i was going to post the one i sent to you, and then i got all nervous, like,

in "our" circles it's not cool to be anti-abortion.

AND LIKE, I DIDN'T POST IT BECAUSE I WAS NERVOUS ABOUT PEOPLE NOT LIKING ME

ANYMORE!!!!

god, how weak is that.

i need to listen to "search and destroy" by iggy and the stooges and toughen up.

i'll probably end up posting it just because i don't want to.

i'm so contradictory."

so, since franny DARED ME, and because, it really was fun and somewhat clear, since i am pretty out of practice, here is the email that i sent yesterday, reworked a bit to make it more public friendly.

anyway, here goes:

"what's the book you are reading?

i think it's interesting that you and i have almost the same reasoning re: the three abortion girl, yet come to the opposite conclusions:

me: well, if i am going to get all upset about the THIRD abortion, then i have to get upset about the first one, no? i mean, it's not like you get afreebie and then you have moral obligations to fulfill regarding theunplanned pregnancy.

you (if i have it right, correct me if necessary!): well, if i am going tosay that the first one is ok, then i guess i have to say that the third one is alright. i mean, it's not like you get a freebie and then you have moral obligations to fulfill regarding the unplanned pregnancy.

do you see what i am saying?

also, i am curious what your reasoning is about abortion. i mean, you are vegan, which i totally respect, and i think is inspiring and if i am going to be totally honest, i am working towards a more meatless diet (meat meaning all animal products). i am working towards it.

anyway, it seems like (though i am not positive so please correct me if i am wrong) you are anti-animal products because it's unnecessary and cruel to the animals.

that's a really simplified way of stating what i understand your position to be.

am i to understand that (under your view) we have more obligation to animals than we have to other humans? or is it we have equal obligation to animals that we do to humans?

either way, i am interested to know what your reasoning is regarding the consistency of believing that using animal products is wrong and torturous of animals, but it's ok to abort an unborn human.

(i am avoiding using the word "fetus" just because so much of the language around abortion is so loaded. i am using "unborn human" because i think it's really neutral. on the one hand it's not using language to try and disguise what it actually is [assuming "zygote" or "fetus" might do that in the same way "hamburger" might for dead cow meat] but it also avoids assuming that the unborn human is a PERSON, which, some people claim are the only things that actually have rights and to which we have moral obligations. obviously, we're all people, but if you're someone who claims persons are the only things with rights and that animals have rights, obviously you are going to say that animals are persons. no big whoop. by saying "unborn human" i leave open the possibility of someone arguing that an unborn human is not a person in the same way a cow is. i don't believe it, but i don't want to assume something that needs to be argued. i'm a philosophy student, you know?)

there are a couple of parallels i am drawing between the two.

#1--an unborn human has the same ability to advocate for itself as an animal does: that is, it has none. i understand that part of your reasoning for being vegan is that we are needlessly killing animals that cannot defend or advocate for themselves in anyway, and this is cruel and wrong.

in the same way, an unborn human cannot defend or advocate for itself in any way, and perhaps this may be one reason that abortion is wrong.

#2--the torture animals go through to be used as a means for human ends is one reason you might say that it's wrong to use animal products. you may even go so far as to say that animals have a right to NOT be used as a means to an end in anyway, that they have rights as ends in themselves. all "ends in themselves" means is that they are not the type of thing that it is correct to think of as a means to an end.

for example: money is a means by which we achieve things we consider ends--food, clothing, shelter, vibrators. notice that these things we consider ends are also possible to be thought of as means as well. certainly food, clothing and shelter and vibrators are all things that we could consider both. food is a means by which we stay alive, clothing is a means by which we stay healthy by shielding us from the elements. the same goes for shelter. vibrators are clearly a means by which to fantasize about benicio del toro, which is one of the great ends in life.

things we might consider as ENDS ONLY: any body that may be considered a person. you, me, stuart, jona, mrs whiskers, steve, benicio del toro, etc etc etc. you might want to say that what it is for all of us to have rights (if we do) is that we should not be used as a means to someone else's end. i shouldn't use you to get on steve's website. you shouldn't use me to get sweet hair products. jona shouldn't use stuart as a shoebuffer. benicio del toro shouldn't use me to gratify his sexual urges.

i mean, what? of course he can.

but even in that instance, if i decide that letting benicio del toro treat me like a sex toy asldkjfasdljf would be something that i want, then i am making his end of sexual gratification via dirty sex with me MY END, and therefore am not actually being used as a means to an end.

anyway, you see what i am saying? someone who takes this position (which is, if you were wondering, a psuedo-really loose-kantian view) is going to want to say that being a thing that has rights is the same thing as being a thing which is an end only.

so, getting back to the question at hand, someone who takes that position that using animal products is wrong because it uses animals as a means to an end when animals are the kinds of things that should be treated as an END ONLY, would probably have a hard time explaining why an unborn human was not, too, the kind of thing that requires being treated as an END ONLY.

ostensibly one could say that the woman having the abortion is using the unborn human as a means to an end by aborting it. for instance, aborting the unplanned pregnancy would relieve stress. it would also relieve the woman (and, in a more sane world, the man) from parenting and fiscal responsibilities that perhaps they are not prepared for or want to deal with.

in any case, i think it would be tough to argue that aborting an unborn human that could be brought to term and then given up for adoption is treating it as an END IN ITSELF; obviously, adoption can be a really sticky option, but i think it would be preferable to not living at all, at least in enough cases to make the general statement "being adopted is preferable to being killed, for an unborn human".

that's me being bold. originally, i typed "universal statement", which would be a lot bolder, because by that i would be strongly implying it is true in all cases, and i am simply not that bold (today.).

why am i going through this whole thing?

because i want to say that if you are saying that killing animals is wrong because that would be tantamount to using them as a means to human ends, then aborting an unborn human is wrong because that's using it as a means to the parents' end(s).

#3--why would i argue my end and not your end?

because i think the question of who is a person, and what rights, if any, does a person have is REALLY REALLY HARD.

and there are so many questions that are primary to that that are even harder.

but it's like, you can't not act and not make judgements because you have all these other things to figure out, right? i mean, you have to actually live...

so if you are a good person (in my estimation) you fashion out a moral code as best you can, and you are a falliblist, meaning you say "this is as best i have things worked out right now and i can be wrong and if i am wrong i will adjust accordingly!!", and you go on your way. even if it means you have to take on a position that you have an emotional aversion to, which i did to the below conclusion for a long time.

so my thinking regarding abortion is this: i am not sure what makes a person a person, or why that thing/those things afford people rights.

but if i am going to say that people have rights, and i am going to, then i have to admit that it is possible that there are persons that are not obviously persons. like unborn humans.

and animals.

so, i am going to say this: i don't think we should abort unborn humans because they may (and actually, i think there is a really good chance) have rights; we even have obilgations to not do so.

on the same score, animals may have rights; it is because of this that if i am going to be consistent, i should work harder to cut animals out of my diet. at least the meat part for sure.

so, we are opposites of each other! reverse twinsies!

now: why i think that we need to have reproductive rights:

i don't think abortion is ok, obviously. BUT. i don't think girls having their insides ripped out in unsanitary conditions and maybe even dying because they are making a bad decision is ok either.

i also don't think the death penalty is ok.

so, because of this, i think abortion should be legal, safe and as RARE AS FUCKING POSSIBLE.

oh man, this is long franny.

are you even still reading?

are you mad?

blowjobs!

j-fran"

i would just like to say that this was not posted to call anyone out, that this was merely a conversation that franny and i got into because reading something got my mind working. also, though i certainly make moral judgements, everyone does, unless they are amoral, and even then they making a meta-moral judgement that morals don't actually exist, i am not about calling people out on them without being asked. i believe in moral autonomy for individuals and while if someone asks me, i will certainly tell the truth about what i think, i also will be clear about being a falliblist and hope that the other person, should they disagree with me, would argue with me until my face falls off to explain why i am wrong. and if their reasoning is better than mine, i will accept it and incorporate it accordingly into my view.

to be intellectually honest is one of my few life goals, and if you disagree with any of the above, i welcome your discussion, and hope i can learn a few things from you.

that being said, let's talk about the fact that the following happened last night:

720pm--

Evening phone raconteur: hey jessica, i have to go, will you be up late?

Me: yeah, i never go to bed early.

E.r.: ok, maybe i'll talk to you later.

Me: ok, late.

730pm--

[asleep].

i think there might be a gas leak in my house that is causing all this intense sleep. i mean, this weekend i probably slept a total of 30+ hours. that's an enormous amount of sleep for me. ENORMOUS. and my sister's been having fucked up sleep too.

so i am going to call pg^e when i get home and have them come out and make sure there are no gas leaks. because seriously, i slept for 11 hours last night and i am still sleepy today.

something's not kosher.

also, i am craving coca-cola. craving it. it's not like there is some nutrient in it that my body is calling out for, like it does when i crave orange juice (vit c) or steak (iron) or milk (ew! milk! ew ew!! i mean, er, calcium).

it's coca-cola for christ's sake. i mean, coca-cola is so good, but it's soda, it's got no real redeeming quality.

not like james kolchaka superstar. he's got TONS of redeeming qualities.

i got my books in the mail last night. inspired by this guy i decided to check out emma goldman and ordered an autobiography of hers.

i also ordered seven storey mountain by thomas merton, still trying to understand the contemplative life.

and then, existentialism and human emotion by sartre because the reviews said it was a really good way to understand the existentialist view, which is great since i have like no hold on it at all. i've not studied it at all, and in fact, i have not studied continental philosophy at all.

so i am hoping this gets my feet wet.