Let Us Prey For Guidance

As the Catholic Church is in turmoil and dissent over the issue of politicians who do not oppose abortion rights receiving communion (read Biden), they might consider looking back in history to find some interesting suggestions as to ways to resolve the issue.

 A few of these examples from history (and various unspecified Internet sites) that we could consider adopting today are listed below. 

Example one:  >On July 16, 1054, Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius was excommunicated, starting the “Great Schism” that created the two largest denominations in Christianity—the Roman 

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths.<

So how about an American Orthodox Church? The Pope would still be unhappy, but least the bishops would get their way. Although, thinking about it, Biden would probably stay Roman Catholic and continue as a communicant in the churches which remained loyal to Rome in our second Great Schism.   Still, the bishops could declare a moral victory.

Example two:  Henry VIII is not allowed to get a divorce because the Pope doesn’t think it’s moral. Henry declares a schism that establishes him as the head of the “real” church. Yes, technically, the Queen of England is the head of the Anglican church.  (The Archbishop of Canterbury is subordinate to her and is merely the chief cleric.)

This could work out really well for the Christian nationalists, if they declared Donald Trump the head of the new American Church. That sounds better than Anglican doesn’t it?

Example three:  Henry declares that Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, is being disrespectful to him angily wonders why no one will stop this “lowly cleric” from insulting their king? Angry at this lese majeste; a group of knights take action.Thomas is murdered in the cathedral!

Then the king is forced to perform an extremely humiliating pilgrimage to show his penance and regret.

The difficulty with with this one is, I can’t think of who would get murdered and why. Also, I don’t like murder. Not really a good solution for today.

Example four:  >Western Schism, also called Great Schism or Great Western Schism, in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the period from 1378 to 1417, when there were two, and later three, rival popes, each with his own following, his own Sacred College of Cardinals, and his own administrative offices.<

This is an interesting solution. However, we would have to find a third Pope.  Any suggestions?  How about volunteers?

Example five: > Luther became increasingly angry about the clergy selling 'indulgences' - promised remission from punishments for sin, either for someone still living or for one who had died and wasbelieved to be in purgatory. On 31 October 1517, he published his '95 Theses', attacking papal abuses and the sale of indulgences.<

No one is selling indulgences anymore (or any of the other practices Martin Luther decried so sharply).  Still, there is a big disagreement about who should or should not be allowed to receive communion. That might be sufficient justification for creating an entirely new branch of Christianity.

Since he was protesting the practices of the established Church, his new branch was called Protestant. The new branch today could be named… I’ve run dry here, I have no idea what could be called. Politicianism?

I could go on because the history of Christian belief and practice is very complex and involved. Nevertheless, I think that five examples are sufficient unto the day.  Dare I say, five suggestions?

Orthodox Or Heterodox?

 In response to the effort of American Catholic bishops to ban Biden from communion, a move which is not supported by the Pope:

Over the centuries the Catholic Church has always had its dissenters.  Many of them were loyal church members who just had a different spin on things. The Franciscans are a fine example. It’s not that they wanted to attack the authority of the Pope, it’s just that they communed with God more directly, which the papacy (not inaccurately) interpreted as a threat to its own authority.  Pope Honorius III brought the Franciscans under control (a bit, anyway) by recognizing them as an order of the church and thus putting them under his authority.

To this day they remain inclined toward mysticism and direct contact with God, a religious approach no longer highly regarded within the Roman Catholic Church, although profoundly important in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Abelard was even worse from the Church point of view. He replaced Anselm as the great philosophic leader of Church thought. The problem was that in his position as a professor at the University of Paris he taught his students that they should study natural philosophy because by finding out the way the world actually worked in an objective, empirical manner; they would see how God had designed the world. He believed, and taught, that this would inevitably lead them to conclude that the Catholic Church was right about God. 

The Church wanted none of it. They wanted everyone to simply believe what they were told to believe.  After all, the true teachings of the church WERE the truth. They saw natural philosophy, an early form of science, as sometimes contradicting Church teachings (nailed it!), and in such a case, the church teachings were right and anything that disagreed with them was wrong. In fact, that was true in any and every case. Yet they couldn’t condemn him for it. First, he was very popular and famous throughout Christendom so a lot of attention would be drawn to muzzling him, generating controversy and debate which might weaken Church authority. Worse, all they could say against him was that he said that the actual objective, empirical world reflected God’s will (kind of obvious when you think about it) and if they said no it doesn’t, then they sounded like they were being very foolish. So they had to let him teach. That meant he remained a highly regarded member of the Catholic Church even though his doctrines were not in full alignment with Church orthodoxy.

No recent schisms have occurred. However, the Church does contain a wide variety of beliefs and opinions. Orthodox Catholics are orthodox. They toe the line, and it is a very straight line indeed.

Not all Catholics, however, are orthodox.

We might regard America’s bishops as the ultra orthodox within the Church  They want to go back a few centuries. They want to restore the monarchal authority of the Church.  The current Pope sees that as a way to simply speed up the process of the erosion of Church membership.

History seems to indicate that he is correct. The more fundamentalist and orthodox churches become, the more rapidly they bleed out membership. This has been displayed over the past half century in America. It’s long been the reality in Europe.

The ancient Christian desire for purity, once very attractive (and still attractive to some) is proving to be such a bad taste in contemporary spiritual mouths that it is driving many away.

Those in favor of purity argue, what use is a church if it doesn’t follow its own doctrine?  The more liberal argue, what use is a church if it has no members?

Whatever resolution is worked out for this particular moment in time, the struggle has gone on for as long as there have been Christians, long before there was a Catholic church, and it will continue for the foreseeable future.

It is interesting that polytheistic religions don’t generally have this problem. Different Greek cities were not only different nations but they often had their own mythological stories about a given set of gods. Was Helios the sun god? Or was it Apollo Helios? For that matter, wasn’t Osiris just Dionysus in a different form?  The answer is that it could be both, or neither, depending on where you lived.

This proved to be a very stable system for thousands of years, in various forms, during pre-monotheist history.  Tolerance is not an aspect of faith generally associated with monotheism.

It occurs to me that one could take a lighter look at all this and sing a song! The song could be, what do you do with the problem like Saint Anselm? I don’t think the answer would be turning him into a nanny for some adorable kids who sing catchy little songs.

On third thought, shouldn’t the song be, what do you do with a problem like Joe Biden? I don’t know. I think I’m overthinking this and it’s time to end this post. Also, I just heated up some pizza in the air fryer. And I’m hungry.

Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (And Savior Of Homunculi)

In response to a friend’s post regarding Republicans insisting that abortion kills people but somehow ignoring how pollution, guns, and many other things kill people and yet Republicans simply don’t care about them, I replied:

Tristram Shandy, Gentleman dealt with a similar problem in 1758. At that time it was an accepted belief that every sperm contained an homunculus; a miniature human waiting to be planted in the field of the woman’s womb where it could grow into a baby and thus a person.

At that time it was not unknown to baptize babies before birth if it was thought they might not survive delivery by inserting a syringe of holy water into the vagina and thus baptizing the baby. No. I’m not joking. That was a real thing in some circles at that time.

Tristam Shandy, Gentleman pointed out that every time a man had sex with a woman uncounted numbers of homunculi were allowed to simply die unbaptized. Therefore, they were damned to hell. 

Finding this prospect horrific, he came up with a solution.  Immediately after having relations with a woman, he suggested, a syringe of holy water should immediately be injected into her reproductive system by her lover-husband so as to save those poor little souls from damnation.

Republicans often declare the existence of a magic moment when human life begins and the fertilized egg becomes ensouled. But eggs are alive prior to fertilization and sperm are alive prior to fertilizing an egg. Fertilized eggs frequently fail to implant and pass out of a woman’s body unnoticed. Should we require a careful examination of every time a woman might just possibly pass such an ensouled egg so that it could be given a burial as some Republicans wish to insist follows every abortion?

A fertilized egg is not the same thing as a baby. A blastocyst is not the same thing as a baby. Not even a fetus is the same thing as a baby.

Calling aborted fertilized eggs, blastocysts, and calling fetuses babies makes as much sense as calling them senior citizens. They might grow into that, but they aren’t that yet.

Personally, I find abortion creepy and disturbing. That’s why I support laws which been shown to reduce abortions in nation after nation, time after time.

That is, availability of safe and legal abortions under reasonable restrictions, excellent programs of sex education emphasizing prevention, and the high availability of free or very cheap birth control.

The question becomes do you really want to reduce abortions or do you want to make a big flag waving show of how much you hate abortions by banning the very policies that actually reduce abortions?

And if you’re interested in the interuterine baptism methodologies here’s a link:

http://obgynmedicalantiques.com/fetal-baptism

Burke And Hare Or DaVinci And Franklin?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/trump-ban-on-fetal-tissue-research-blocks-coronavirus-treatment-effort/2020/03/18/ddd9f754-685c-11ea-abef-020f086a3fab_story.html

Fetal tissue research is very creepy and discomfiting. However, the abortions have already taken place.  What is done is done and cannot be undone. Or, to put another way; the moving hand writes, and having writ, moves on.

For centuries medicine was held back by the creepy, discomfiting feelings we held toward the dissection of corpses. This is exactly the same situation.

Reverence and respect for the dead should not cause the living to join them.

As Xenophon put it, “Excess of grief for the dead is madness; for it is an injury to the living, and the dead know it not.”

Footnote:  I shall confess my embarrassment. I tried to find the exact quote and I couldn’t understand what was wrong with Google. Why couldn’t I find it? The answer is because I was looking for the quote by Xenophenes, not Xenophon.  In self-defense I point out that the names are very similar, and their life spans were fairly close to each other.  Not to mention, they were both Greek philosophers. (All Greek philosophers sound alike to me.)🧐

Once We Were Christians

THE ARTICLE:  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/01/anti-abortion-laws-legislation-clinics-dangerous-methods

ME:  Laws against abortion don't prevent abortion. They prevent safe abortion, and in the process they promote unsafe abortion. > Roberts’ past work is part of a body of evidence suggesting that women who want an abortion aren’t deterred by abortion restrictions. “We’re not finding anything that would turn that assumption completely on its head,” she said. “Women who really want an abortion, for the most part, will figure out how to get one.” <

DAN:  Weak politicians pump up the excitement among the religious and any other people who might vote for them.  Especially when they can't think of anything more important to do.

ME:  Once upon a time evangelicals deeply believed politics was a dirty, bad thing. It was something which could pull them in and make them lust after worldly power instead of being dedicated to saving souls. They were right.
Then some Republican Party operatives realized there was a whole pool of untapped voters available in fundamentalist churches, if only they could find one subject to rouse them up.  They finally settled on  abortion, previously not an area of great interest in  evangelical churches, and sent out propaganda films to create a new interest and generate new Republican voters.

It worked.  Evangelical churches have been transformed into Republican Party campaign centers.  Pastors are now political operatives.  Party platforms have replaced the Gospels.
"Blessed be the name of (insert name of current candidate)!"

A Real Solution To A Real Problem

The Vox headline reads:

Abortion rates in North America and Europe are now at 30-year lows

Note that the use of abortion has dropped in both America and Europe, even though in Europe there are no highly restrictive abortion laws being desperately passed by conservatives on a crusade to save what they say are human beings fully developed, fully formed, already born, and perhaps even already raised.

 I remind my readers that I hate abortion and find it repugnant. However,  I find the situation in which desperate women are forced to engage in illegal and unsafe abortions even more repugnant. Our choice is not, do we lose unborn children or protect them? The choice is, do we lose unborn fetuses and their mothers or do we allow safe, legal abortion but prevent the necessity of it by providing free, or at least very inexpensive, contraceptives?

 The most important question here in America is why do conservatives keep insisting on hurting both the unborn and their mothers by not providing contraceptives to those who need them? The solution to the problem is clear, simple, and effective, yet conservatives refuse to do what works and insist on doing what has the opposite effect of what they desire. It is hard to respect people who say they want to put out the fire in your house by banning the use of firehoses and that they are going to save your property by throwing on so much gasoline that this will cause all the oxygen to be burned up, thus extinguishing the fire.

To repeat the key point, why has abortion so sharply declined in North America and other developed countries? The answer has nothing to do with laws against abortion. As this study by one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world notes:

-- The declining abortion rates in the developed world, experts say, tell a story about better access to contraceptives. More frequent use of better birth control gives women more control over their fertility — and ultimately seems to lower abortion rates internationally.
"When contraceptives aren't available, women use abortion, even if it isn't legally sanctioned and even if it puts them at great physical risk," ...

..."When contraceptives are more available, use of abortion declines."...

...Countries where abortion is illegal don't have lower abortion rates... --

Why is this so hard for conservatives to understand? In many ways, this is a silly question. Conservatives don't like facts. Conservatives don't like reality. Conservatives live in a delusional alternate reality in which everything is exactly the way they feel it should be.

I know that this is so. I just can't understand how obviously intelligent people can allow their emotions to shut down their higher brain functions. If abortion is such a critical issue, then perhaps they should take effective action to reduce abortion rates even further. Sorry, I just keep trying to be realistic. That's a losing battle.

Prolife vs. Prochoice Forced Choice/False Dichotomy?

Posted on Facebook:

Responses:

Friend:  One day, you'll be sorry your team is killing babies. It just ain't right... you know that ... and now you are reminded.

ME:  You don't see that we hate abortion too.  We want to stop it through the  proven methods, which can reduce abortion by massive amounts.  They are:  comprehensive sexual health education and free, or at least inexpensive, birth control.

The problem with outlawing abortion is that it does not stop abortions. If it did, I would probably support such a law.  Abortions have been practiced in every human society for all of human history.  Sometimes legal, sometimes illegal, the practice has never been successfully prevented.  Given the forced choice (forced by hard, ugly reality) of dangerous, brutal, illegal abortions which often kill both mother and fetus or safe, legal abortions which do not harm the mother, I choose that course which is least harmful.  In other words, I see myself as prolife.  We must save as many lives as we can.

 Always remember, I hate abortion.  I just hate the more dangerous option of illegal abortion even more.

I am sorry, right now, that human life is being lost.  I am doing all I can to minimize that loss.  The choices are harsh and terrible, but they are the choices this world inflicts upon us.  Like doctors in a triage situation, we each make the best decision we can and then we must live with the consequences.  I see no teams or victories in this.  I see only the eternal struggle of good people to make hard decisions.

Fear Is The Mind Killer

I shared the comment below. In response to friends' comments, I added:

Republican Maine state Representative Lawrence Lockman said in 1995, “If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.”

Once a group, perhaps especially a political party, becomes dedicated to the tactics of hate and fear they find themselves carried along by their own self generated avalanche. An endless barrage of new, ever more shocking declarations are required to maintain their movement's energy.

Apparently this individual has already apologized for his statements, but the mere fact that he felt not only free but even obligated to make them means that no apology is sufficient. Worse, he doesn't seem to repudiate it. He's just sorry he said it and it got reported. Every parent knows this one. "I'm really sorry I got caught. I'm not sorry I did it, only that you caught me."

My question is, why do any women vote Republican? Why are there still Log Cabin Republicans? Even allowing for gerrymandered districts, how can any Republican be elected to anything?

Much of the answer lies in taking a closer look at a phrase from the cult classic Dune. "Fear is the mind killer," say the Bene Gesert Witches. Partly correct. Any truly powerful emotion is the mind killer. Fear and hatred, currently all that the Republican Party has to offer, can very quickly destroy the already limited capacity of the human mind to think in a rational manner.

Note: I have long thought someone should rewrite the novel and call it Prune. The Benihana witches are seeking the ultimate household appliance, the Cuisinart Hat Rack... There's lots more but there's no point in going on because either you like Dune and don't appreciate my trying to spoof it or you don't really know what the hell I'm talking about, so I'll just hush up.

Idle Thoughts -- Pro What?

Give an account of the most prominent pro-life and pro-chioce arguments. In your view, which is the strongest argument on each side? Why ?

The pro-life movement is different internationally from the pro-life movement in America. The pro-life movement in America focuses almost exclusively upon abortion and occasionally upon assisted suicide. These two items are included in the international definition, but it also extends to quality of life for the severely disabled, the death penalty, and an anti war position.

And now we enter into the strange contradiction of those who say that they are pro-life. They are opposed to abortion and to assisted suicide in the strongest emotional terms. Yet, here in the United States, most of these people are also deeply wedded to the death penalty. They also attended the strongest supporters of military actions which resulted in many deaths.

This is particularly strange because the pro-life movement in other countries, as exemplified by the positions of the Catholic Church, are in favor of all life. That is to say, they are as against the death penalty and wars as they are against abortion

This logical contradiction is easily explained. In American politics the emotional issues are utilized as a substitute for logical thought. Thus, an American who says he is pro-life but believes in the death penalty and in frequent foreign military interventions which result in many deaths sees no contradiction between these two positions because one feels right while the other feels wrong. Logic is not an issue in this case.

Many feel this is a totally irrational position, and they certainly have a point. However, to those were holding these positions there's no hypocrisy or contradiction involved. As far as they are concerned, they are trusting their guts. That is to say, they are trusting that their emotions will give them a more accurate picture of what is right and wrong, of what is moral, than will rational thought. In fact, many of them are offended at the idea that rational thought could yield morality. After all, they believe that atheists must be immoral since in their belief system all morality flows from God and it is clear that that which makes you feel good is that which God approves while that which makes you feel bad is that which God disapproves.

The obvious problem with this is much of what we feel is right or wrong is dependent upon societal prejudices, our parents' beliefs, the way we were raised, and many other factors which are highly subjective.

Now back to the American focus, which is on abortion. In so far as the pro-life movement denies people personal choice it would be called conservative. This is in cases such as assisted suicide and abortion. In cases where this pro-life ethic would conflict with government control as in the case of death penalty or war it becomes liberal.

This explains why in America these items are regarded as isolated from each other. The international movement tends not not care whether these issue is conservative or liberal, it tends to judge each situation upon its own moral values. In America, however, it becomes very important to be a part of a strict and rigid group.

So, American conservatives do not wish to support any liberal positions, therefore they exclude war and the death penalty from their position. American liberals tend to be more accepting of the international view, so tend to keep all points united.

The pro-choice movement insists upon several points which must remain legal:

1. Contraception use must remain available to any sexually active individual regardless of his or her age or the parents' beliefs.

2. Emergency contraception use, which can be regarded as a separate issue from one, because it is possible that an emergency contraceptive utilization might prevent a fertilized egg from implantation, must be available. Many pro-life members consider this to be an act of abortion, and therefore, a form of murder.

3. Abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy must be available, safe, and legal.

4. Parenthood for loving couples is a right, regardless of sexual orientation.

The American pro-life movement insists upon the following points:

1. Contraception use is acceptable to some, but not all, pro-lifers under certain circumstances. Some condemn contraceptive use in general. Others believe that contraceptives may be used but only if certain conditions are met. If an individual is a minor, his or her parents must approve the contraceptive use or it must be denied to the children under any circumstances.

2. Individuals who religiously object to the use of contraceptives should not be required to provide them even to their employees through health insurance.

3. No contraceptives should be used which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Once a human egg has been fertilized it is a full human being and has all the rights of any other human being. This includes the right not to be killed via abortion.

4. Abortion is murder and both doctors and patients engaging in the act should be arrested and punished for the crime.

5. Children should not be taught about contraceptive methodologies except by their parents. This includes sexually active teenagers. The only truly acceptable method of birth control is absence.

6. Parenthood should be allowed only for loving heterosexual couples in a legally and religiously sanctioned marriage.

7. The government must enforce these rules.

And having given that background, to return to the question about the strengths of the arguments:

Let's take the items one by one...pro-choice.

1. The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and all the health problems that result, including abortion, is effective contraception. This is a solution which both sides should be able to approve. It simply makes sense.

2. Preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is a very minor thing. A fertilized egg is simply one single cell. To say that one single cell is the same thing as a baby or an adult human being is absolutely absurd. Millions of fertilized eggs are lost to pregnant women around the world every year, and no one even notices. The argument that it could become a human being, that it has the potential to become a human being, is silly. Any nucleated cell in your body has that potential with the correct scientific advances.

3. The reason for having abortions remaining safe, available, and legal is simple. The idea of the pro-life movement that by banning something legally you can make it go away is nonsense. Through out human history there have been abortions and attempts at abortion. They often involve toxic substances and physical violence to the body. They often result in the death of both mother and child. The idea that you are saving a life by killing both the baby and the mother is patently nonsense. Personally, I find abortion repulsive and wrong. But I find illegal abortion even more repulsive and more wrong. Abortion is not a good thing, but it is a necessary evil which protects young women from harming themselves.

4. Study after study has shown that children raised in a stable marriage between two parents, regardless of the sexual orientation of those parents, are very well-adjusted and live good lives. There is no moral reason to ban same-sex couples from adopting.

Again, the issues one by one… pro life.

1. Parents normally do, and should, have great control over their children's lives. Issues such as contraception certainly are issues in which parents should have a voice. How can the government take away a parent's right to guide his or her children's moral and ethical behavior?

(And my counter argument: However, this control does weaken as the child becomes older and becomes more and more able to make his or her own choices. Furthermore, the government does not allow parents to deny suffering children basic medical care. A balance is required here. Parents are not absolute dictators. They do not own their children. The children also have rights.)

2. The government should not force people to do things which are against their religious beliefs. Employers who are against contraceptives should not be required to provide them through medical insurance.

(My counter argument: public employers who are providing insurance are engaged in public activities. While churches should not be required provide such insurance, people who engage in a secular business should be governed by secular, not religious rules. Also, there are people who religiously believe that other races, usually Blacks, are inferior and should not be granted medical care. If you accept this argument it means that those people, due to their sincere religious belief, should not be required to get insurance to their Black employees, only their White ones. )

3. Once a human egg has been fertilized it has all the potential to become a full human being. Therefore, it is a full human being. We must treat fertilized eggs exactly as we treat other human beings. They have all the rights every human being has.

(My counter argument: Already described above. Simply because the cell has the potential become a full human being means only that it is a single cell that has that potential. Are we to bury our fingernail clippings? When I clip off the bit of skin on my hangnail should we give that a full funeral?  Also, remember my point about a person has a chance to save a refrigerator full of frozen fertilized eggs, perhaps hundreds of individuals, or a single live baby. Anyone who would not choose the baby is some kind of monster. Clearly a baby is much more than any number of fertilized eggs. The argument is ludicrous.)

4. Any fetus at any stage of development, even a simply fertilized egg, is a full human being because it has the potential to grow and become a human being. Therefore it is murder to kill this group of cells. No society can survive which tolerates murder. The government must enforce this law.

(My counterargument: The same as the counterargument above. However, I add the more developed a fetus is the more clearly more closely comes to being human. This is why abortion should be regulated.)

5. Abstinence solves all problems. If teens and adults are abstinent no one gets pregnant early, there's no need for abortion, there are no sexual transmitted diseases, and the world is much healthier place.

(My counterargument: Yes, in an ideal world this would be true. But in this world, the idea that abstinence will solve all problems is either a very bad joke or an absolute refusal to face reality. Sex will happen. Even the Puritans faced this problem, with many marriages occurring because a woman became pregnant. Pretending there is a magic solution to a real problem does not solve the problem.)

6. God intended men and women to marry. This is obvious because only a man and woman can make a new life. Same-sex couples are unnatural and must be banned by any moral society. This is especially true if they are raising children. Immoral people should not be allowed to raise children.

(My counter argument: Homosexual relationships have been observed in nature in hundreds of different species. If you define natural as that which happens in nature, homosexuality is entirely natural.)

7. Governments must have laws or society will fail. Since pro life positions are moral, approved by God and follow natural law, they must be enforced.

(My counter argument: Pro life positions on abortion and contraceptives are not moral, except by the standards of a fanatical minority. Most Americans believe in safe, legally regulated, limited abortions.  The minority must not be allowed to dictate to the majority.)

Best arguments both sides.

Pro-life

Abortion is destroying a potential human life. The bigger the fetus grows, the more complex it becomes, the closer it is to being fully human. Our instinctive revulsion at abortion does have a solid basis.

Pro-choice

Reality is real. Sometimes it is harsh, even brutal. Nevertheless, it is real. Governments must make reasonable adaptations to reality. We do not live in an idealized fantasy world but one that must contain within it many compromises. What we must do, what our governments must do, is the best we can under difficult circumstances.

Idle Thoughts -- Abortion

This is another one of those areas where I just can't make a simple choice. We humans like to think in polarized terms. Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works has an excellent discussion of this particular problem. We think in terms of on off, or black-and-white. We forget that their can be things like dimmer switches and shades of gray with a lot of territory in between.

Personally, I am against abortion, unless there is a serious threat to life or health of the mother or unborn child. However, I also believe that it isn't my business to tell a woman, her doctor, and her god what they should do. Obviously, we need to have some reasonable restrictions on abortion. But this debate isn't about what the reasonable restrictions on abortion should be, it's about whether abortion should or should not be legal in America at all. It is an extremist question, and that is not surprising since many Americans take extremist positions.

Extremists on both sides of this argument tale extreme positions. Te right-wing wishes to not only ban abortions but to have them criminalized. In some cases they wish to do so even if the mother's health as it is in danger. They are on record as having said so repeatedly. We should take note that their claim that the left-wing somehow enjoys killing babies is simply not true. A few extremist left-wingers do say they believe in unrestricted abortion with no limits, but even they do not say this is a pleasant or enjoyable experience.

Most people in America believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and available under certain limited circumstances.

When you talk to left-wingers, even the more radical ones, you quickly realize that none of them are on record-setting said that abortions are a good idea. I have an all my watching political programs never heard anyone say this. I have never heard any comment from any person taking any position on this issue that said anything but that abortions were anything but painful and regrettable. Mostly what they say is that it is a choice which should be made by a woman and her doctor. They make no claim that it is a good or happy choice. Even the left wing extremists who want abortions on demand with no restrictions make no claim that there is anything enjoyable about it.

Now let me see if I can find an article that reflects this more moderate and balanced position rather than either of the extremes.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/25/1124109/-Elucidating-the-Moderate-Position-on-Abortion#

-- In public polling, it seems to be fairly consistent over time that about 25% of Americans think that abortion should be legal under all circumstances, that 20% of Americans think that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, and that a bit over 50% think that abortion should be legal in some but not all circumstances. A recent Pew poll found that only 26% of Democrats believe that abortion should be legal in all cases, while only 22% of Republicans believe that believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases. --

This quote from the article shows that just over 20% of Americans take the extreme right-wing position of banning all abortions under any circumstances. That's just about 1/5 of our population. Also, just over 25% of Americans agree with
left-wing extremists that abortion should be available on demand without limitation. That's about one quarter of our population.

That puts 50% of Americans willing to accept some sort of compromise position in between those two extremes. Wow! Bell shaped curve anyone?

The article goes on. -- Based on this, I propose this explanation for how the moderate middle thinks about abortion. (And I do think there is moderate middle on this issue. I find it strange how we have economic "centrists" who propose compromises that few people actually seem to believe, but we don't have abortion "centrists" who propose compromises that a lot of Americans actually believe.) --

This is true to some extent. On TV and in other media we always seem to hear the left and right wing extremist having hissy fits at each other. We never seem to hear the moderate center. If you are like me and you're a political junkie who consumes a lot of media, you do get to hear the moderate voices on the economy. But most Americans don't. But even a regular viewer like me almost never hears anything moderate about abortion.

I think this is because moderate position on abortion is what America has adopted at this time. The economic issues are very real and may change at any moment. On the other hand, in spite of the efforts of the right to radically change our nations abortion laws, they're mostly proving to be successful only at the state and local, levels. They are not showing any real progress on the national level. Since what America allows legally today is what most Americans support, there's really no reason for the moderate center to speak up. They have what they want. So what is there to talk about?


The right-wing extremists say that the moment an egg and sperm merge, that single cell is instantly exactly the same value as a full human being. The left-wing extremists say no, until the baby is actually born it is of no value at all. Moderates say that the more the cell develops, the more close it comes to being a human being. The more human it is; the more valuable it is. Therefore the more protected it should be.

This is reflected in current law which allows abortions in the first trimester but severely limits them thereafter.


It does not surprise me to find myself in disagreement with the majority of my fellow Americans. That is happened quite often. But in this case, I am in complete agreement with the majority of my fellow Americans. The above paragraph states my beliefs. If we are talking about a fertilized egg, we are talking about a single cell, not a human being. But the more developed a fetus becomes, the closer it is to be human and therefore the better it should be protected.

This is the law as we understand it today. This is what most Americans believe.

I must add, however, that I do disagree that the fertilized egg is truly just a cell. Spontaneous abortions in nature occur quite frequently. Often, a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterus and simply exits her body in a woman's menstrual flow. I do not think that is the death of a baby. Nevertheless, I do not like abortion under any circumstances. But that does not mean I believe that abortion should be illegal. I just do not believe it is it is right to force my morals down everybody else's throats.

Now let me make one more comment about the right-wing position. I am copying this from previous post on my blog.

http://el-naranjal-del-desierto.blogspot.com/2012/08/thoughts-on-personhood.html

A link from a post from my friend Nick: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/moral-relativism

My response:

Someone brilliantly answered the belief that personhood begins at conception by proposing a thought experiment. Ask such a believer what he or she would do in the following situation:

You are alone in a building, except for a freezer unit containing several hundred frozen human ova which have been fertilized, but which remain in the single cell stage, and a three month old baby. You receive a warning that a bomb will destroy the building in a few minutes. You can't carry out both the freezer and the baby. You must take one or the other. There will be no time to return to save the one left behind.

Which do you save?

If the ova are fully human, you must save them. Hundreds of innocent lives will be saved while one innocent life will be lost.

I doubt even the most radical believer in personhood would actually leave the baby to die and save the fertilized eggs. Of course, extremism IS extreme, so maybe I'm wrong.

I think everyone dislikes, and many hate abortion, but what is the alternative? Do Americans really want a return to the dark days of illegal and amateur efforts to end pregnancy? It did not save the lives of the unborn, and it often took the mother to her grave. Legal abortion with reasonable restrictions may be disturbing, but it is better than the horrors of the past.

Thoughts on personhood

A link from a post from my friend Nick:  http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/moral-relativism

My response:

Someone brilliantly answered the belief that personhood begins at conception by proposing a thought experiment.  Ask such a believer what he or she would do in the following situation:

You are alone in a building, except for a freezer unit containing several hundred frozen human ova which have been fertilized, but which remain in the single cell stage, and a three month old baby.  You receive a warning that a bomb will destroy the building in a few minutes.  You can't carry out both the freezer and the baby.  You must take one or the other.  There will be no time to return to save the one left behind.

Which do you save?

If the ova are fully human, you must save them.  Hundreds of innocent lives will be saved while one innocent life will be lost.  

I doubt even the most radical believer in personhood would actually leave the baby to die and save the fertilized eggs. Of course, extremism IS extreme, so maybe I'm wrong.

I think everyone dislikes, and many hate abortion, but what is the alternative? Do Americans really want a return to the dark days of illegal and amateur efforts to end pregnancy?  It did not save the lives of the unborn, and it often took the mother to her grave. Legal abortion with reasonable restrictions may be disturbing, but it is better than the horrors of the past.