Abortion: Why I Can See Both Sides

Let me start by stating two facts: 1) I am a privileged white male who has no idea what sort of a burden a child would be. 2) I am personally Pro-Choice, though I see both sides of the issue too well for it to affect my vote whatsoever.

That said, I can see a perfectly good secular argument against legalized abortion.

First, let us establish that a fetus is, in fact, a member of the human species. It has a complete set of chromosomes and is definitively alive--at least it is if you consider any internal parasite alive--making it a living human being. With that established, we can move on.

Everyone can agree that killing a newborn would be absolutely abhorrent, and should never be legal under any circumstances. However, for the purpose of this argument, all that needs to be agreed upon is that killing a newborn because you don't want to deal with it should not be legal.

Working from that assumption, we must consider what significant mental or physical differences exist between a newborn less than an hour old, and a fetus less than an hour from birth? The answer is, obviously, none. As a result, most people can agree that a fetus less than an hour from birth is not fair game for an abortion, at least when not medically necessary.

Thus the question for Pro-Choice advocates becomes, where do you draw the line between "abortable" and "non-abortable" fetuses, if not at birth?

Obviously, there are several schools on this. I have heard it suggested that the criterion should be "when the fetus can survive outside on its own." This criterion is unworkable for quite a few reasons, not least of which is that it applies equally many to premature newborns, and, in fact, to many newborns with serious problems.

Another suggestion is when the fetus can feel pain. Determining such a boundary would be incredibly difficult, especially since it would occur at a different time for every fetus. One would have to test each fetus individually to see if it can feel pain before aborting it. Needless to say this would be incredibly impractical and traumatic for the mother. Even with such a procedure, however, it would be difficult to tell the difference between a reaction to pain, and a simple reflex movement.

One last suggestion I will deal with is the idea of an arbitrarily drawn boundary, set by lawmakers. This seems to me the most dangerous option because it sets a precedent. When lawmakers may set a boundary, beyond which living human beings are allowed to be killed, pandora's box is effectively wide open. Eugenics and extermination become feasible. Perhaps such things will never happen (and they probably never will) but the logic of allowing lawmakers to arbitrarily choose who has a "right to life" and who does not justifies them.

Thus it seems the only acceptable boundary one can draw is a natural one, preferably one that does not divide human beings into groups that are "expendable" and groups that are not. The only conceivable (no pun intended) line I can see, then, is at conception. After all, before conception, neither the egg nor the sperm has a full set of chromosomes, and this is arguably not human.

Anyway, I'll admit I failed to elucidate this as well as I should have liked, but perhaps I can clarify if someone chooses to argue with it. I would also welcome such a debate as I would like to see an intelligent rebuttal to this argument.

Reverend Wright: Why he weakens my support for Obama

First of all, let me make this clear: I do not care what sort of pastor Obama listens to. He has said that he believes in the separation of church and state and has openly expressed beliefs at odds with most of what people object to in Wright's speech. He has also condemned Wright's language and view of American society. That aside, I also agree with a good bit of what Wright said. 9/11 was an example of our "chickens coming home to roost," and sometimes I do think our country's conduct merits a hearty "God Damn America!" (not that I think that saying "God Damn" anything has any effect.).

It is something else that worries me. It should be obvious that Wright will become an issue in the general election--likely far more than it has been during the primary as the average democrat is far more accepting than the average voter. While John McCain is certainly too honorable to raise such an issue, not all conservatives are nearly so inhibited. Imagine this: a simple video clip, comprised only of Barack Obama's criticisms of the administration's foreign policy, intermixed with those of his pastor. By the time of the general election, most Americans will instantly recognize Rev. Wright and his words, and the connection drawn by such an add will be persuasive to many voters.

Such an add would not only have a great effect--perhaps even comparable to the Willie Horton add of the 1988 campaign--and would push the issue of race to the front of the campaign. It would force voters to evaluate whether or not they feel safe trusting a black man whom they feel may harbor the sort of anger embodied by Rev. Wright. It might even cost the democrats the race. As a result, I find myself beginning to think Hillary might actually be more electable, whatever the polls say. Of course, electability isn't everything.

Why is this sort of behavior still tolerated in America?

The Illinois governor recently appropriated $1,000,000 for a Baptist church in the state. Ordinarily this action would be enough to make my blood boil as some of that money--most in fact--came from non-Baptists, and some came from non-Christians and even non-religious persons. Using said money to promote one religion is a clear violation of taxpayer's rights and the separation of church and state so eloquently advocated by none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

But that appropriation is not what I am writing to protest. I am writing to protest the treatment of Rob Sherman, an atheist who decided to sit in on the budget hearing in which the allocation of resources was being discussed. When the time came for citizens to voice their opinions on the topic, he took the stand. He expressed his grievances with the violation of the separation of church and state, and with the use of tax dollars of his fellow atheists to fund a Baptist church.

Here is the conversation that followed between Mr. Sherman and Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago):

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous-- [my emphasis]

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! [my emphasis] Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon. [my emphasis]

Of course, I have no problem with Representative Davis being able to express her opinion, we have freedom of speech after all. What I object to, what every American should object to, is the fact that such a tirade will not cost Davis her seat, or even hurt her politically. Imagine that an outburst like this were directed at a Jew, Christian, Hindu, or even Muslim. Davis would be forced out almost immediately. When it comes to atheists, however, it seems such bigotry is par for the course.

What's more, suggesting that people from her state have to believe in God because Illinois is the “The Land of Lincoln” is so ironic it hurts. Is she, perchance, speaking of the same Lincoln who continuously had to defend himself against charges of being an atheist on account of his lack of serious religion. If I may quote one exchange:

Opponent for Congress: "Mr. Lincoln, you have not expressed an interest in going to either heaven or hell. May I enquire as to where you do plan to go?"

Lincoln: "I did not come here with the idea of being singled out, but since you ask, I will reply with equal candor. I intend to go to Congress."

Lincoln was one of our least religious presidents. He was never a member of a church throughout his adult life and used religious language sparingly, probably only as was needed to prevent serious problems with the religious.

This representative is not only bigoted, she is ignorant and paranoid beyond belief. I will be writing a letter to her asking her to publicly apologize for her comments or else resign her office. This letter would not be necessary in a civilized society in which all are equal, but obviously this is not such a society. Perhaps you will join me in bringing some attention to the treatment of America's most despised minority.