About the Abortion Debate

Even though the abortion argument is misplaced in the nomination process for a Supreme Court Justice (and thus reflects ignorance of the Constitution and the role of a judge), since we will nonetheless be having the abortion discussion, here are my thoughts.

First, I think that it is necessary to make the discussion honest.  Here is the medical definition of abortion: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus.

One will note that this definition does not include the words “reproductive rights”  or "women's rights" or “choice.”  Abortion itself is simply ending a pregnancy – killing a living entity growing in a woman’s uterus, regardless of how you may define that life that is terminated.

Reproductive rights would be rights that address reproduction.  That reproduction, while it may occur over a period of time, begins when the egg is fertilized and the reproduction begins.  So those rights would seemingly be involved with the act of creation, not of termination.

This leads me to the word “choice” and the phrase "woman's right to choose."   Excluding acts of forced creation such as rape or similar criminal occurrences, a woman has the opportunity to choose whether to engage in a sexual act long before she faces the decision about abortion and a child growing in her womb.  To assume that women are incapable of understanding the possible consequences of intercourse or the possible failures of birth control, is to assume that their intelligence is fairly low.  Are we to assume that women are incapable of knowing what they are doing, that they are likely to be so overcome with passion or sexual drive that they do not understand the consequences of their act?  Really?

Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body, but that right does not only exist after she has become pregnant.  When a woman freely enters into intercourse, she has made a choice that includes the possible consequence of becoming pregnant.  If she does not want to be pregnant, does not want to carry another life inside her, then she needs to make a different choice when faced with a situation that could result in pregnancy.

Once a woman has made the choice that results in the union of a sperm and egg to begin the reproductive process, she now holds a separate life within her.  Yes, it is her body within which that being will grow, but she has made a choice to place that being there.  And, now, in my opinion, it is not only her life that matters.

There is a selfishness in the idea that the child within the woman’s womb is meaningless; that it is only the woman who matters.  This, to me, is a part of our more generally selfish culture:  if it is inconvenient, just get rid of it.  It is also a childish response to one’s own activity and an inability to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.  And, the encouragement of this response, the failure to hold women accountable for their actions and to instead give them an out,  like the failure to recognize their ability to make a choice about having intercourse, is simply degrading to women.  Real respect for women would not treat them like children.  It would acknowledge their ability to be responsible for their own actions.

Beyond the disingenuousness of abortion being an expression of women’s rights, those who engage in the abortion discussion often fail to even consider the broader effect that abortion has on our attitude towards born children, the family, and on humanity and life itself.

If we can abort lives that are simply inconvenient or not to our liking (e.g. the movement to abort Downs babies), then we are turning children into a commodity.  It becomes about the life of the adults, and not of the children – we will select a child when it is convenient for us, in the way that one selects a dog or even a piece of furniture.  It becomes about enhancing our own lives and not nurturing the lives of the children.  Thinking in the long term, this cannot be healthy for future generations of children or for the future of humanity.

Speaking of humanity, when life becomes a commodity it tends to lose its special value.  If it is OK to kill an unborn child, then why not one being born?  If it is OK to have live birth abortions, then why not well into an infant’s life if that life is just too troublesome?  If we lose our respect for human life, then it becomes much easier to kill in the same way that soldiers are often indoctrinated with the idea that their enemy is somehow less than human.  Easy abortion, abortion on demand, has a way of cheapening life, making it valueless and hence one can more easily take or destroy any human life without remorse.  Is this really the direction we would like to see for the human race?

I believe that the above  points suggest a strong argument against abortion generally.  There will, of course be difficult individual cases such as rape, incest, or simply those rare situations in which an abortion would seem to be the best choice for all concerned, including the child to be aborted.  How to handle these types of situations invokes the beliefs and religious values of those concerned.  But, because these difficult situations will always exist does not mean that abortion should be an accepted alternative in every pregnancy.

Abortion follows the act of reproduction. It is not reproduction.  It is a termination of a reproduction that has already occurred.  It kills a living being, regardless of what one chooses to call that being.  To assume that women have no voice or choice until they find themselves pregnant is incredibly demeaning of women.  To readily accept abortion for reasons of personal convenience turns children into little more than commodities and makes life itself if not valueless, at least less meaningful.  The long term consequences on our civilization seem far worse to me than allowing an unwanted pregnancy to come to term.

Brief Thoughts

 Here are a few short notes as I read today's news:

1.      As people cheer the climber on the Statue of Liberty and as she cheers herself, do any of them consider the families that had come to NY on the 4^th of July to make a once in a lifetime visit to Lady Liberty and who, due to the selfishness of these folks, were prohibited from doing so?

2.      Scott Pruitt’s resignation letter includes his gratitude for the job and his joy in serving his country.  It also states the primary reason for his resignation: “the unrelenting attacks on me personally, [and] my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.” Causing someone to resign because of unrelenting personal attacks is just another way that the Left silences any opposition.  Their intolerance is anything but democratic!

3.      In this country we used to tolerate opposing views.  If we disliked the policies of those currently in power, we voted for change at the next possible election.  Now it seems that people think that if they didn’t get their way in an election, their recourse is not to wait and work for different candidates, but rather to scream, assault, and attack those they do not like until their voices are silenced and they are driven from office.  In so doing they are ignoring the voices of their neighbors with whom they disagree (if not also silencing them) and are placing their own selfish wants above those of their country and its form of government.

4.      People who are opposing the Supreme Court nomination before the nominee is even named are showing us that they don’t really care about objectively looking at qualifications and picking a good jurist.  Rather, they just want to obstruct and oppose the President.

5.      People who want to know how a justice will rule in regard to a prior case do not understand how the courts work or what the role of a justice is: to interpret and apply the law to a specific case that is currently before the court; in so doing the law develops and progress and sometimes old law is altered or overturned.  But justices do not enact laws, nor do good justices go to the court seeking to do so.

6.      People who claim that precedent is set in stone and can never be overturned do not understand what precedent is.  Nor do they seem to realize that, for example, Brown v. Board of Education overruled the “separate but equal” segregation requirements for Blacks and Whites set forth in the precedent case of Plessy v. Ferguson.   People who are against ever seeing the law progress in this way do not understand the role of precedent or of the Court within our three branches of government.

7.      Why do so many of our politicians simply spew forth their party line instead of thinking for themselves?  Why do they put their loyalty to party and their own power above the country?  Why do representatives often just represent one identifiable group within their district rather than considering the voices of all their constituents?

8.      For that matter, why do so few people think beyond the surface or for themselves?

9.      Our country, while not perfect, is a great country.  Why were so many apologizing for it and tearing it down on the 4^th of July of all days?  These people who think that our form of government is so terrible, that our country is so terrible – would they really rather live somewhere else?  I am really curious where that would be and why that would be and, especially for those many wealthy who continually trash America but have the funds to move elsewhere, why don’t they do so?

Words, Phrases, Clarity, and Understanding

I frequently notice that attempts at discussion are often marred by confusion of key terms used by the participants.  Understanding of and precision in terms used are essential for good dialog. When a person is using a term that actually means something else, or that another participant in the dialog simply thinks means something else, the ability to truly understand one another tends to evaporate and the discussion often devolves into argument or worse.  And, indeed, when participants are involved in a discussion of hotly contested issues, one may actually have a strong argument for a particular position, but that argument will not be convincing if it is based on or supported by misused words.

So, in the interests of clarity, here is a chart, listing some pairs of words we often hear, but whose definitions seem to have become confused.  (Most of the definitions are taken from Merriam Webster or similar dictionaries)  Please do not use the following words or phrases interchangeably; the terms are not equivalent with one another

Law A very complex topic, but basically, the definition is: A system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.	Policy Contrary to popular belief, policy is not law.  It, too, is a complex topic, but its basic definition is: a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.
Melting Pot This term is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society.  It is defined as: a place, or the people of a place, where a variety of races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole.	Multicultural This is a society where diverse cultures co-exist and manifest diverse customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.
Capitalism (Also referred to as “free enterprise.”)  The classic definition is: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.	Consumerism This is not a governmental form.  It is: the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; it also refers to preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods.
Immigration This is simply the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.   It does not necessarily mean the immigrant will integrate.	Integration Simply an act or instance of combining into an integral whole.  It is not immigration, though immigration might lead to integration.
Legal Something is legal if it is based on, concerned with or permitted by law. Not liking something does not make it illegal.	Illegal Something is illegal if it is contrary to, forbidden by, or in violation of law.  Wishing an illegal act were legal does not  make it so.
Personal Belief That which someone personally holds to be true and which governs personal behavior.  One can hold personal beliefs that are different from required professional actions and still carry out those required actions.	Professional Action Action one takes in accordance with the requirements of one's profession or career.  Most can competently carry out required actions regardless of one's personal beliefs or preferences as to required professional actions.
Dialog A conversation between two or more people, often to resolve a problem.	Collusion Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Confusion of the above terms, assuming that one equals the other, leads to confusion in discussion and lack of clarity about one’s own or another’s position.  We should all try to be more careful and precise when discussing issues that are of importance.

It would also be useful to clarify definitions of specific governmental forms:

Autocracy: a system of government by one person with absolute power.

Dictatorship: an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism.

Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; a theory advocating elimination of private property.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Social Democracy:  a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Republic:  a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Democratic Republic:  a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies.

Anarchy: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

Lastly, there are some additional terms that merit clarification.  These are terms that are often used in the name calling that is so prevalent today. Even if the views of someone are repugnant to another, it does not necessary mean that the person holding those views is any of the following.  Using charged words to label an opponent does nothing to further a productive discussion.  The definition of each term is followed by my comments (in italics) about the use of the term in current dialog.

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

          Being against immigration as currently practiced, or against illegal immigration, or for enforcing immigration law does not necessarily mean that one is racist or anti-immigrant.  Disliking the acts of someone who happens to belong to a particular race, or simply being of another race, does not make one racist.

Fascism
A form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.  A Fascist is one who follows this belief.

            Because Fascism is often based on racial identity, before throwing this term around one ought to consider who it is that plays identity politics, who it is that shouts down or otherwise silences opponents.  But, even that does not rise to the definition of Fascism which was exemplified by Hitler.

Nazi/Nazism

A Nazi is a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party which controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler and advocated totalitarian government, territorial expansion, anti-Semitism, and Aryan supremacy.  Nazism is the ideology associated with that party.  Beliefs include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.

            This term is often used as an epithet against those holding positions with which one disagrees. Mere disagreement, even when strongly advocated, does not make one a Nazi.

Holocaust

Technically this word simply means “destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.”  However, as usually used it refers to the totality of actions by Hitler against the Jews, including extermination of over 6 million.

            Temporary separation of families pursuant to valid immigration law is not a holocaust.  To call it such cheapens what happened to the Jews; by so loosely using this term for anything one finds unpleasant or even abhorrent, reduces the acts of Hitler to being something similarly merely unpleasant, and not the horrendous evil that we should never forget.

Real conversation requires understanding and precision in the language one uses.  The above is a start at defining some essential terms. Hopefully this may help those who are tempted to use these words to use them more carefully. If we all would be sure we understand the meanings of words that we are using in our conversations, then perhaps those conversations would be more productive acts of understanding ultimately leading to resolutions to the divisiveness that is destroying us.

Flags and Identity

Flags, for ages, have been carried into battle on behalf of the country for whom the flag bearer is fighting.  When victory occurs, the flag of the victorious country is often planted by those who fought for that country and its victory.  People generally wave flags on behalf of a country of which they are proud.   “National symbols-in particular, national anthems and flags-provide perhaps the strongest, clearest statement of national identity. In essence, they serve as modem totems . . . signs that bear a special relationship to the nations they represent, distinguishing them from one another and reaffirming their identity boundaries. Since the inception of nations, national leaders have embraced and adopted national flags and anthems, using them to create bonds, motivate patriotic action, honor the efforts of citizens, and legitimate formal authority.” (Symbols and the World System: National Anthems and Flags by Karen E. Cerulo).

Let’s look at some depictions of this use of a flag to honor one’s country and its victory.

1-A drawing of the raising of the Islamic flag at the conquest of Constantinople, 1453 CE:

2- U.S. flag raised atop Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima, soon after the mountaintop was captured at on February 23, 1945:

3- The hoisting of the Red Flag over the Reichstag May 2, 1945 has come to represent the ‘total victory’ of Soviet Russia over Nazi Germany in the Second World War:

4-Flag planted on the moon to show U.S. pride in landing there before all others:

5- “Victory Monument”, erected at Puthumattalan, Sri Lanka, in memory of its War Heroes:

These are but a few examples of the use of a flag to honor the country which one serves.  There are even computer and board games which involve planting a flag to gain territory or otherwise gain points for the persona or country a player represents.

Now let’s look at one more photo:

These are Honduran flags raised at the U.S. border by alleged asylum seekers.  To me this photo is not unlike those others in which the flag holder raises it proudly on behalf of his country against an enemy. 

So, here is what I don’t understand.  If these individuals are fleeing Honduras, why do they proudly and assertively hold that country’s flag as part of a border protest as they seek asylum in the country whose border they appear to be assaulting?  Why do they proudly wave the flag of a country they are running from?  If these individuals found their home country distasteful enough to partake in the long caravan toward the U.S., and if they were so desirous of entering the U.S. that they did not take time to seek asylum in closer countries, then why do they seemingly assault our borders on behalf of their homeland's flag when they arrive?

Recently, I read an article pointing out that we need to separate the words “immigration” and “identification” in our national debate.  This photo suggests the wisdom of that.  I believe that most in this country are not opposed to legal immigration.  I also believe that many understand the need for a national identity for a country to survive.  Many of those who seem to be against immigration are actually against creating separate mini-countries within this one.  This photo, of individuals assaulting our border wall while proudly waving the flag of another country, suggests that the fear of our country’s identity being dissolved into factions of competing cultural identities is not without a basis. 

This country consistently opens its arms to those who wish to come here because they appreciate what this country is – its culture, its way of life, its laws, its government, and what it stands for.  Our culture includes diversity and respect for customs, religions, and traditions of others, but it also includes a cohesive national identity.  We are a melting pot; but, we are not a multicultural society.  When someone claims to want to become a part of this country but does so while assertively waving the flag of another, one simply wonders what it is that they really are seeking.

Walls and immigration laws allow us to ensure that those who want to enter do so because they want to join our country and participate in all its benefits as well as its responsibilities.  They allow us assurance that once within this country, those here will be proud to wave the American flag.  The current call for open borders would allow the planting of many flags within this country and in so doing would dissolve the concept of country itself.  In essence, an open border would represent our planting of a white flag, the flag of surrender, to a divisive doctrine of multiculturalism and identity politics that will ultimately destroy us.