Ideas are curious things. They can drift inconsequentially through our minds, fleeting and instantly forgotten. Conversely, they can become deeply embedded, urgently compelling us to action. More curious still is the fact that we can often be unaware of the source of ideas that stand at the very core of our view of the world and inform our most fundamental beliefs.
The 2010 Christopher Nolan film, ‘Inception’ skilfully explored the latent power of ideas. It presented the intriguing premise that a kernel or precursor of an idea could be seeded in the dreaming mind of a targeted person in order to prompt them to act in a predetermined manner. The purpose of this implanting of an idea, of this inception, was to steer a wealthy individual into following a course of action that would financially benefit a competitor. The person on whom inception had been performed had to be unaware of the fact that their mind had been manipulated as they slept, and to consider the implanted idea to be an original thought of their own. In reality, however, it is impossible to anticipate how an individual will react to the introduction of a concept or predict how an idea will develop over time. Experience suggests that a person can be exposed to an idea but fail to fully assimilate it in the manner intended by the originator. In these cases, ideas can become distorted through wilful or unwitting misinterpretation. In other instances, ideas evolve over time in response to changes in the surrounding environment. In either case, ideas mutate and become almost unrecognisable from their initial form.
While it is impossible to manipulate the thinking of an individual with the precision depicted in Nolan’s film, in a certain sense it could be said that a form of inception, centuries in the making, has shaped contemporary thought. There was not, however, a set of conscious conspirators with a master plan who sought to effect the manipulation of a complete culture. Unintentionally, an earnest and optimistic search for truth that began in the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries mutated into increasingly bleak and pessimistic systems of thought. By the late 19th century, thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche articulated the philosophy of nihilism, considering that we live in a world where good and evil are relative and inherent meaning is absent. In our post-modern world, it is generally considered that the age-old questions that have confronted humanity regarding purpose or meaning are irrelevant. It is considered that the harsh fact that life is futile and without any intrinsic meaning must be confronted and accepted: no answers are available.
Relativism is a key characteristic of this post-modern worldview: there are no objective truths or fixed points of reference, just an ever-changing set of subjective values upon which decisions, often life or death decisions, must be made. Many early Enlightenment figures stressed the importance of individualism, but this was in the context of seeking human dignity and a protection of rights that the arbitrary state power of the 17th and 18th centuries sought to deny. In our contemporary culture, the idea of individualism has mutated into a radical insistence on rights without responsibility.
The thinking of Peter Singer articulates with chilling clarity the extent to which attitudes to fundamentals, such as the value of human life can be distorted once a relativist approach is adopted. To Singer, self-awareness is the key defining characteristic of personhood. In 1977, he wrote that “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” Singer sees no difference between abortion and infanticide as he considers that the unborn child and very young baby both lack the self-awareness that is considered to be the defining characteristic of personhood. These views are not, however, the deluded ranting of an isolated extremist – Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, one of the world’s most prestigious seats of learning.
Based on the radical post-modern interpretation of individualism, the right to choose to end the life of an unborn child has assumed the characteristics of an article of faith, but one based on an arbitrary, subjective judgement as to when that unborn child can be considered to have distinct rights as a person.
Without a fixed set of values to inform a conscience, ideas can possess a force as devastating and terrible as any natural phenomenon. This is evident in the connection between a Chinese missile scientist, Song Jian, and the death of approximately 330 million unborn children. In 1978, Song Jian attended a conference in Finland on control systems. While there, he received a copy of a report “The Limits to Growth and Blueprint for Survival” produced in 1972 by a think-tank, the Club of Rome. The Club of Rome was a non-governmental international organisation concerned with the environment and the future of humanity. They recommended that the world population had to be reduced in order to decrease demand on natural resources and ensure the survival of humanity. On returning home, Song promoted the recommendations of the report and received support from the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. The report’s recommendations were used to inform a mathematical model which sought to identify an optimal population for China: this was established to be 650 to 700 million, 280 to 330 million fewer that the population of the time. Based on this target, the barbaric one-child policy was initiated and imposed through fines, forced abortion and sterilisation. A further outcome of the policy has been the development of a gender imbalance, as cultural values create a preference for male children. Implemented through female infanticide and sex-selective abortion, it is estimated that, as a consequence, China has approximately 20 to 30 million ‘missing’ women.
The absence of meaningful criticism of the Chinese one-child policy from Western governments or commentators was indicative of the tangle in which contemporary thought had been caught. In September 2013, in response to a newspaper expose which indicated that British doctors were facilitating sex selective abortions, Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, expressed a view that sex selection was a legitimate basis on which to justify an abortion. It was considered that “You can’t be pro-choice except when you don’t like the choice, because that’s not pro-choice at all.”
This position was repeated in March 2017 when Professor Wendy Savage, a member of the British Medical Association’s ethics committee, stated that doctors should not withhold information on the sex of an unborn child due to fears that it could prompt a sex-selective abortion. Abortion on the grounds of an unborn child’s sex is, in her opinion, as legitimate as any other reason.
At the heart of this issue are two distinct but interrelated questions:
♣ Is the life of a woman worth as much as the life of a man?
♣ Should a woman have the right to decide the fate of her unborn child?
Faced with a choice between opposing an action that discriminates against unborn women in the most fundamental possible way, or to support the right of a woman to choose to abort an unborn child, many, even some of those who consider themselves feminists, choose the latter. This decision consciously disregards the fact that, for many women who experience sex selective abortions, choice plays no real role. It could be argued that a sex selective abortion should instead be seen as the imposition of cultural mores which value the life of a woman as less than that of a man. In the contemporary hierarchy of rights, the right of the individual to choose trumps the right to life.
In the face of growing contemporary hostility, there is a subtle temptation: it can be appealing to withdraw, to note with sorrow the seemingly inexorable shift towards support for taking the lives of the unborn, yet to remain passive and silent. This temptation is becoming stronger in present-day Ireland, North and South. During debates prior to the March 2017 Stormont elections, it was striking that when young people were asked to articulate their priorities and preferences, support for “reproductive rights” was often mentioned. Abortion has become fixed in the minds of many, particularly the young, as one of a suite of opinions which indicate whether a person is narrow-minded, uncompassionate and bigoted or broad minded, compassionate and decent. Despite being driven by a set of subjective, shifting ideas, these views continue to gain growing support and abortion is regarded increasingly as an irrefutable, fundamental right. Adrift from fixed points of reference, post-modern society is like a ship steered by a navigator who has eschewed longitude and wanders lost, unable to construct a method of plotting a straight course.
Recognising the flaws in contemporary thought is an essential start, but this alone is not sufficient. Mournfully observing the relentless increase in pro-abortion views, but then retreating to a comfortable bunker with like minds, will not halt the pursuit of a very specific agenda. This can only be achieved through courage and a willingness to actively challenge the contemporary orthodoxy, an orthodoxy backed by powerful and influential voices. It is easy to be glib and write lyrically of battling for what is right, without recognising the cost involved. Ultimately, publically admitting to holding heretical pro-life views is difficult and unpopular. But it is right and it must be done.
About the Author: Mark McNamee
Mark McNamee is a husband and father from Ballymena in Northern Ireland.