Caution: Obscene Scientific Ignorance on Display in Georgia Democrats’ Protest Bill

First, a quick question to set the mood for this post.

I’ve aired my grievances about the lack of logic and cohesive thought of pro-choice arguments previously, but I just cannot leave the subject alone when I see a stunt like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/georgia-vasectomy-ban_n_1293369.html

The gist of the story is:  HB 954 in the Georgia House moves to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy because we now know growing humans can feel pain at least by this gestational age.  In a sort of protest to this bill, Georgia House Democrats have proposed legislation –obviously, tongue in cheek-- that would seek to ban vasectomies.  Yasmin Neal proposed the farcical bill and states, “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States."

This would be brilliant politics if only the decision to have a vasectomy were somehow analogous to the decision to have an abortion.  But the analogy collapses when one gives it more than a nanosecond of consideration and leaves aside self-congratulatory smugness over aligning an unwilling universe to one's pet progressive ideology.  Vasectomies are meant to prevent pregnancies; abortions are meant to end already existing pregnancies.  A vasectomy is done to a consenting adult’s body (a potential father); an abortion is done inside a consenting adult’s body (the actual mother) to the body of a separate member of the species homo sapiens who is given no say in the matter (the embryonic or fetal human).  Therefore, the rough equivalent to a male’s vasectomy is not, for a woman, abortion, but rather tubal ligation.  Male sterilization vs. female sterilization, apples to apples.

There is an extreme minority fringe on the outskirts of any political movement, and the pro-life movement would be no exception.  Is it possible that some pro-lifer out there in the world would propose or vote for legislation to ban voluntary sterilization?  Hey, anything is possible.  But, that is so far off the map of mainstream pro-life issues you need NASA to find it for you.  Many people consider me a pro-life nut, particularly because I go so "fanatically" far as to use natural family planning to space children, rather than use artificial birth control.  However, even a nut like me would not be for banning voluntary sterilization.  I would not sterilize myself; I would not recommend it for anyone; but, it is your body, your choice.  I think smoking is bad for one’s health, too, but I do not think it should be illegal.  I might give you some unsolicited advice against smoking, but I would not push for a law to take your choice away.  However, when you start making a “choice” to disintegrate, decapitate, dismember or otherwise kill and treat as garbage a completely innocent human being it should be obvious you are no longer saying, “My body my choice,” but rather, “My body over your dead body.”

Abortion involves two bodies, not one.  At conception, a member of our species suddenly exists who did not exist mere seconds before:  his or her genetic code is not the mother's own; only half of it came from her; the DNA is complete and utterly unique.  Two haploid cells (each containing half of a human DNA strand), a sperm and an egg, met and formed a diploid cell (complete human DNA).  The organism is quite clearly and obviously NOT THE MOTHER.  Just as you and I once were, the organism is in the zygotic stage.  Is this zygote alive?  Yes.  It has metabolism, maintains homeostasis, grows, responds to stimuli –say it along with your high school biology teacher:  “If you mark this 'not alive' on your exam tomorrow I will place a big, red X on your answer because it will be WRONG.”  Now, what kind of zygote is it exactly?  A whale zygote?  Dolphin?  Cat?  No, that is genetically impossible.  If you are human, your offspring is human.  It is a human zygote; it is a member of the species homo sapiens just like the rest of us.  If you do not believe me, seriously, try this:  leave the zygote alone for a few weeks.  It will sprout arms and legs and a brain and heart and everything!  Whoa.  Pretty recognizable as a human, even to those without much knowledge of biology, embryology, genetics or the classification of life.

An embryo is, like you and I, a developing human being.  You and I will not stop developing in this life until we are dead.  Do we value people more based on what level of development they have achieved?  If someone kills a 3 year old is it less wrong than if they kill a 16 year old?  If a 20 year old is mentally disabled and will never get beyond a third grade reading level is running over that person less horrible than running over a 20 year old who has full reasoning capacity?  Does the size of an embryo make it somehow less human?  If so, then it logically follows that it is less wrong to murder a person with dwarfism than a person with gigantism.  Pro-choice philosophy sure is arbitrary.

Abortion simply does not make moral, scientific, legal, or intuitive sense.  Banning abortion is a reasonable position.  But, the bill in Georgia does not even go that far.  It merely asks that we not abort humans after 20 weeks’ gestation because we know they can feel pain at least by this age.  The fetus does not feel pain when his mother stubs her toe but does feel pain when being torn apart with a vacuum during abortion.  If that is not conclusive evidence that a 20 week old fetus is NOT his or her mother’s body I do not know what is.  So, I am baffled by pro-choice opposition to the bill.  They say abortion is "a woman's body, a woman's choice.”  But, at least by 20 weeks –and, if we are being honest, at the moment of conception-- the entity in a woman’s womb is demonstrably NOT HER.  And, to boot, the entity may actually be a female!  Do women only have rights once they exit the womb?  For the 500,000 or so females we have killed in America through abortion this past year, we have answered a resounding yes.  And the 500,000 or so males we have killed by abortion last year?  Yeah, no rights for them, either.

Final thought:  Current law in Georgia prohibits abortion after 24 weeks.  This little guy was born prematurely at 23 weeks’ gestation in Britain last year, survived, and went home with his parents when it was safe to do so:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8660450/Premature-baby-survives-after-doctors-advised-abortion.html  I guess according to Georgia pro-choice activists his parents had the right to kill him just before his mother went into labor if they had wanted to, and it would not have been any worse than a man choosing to have his testicles clipped to prevent sperm cells from exiting his penis.  A sperm cell and a premature human baby may as well be the same thing.  Move along, pro-lifers, nothing to see here.  Do not trust science or logic.  Trust Planned Parenthood.

I Agree with Barack Obama's Statement on Debating Abortion. Does He?

 
In light of the recent Susan G. Komen for the Cure debacle, i.e. their defunding and then re-funding of Planned Parenthood, this old journal entry came to mind.  May you, too, discover you agree with the below words of Barack Obama --even if he doesn't!

The other day I was pointed to a good quote posted on Moveon.org.  I find it remarkable not for its old, unoriginal and true content, but because Barack Obama said it.  You would think he is a constitutionalist (note: not necessarily or usually the same thing as a constitutional lawyer).  It is posted under the unbiased title “Barack Obama’s Level-Headed Response to Pro-Life Radicals”:

http://front.moveon.org/obamas-level-headed-response-to-pro-life-radicals/

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values...  It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.  Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will.  I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." --Barack Obama

One nitpick:  I am not sure why he assumes pro-life “radicals” are only religiously motivated.  I bet Atheists for Life, Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, Libertarians for Life, Physicians for Life, and the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians among others would all be surprised to learn they are primarily religiously motivated groups.  But, putting aside that faulty assumption I am in complete agreement with Obama’s quote itself.

Taking Obama’s advice, here is a brilliant example of dispassionate reasoning blowing the pro-choice option out of the water without one single mention of God or religion.  This audio is 25 minutes of pro-life argument in beautifully clear, concise and simple language by philosopher Peter Kreeft, who, like myself and the Obama of the Moveon.org quote, would not tend to use religious/ideological appeals when trying to persuade the people of the United States on the matter of abortion.  Kreeft may use theological appeals for an audience at a religious institution, but, since they are unnecessary for understanding the injustice of abortion, he does not typically use them for a general audience.

It was reasoning like Kreeft's that made me confront the willful ignorance and close-mindedness of my pro-choice position 6 years ago.  Once I stopped sloganeering –the grownup equivalent of sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and yelling LA LA LA— and instead listening as well as doing actual research rather than seeking opinions to validate my own position, I could not deny I was wrong.  I, therefore, became radically pro-life.  It’s important to note that my becoming an abortion abolitionist was as far from “religiously motivated” as anything can get.  Yes, I am Catholic now, but at the time –and for a few years afterwards-- I was a staunch humanist and agnostic as was seemingly everyone around me.  I could not construct a sentence about the Catholic church that did not also contain one or several of the following words:  blind faith, pedophiles, narrow-minded, patriarchy, hate-mongering, archaic, hypocrites, etc.  My feelings regarding organized religion were actually something that held me back from becoming pro-life.  Luckily, truth does not depend upon feelings.

After listening again to Kreeft’s argument now and thinking back on Obama’s statements and actions on abortion over the years, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that Kreeft and most other abortion abolitionists agree more with Obama’s Moveon.org statement than Barack Obama himself does.  For one thing, the church in which the President was baptized and which he subsequently attended for the longest period of time was vocally pro-choice, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and every political action he takes on abortion is pro-choice with no persuasive appeal to reason but instead a kind of blind faith in an Ideal of so-called “freedom of choice.”  How are we to know he is not simply “evoking God’s will” with his political actions?  As some will point out, though, he no longer attends this or any church regularly, so that example of deviating from his own quote may be moot.  But what cannot be shaken as easily is the President’s commitment to the dogma/ideology of secularism, a stance specifically in reaction to religion.  If he is thus religiously motivated, then where is his dispassionate reasoning from the secular pulpit proving abortion is morally sound and should be legal?  Where is his logic showing me that keeping abortion legal is “amenable to reason”?

I am left simply waiting for him to take the advice of his own Moveon.org quote.  Over these past four years I have only heard dodges and fragmented emotional appeals from him, not sound reasoning.  As for dodges, at a minimum Obama’s “above my pay grade” remark (http://youtu.be/O3F7ZkoIeNM) is exactly that, and at maximum it is an insult to everyone involved in the abortion debate, both pro-choice and pro-life, since the issue of when a person acquires human rights and/or When Life Begins is of paramount importance there.  Apparently, anyone reading this is arrogant to think the discussion is within their “pay grade.”  Or, was he simply acknowledging HE himself does not bestow rights on a human being or tell a being when to come into life?  (How humble.  I’m sure many of us had confused him with the reason for the existence of life and for our very rights.  Glad he cleared that one up if that’s the case.)

Then there are his emotional appeals where he talks about the very real turmoil and struggle many women go through when considering abortion.  He adds things like, “I don’t think they make [the choice of abortion] lightly. I don’t think they make it callously” (NY Times, 10/06/07).  I don’t think they do, either.  I’m very sympathetic to a pregnant woman’s struggles.  I feel horrible seeing women agonize over this “choice” before, during, and after the abortion happens.  But I’m also sympathetic to a person who goes against his own conscience and pride to steal a loaf of bread because his family has little food.  Does it make stealing right?  Of course not.  The consequences are bad for both thief and victim.  But, one feels deeply for the person who steals under circumstances like that.  Abortion and stealing are not right, but one can understand how a good person would be brought to it.  The agony of abortion moves me to want to help pregnant women and prevent it from happening any more.

I do not mean to imply emotional appeals do not have their place.  Some emotional appeals –such as when we reflect on the real, deep distress some women face in coming to grips with a completely unplanned pregnancy-- have their merits.  But, they are dangerous when separated from the harmony of the holistic view and used as bludgeons to silence –not conclude—a critical argument that makes or breaks a society.  Using the trauma of unprepared, unexpectedly pregnant women to hush discourse on the matter of the rightness or wrongness of abortion is not reason but a sort of tyranny, an abuse of power.  Even when an emotional appeal does see the forest for the trees and is therefore effective at guiding us towards a truth, such as when photographs of severely beaten slaves were circulated to wake people up to the injustice of slavery (like today's aborted fetus pictures), I wouldn’t advocate basing laws or political positions solely on them.  That not only goes against Obama’s quote, but far more importantly our very foundation as a country.  Our laws are supposed to be based on morality and reason, not just feelings; otherwise, whoever has the gavel can whack out our freedoms at whim.

President Obama’s emotional appeals do beg the question of him:  Mr. President, why do you think abortion is such a difficult choice and one not to be made “lightly” or “callously”?  Because it is wrong?  He does say he has arrived at the conclusion that “there is a moral implication to these [abortion] issues” (NY Times, 10/06/07).  Is there a moral implication similar to, say, cheating on a test?  Or is it more severe?  It’s an important distinction.  Is he saying, “Lying to your mother about who broke the cookie jar is wrong, but that is your choice to make,” or is he saying, “Murder/slavery/rape/molestation/cannibalism is wrong, but that is your choice to make”?  How weighty IS the moral implication here?  Does he know?  And if he’s not sure, then why does he consistently fight for unrestricted abortion?  Sometimes he does start reasoning; he just doesn’t follow it through.

Then there is the occasional nugget from him of just plain nonsense on abortion.  In his book, Audacity of Hope, he states:

“The willingness of even the most ardent pro-choice advocates to accept some restrictions on late-term abortions marks a recognition that a fetus is more than a body part and that society has some interest in its development.”

That statement may be true; however, he himself has never accepted a restriction on late-term abortion, so that renders these words coming from his pen confused at best!  In fact, he went so far as to be the only senator to repeatedly speak out against bills requiring medical treatment for infants accidentally born alive during an abortion (starting with Illinois Senate Bill 1095, February 2001).  Doesn’t that mean he does not recognize the fetus is more than a body part?  If so, why did he use the term “recognition” in his book instead of “belief”?  All I can surmise is that he is trying to say despite his voting record he, too, recognizes the fetus is more than a body part.  That is a frightening proposition, considering he does not treat it like more than that.  And, he never answers the implicit, deeper questions generated by his book:  If a fetus is more than a body part, what is it?  Why does society have some interest in its development?  More curiously, why does he think it’s “more than a body part” and “society has some interest in its development,” yet always legislatively act against any restriction on abortion whatsoever? 

Instead of a logical argument from Obama on abortion we get emotion, political ideology, conclusions without proofs, yet at the same time all legislative measures possible to ensure abortion is unfettered.  Now, even my anti-abortion family’s tax money is paying for abortions here and abroad.  I have not been given one good reason why by the President.

The Obama from the Moveon.org quote is right.  Theocracy/dictatorship is certainly not where I want to be.  True freedom resides with a republic, such as the idea of America.  (Paradoxically, it does not reside in anarchy, as true freedom comes with responsibility, the rules that set us free.  We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but my right to my pursuit of happiness ends where it meets with murdering innocent YOU and taking YOUR life because I’d be happy with your wallet!)  So, while I am proud of anyone who stands up for those in the womb, I admit I am always a little troubled when the “because God said so” line of thinking is the ONLY one used by a pro-lifer in a political setting; it does happen sometimes.  I would not want that to be the reason abortion laws are changed, forced legislation by some potential future majority of would-be theocrats in congress.  Instead, ideally, I would want the law to be changed because a majority of people are convinced abortion is wrong and they no longer desire its legality.  While various religions are correct in believing abortion is immoral, and while it is also a right and desirable thing to state religious beliefs in the public square, it is still important to know and defend WHY abortion is wrong beyond “God saying so.”  Please do not take this as me belittling faith.  I just believe reason is as important, and I do not believe the two contradict each other in truth.

I try to follow Obama’s Moveon.org statement because I believe it is important and how our republic works; it is one check against theocracy, dictatorship and a tyranny of majority.  I rarely employ a religious appeal when arguing against abortion in general.  I might at some time on this blog if I am delving into Catholic teaching on it.  But when arguing with someone about it in general I do not, firstly because we all have different religious views, but, secondly, because there is absolutely zero need.  There is a tsunami of evidence and arguments from science, reason, morality, and legal thought (though, oddly, not the LAW itself!), all on the pro-life side.  I don’t thump on a Bible when it comes to abortion and can’t remember the last time I used anything but non-religious syllogisms and logical analogies in refuting pro-choice rhetoric person-to-person.  On the rare occasions when I have used religious arguments against abortion it is for one of these reasons:  A) the pro-choice person brings up religion, which oddly they do sometimes even though I am not talking about it; or B) I am arguing with a pro-choice person who is open about their religion being an important part of their life, so they are interested in a religious perspective; or C) I am among family.  Other than that, I and many other pro-lifers I know tend to focus on reason and science.

Despite this, I have yet to be met with likewise from the pro-choice side.  I am given only slogans, groupthink and emotions/feelings, the likes of which I used to cling to myself:

“Freedom to choose must be protected.”

"Protect women's freedom."

“Women’s bodies, women’s choices.”  Etc. etc.

These are valid statements.  I agree with them.  However, when applied to abortion, no logical conclusion follows from these value statements or the many others popular in pro-choice circles.  Freedom to choose must be protected, yes.  But, there are certain things I hope we agree upon that one should not legally be able to choose:  the “freedom” to take property from others (stealing), the “freedom” to shoot innocent people (murder), the “freedom” to set a live kitten on fire.  And, saying simply “protect women's freedom” assumes abortion is not merely an act of LICENSE but of FREEDOM and must therefore be legally available in any free society.  The slogan does not prove abortion is freedom.  It merely assumes that.  I and a version of President Obama --the one mouthing the statement on Moveon.org-- would need to see the proofs leading to “abortion = freedom” –proofs containing sound reasoning and “universal values”-- before codifying the equation in law.

Yet, without solid argument or moral basis our law does, indeed, treat abortion as a form of freedom, and Obama is always complicit in keeping that status quo in place.  But, acting as if something is right just “because the courts say so” is also not enough.  In the supreme court’s Dred Scott case of 1857, a unanimous decision, it was ruled African Americans are not persons but the property of their owners.  Sound familiar?  Laws and rulings can be just or unjust.  “Because the government says so” or “because the courts say so” is about as sound reasoning as “because the Bible says so.”  It’s also as dogmatic.  The government, court, or Bible may be right.  But if you can’t explain why, don’t push your dogma on us.

Another one:  “Women’s bodies, women’s choices.”  Yes, of course humans should generally make their own choices about what is going to happen to their own bodies.  Rape is wrong.  Beating an innocent person is wrong.  Slavery is wrong.  The victims did not choose those things. But, when applied to abortion the reasoning falls apart:   “Women should be allowed to make their own choices about their own bodies.  There is only one body involved in abortion:  the woman’s.  Therefore women should be allowed to decide whether or not to have an abortion.”  Huh?  If a woman is aborting herself, why is she still here after the surgery?  Since when is an embryo the mother’s body?  Are we really going to ignore basic biology in favor of ideology?  Not to mention, in the VAST majority of cases (excluding rape), the woman has already made the choice about her body:  to have sex with an intact reproductive system with or without birth control when she was not ready to have a child.  There’s freedom of choice at work.  I’m pro-choice in that regard.  It’s not up to me when you have sex.  I have an opinion on it, but it’s not my choice to make.

I’d like to end with an open invitation:  Please convince me abortion is not wrong and should continue to be legal up to birth as it is today according to federal law.  It would give me one less thing to be overwhelmingly concerned about.  To convince me abortion is not a holocaust and horrifically wrong you will need to refute Kreeft’s argument.  Here it is again:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/19_prolife-philosophy/peter-kreeft_prolife-philosophy_.mp3

Boiling it down to a syllogism it is basically:  “The deliberate killing of an innocent person is wrong.  Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person.  Therefore, abortion is wrong.”  As a pro-choicer, it seems easy enough to refute on the surface, doesn’t it?  I remember it did for me.  (“We don’t know the fetus is a person, tada!”)  But, then I did something revolutionary:  listened.  To REASON, to science, and, yes, even to intuition.  The 25 minute audio file lays out the reasoning and some of the science, so please listen beforehand if you plan to argue against it to persuade me.  Also, he adds a legal corollary at the end illustrating why abortion is not only wrong but should also be illegal.  I am supremely interested in a refutation of this as well.  I would love to no longer be stigmatized by friends and family for being against abortion!  And, honestly, all this concern for those working in the abortion industry and for women, men, and babies who are affected by abortion takes up quite a bit of energy.  I could use a breather.

Please relieve me.

“[Democracy] requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.”  Amen to that!  Let your reasoning commence, Mr. President.

…

If you are experiencing emotional, mental and/or psychological trauma from a past abortion in the family –whether you are the mother, father, or another family member—you are not alone.  Some places to turn for help and healing include Carenet Pregnancy Center of Nashua and Manchester (http://carenetnh.org/) if you are in New Hampshire, or for those anywhere in the world:  the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, or Rachel’s Vineyard.

Disclaimer:  One of my biases is that I believe people are pro-choice generally out of good intentions.  Not good reasons, mind you, but definitely good intentions.  It seems to me they want what is best for women and society.  They want to help women.  Some even feel abortion itself can be merciful.  I can’t think of any pro-choicers I am personally acquainted with who have evil ends in mind or want to do harm.  They do not tend to believe abortion is murder; if they did they would be pro-life.  I believe this in large part because many of my family and friends are pro-choice, but also in no small part because I was once myself pro-choice and it certainly was not out of malicious intent.  So, if you're looking for blanket demonization of people who are pro-choice you will not find it here, just FYI.