Third Edition, Barbara MacKinnon, Wadsworth, 2001

3. Sidney Callahan, Abortion and the Sexual Agenda: A Case for Prolife Feminism, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Third Edition, Barbara MacKinnon, Wadsworth, 2001

New Blog!

2007-11-27T09:50:00.000-08:00

I finally gave up on remembering the password to my old Blog, so I'm just starting a new one.

Three weeks ago, I moved back to my hometown in the San Joaquin Valley after living in Humboldt County for three years. I feel seriously homesick for the ocean, clean air, and small town environment already. I have yet to find a job, and haven't gotten in touch with many of my friends, so for right now I'm a little lonely. I'll spend my days job hunting, and evenings online, hunting for things to do.