For the Ayers ad. I don’t mind an ad reminding the public about Obama’s former association with a guy who did some nasty, violent stuff. Obama has disassociated himself from Ayers, but so what? He’s been dissing a lot of people since the presidential campaign began. One more bit of luggage overboard isn’t all that surprising. But back to the Ayers ad, which was produced by the American Issues Project (headed by a former fundraiser for McCain). In its dramatic build-up to Ayer’s sins, the ad says that on 9-11, flight 93 never made it to the Capitol (but Ayers did, setting off some explosives there with the Weather Underground, back in the late 60’s when Obama was still a child). Now that’s hitting way below the belt — politicizing 9-11. McCain doesn’t seem to be making any effort to disassociate himself from this. And for that failing, I must give Senator McCain many demerit points.
BOO TO OBAMA: For not announcing his VP today, and leaving all of us political junkies in limbo tonight. It’s the Obama tease once more; the guy really is quite haughty, quite impressed with himself. So, demerits for Senator Obama also.
ABORTION AND THE START OF HUMAN LIFE: NOT ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. At the Saddleback Church interview last Sunday, Barack Obama refused to set a definition as to when human life begins. He said that such a responsibility was “above my pay grade”. As to McCain, he basically said the same thing when asked to set a definition as to when being rich begins. But he had a pat answer about the start of life: at the moment of conception.
When I was young, I was a rather devout Roman Catholic, and I honestly agreed with the moment of conception argument. Being a techie and an Asperger’s candidate, I devised a techie way of looking at the issue. I set up the following thought experiment: imagine that instead of building jet airplanes in a factory on the ground, they built them under the wings of other flying aircraft. Yep, they put together new jet planes way up there in the blue sky. Imagine the process as follows: on one plane, the “mother ship”, workers would somehow assemble a frame for the new plane, with wings and metal skin. But another plane would have to meet up with the mother plane, way above the earth, and bring the jet engine that was to power the new contraption.
Well, up until that point, the hollow frame being built under the wings couldn’t really be said to be an airplane. But once the engine was inserted, then the thing had a lot more substance. Even if more work was yet to be done before it could fly off on its own, it was now essentially an airplane. To me, that seemed pretty close in nature to the meeting of the sperm and egg in a woman’s uterus. So: problem solved. Human life beings at conception.
But now I see it differently. Back to that klutzy thought experiment: the new airframe and jet engine riding under the wing of that big mother ship (maybe an old B-52) would be worthless until they install the cockpit and all the controls. Until then, no one could fly it, even if it did have everything else hooked up. So, what is the comparison here?
Well, over the first four months of fetal development, a rudimentary brain forms and at some point starts doing something; somewhere around the 6th week, a faint brain wave can be detected (somewhat akin to a sea slug’s brainwave). Even then, much more brain development is yet to come. However, by the end of the 90th day– i.e., the end of the first trimester — the brain in the new fetus has some connectivity and some initial capacity to process data. The corpus callosum linking the two halves of the brain has just been formed; the brain at that point starts acting as a whole. It may not yet be capable of supporting conscious self-awareness; the thinking part of the brain, the neo-cortex, still has a lot of work left to be done. But it certainly is pretty far down the road by that point. The thing now has its basic controls installed.
SO — I would say that for legal and moral purposes, the best we can say is that life begins at the end of the first trimester. Before that, abortion is more a question of manipulating the mother’s body. After that, you’re messing with something with a very high potential for consciousness and self-awareness. Sure, there is no bright line; it’s all pretty fuzzy. But we have to draw a line somewhere, and for me, the first trimester is the best place to do it. Yes, it would be difficult for a doctor to determine just when a fetus is over the time line. But the same dilemma exists today, given that the end of the second trimester is the usual limit for legal abortion under Row v. Wade.
So that’s my final answer. I.e., split the difference between the pro-choice forces (at the end of the second trimester) and the pro-life forces (at conception). This would reduce the number of abortions, but would not eliminate their availability. (I believe that over 50% of abortions occur within the first trimester at present.) Under such a compromise, I would also rule out the “slow downs” that the pro-life people have written into the law over the past 10 years or so, including waiting periods, pre-counciling on adoption options, and parental consent. Choice should be true choice, so long as it is justifiable.
Well, it’s a good thing that I’m not running for office. Neither the pro-lifers and the pro-choice people seem interested in compromise, even if it is based upon reason and science. Obviously, the Democrats and Republicans would both be mad at me for such a position!
Jim,
First, with all due respect to you as a man, I simply must wonder exactly why it is that men get themselves so worked up about abortion. Unless I’m missing something it seems to me that most of the public discussion that goes on about abortion is conducted by MEN–men who never will have to carry a baby, men who if they ever had even one period in their life would spend the entirety of the time lying in bed, wondering at the enormity of what it is they are asked to endure, expecting all and sundry to wait on them because of what they must endure, and then would fly a flag on the front porch proclaiming the fact that they endured their period. (This last point is borrowed from Gloria Steinem who long ago expressed the same idea in much more graphic terms.)
Second, with regard to abortion and exactly when “life begins.” Here I respectfully must disagree with you. One does not have to draw a line and say that past this point there is life and before this point there is no life. That seems seriously simplistic to me.
Rather, I think in terms of the life of the human body as a continuum that extends from conception to death. How about a comparison to a seed planted in the ground–much like the morning glory seeds you planted. (See August 9, 2008 blog.) One COULD say all life is contained in the seed–but it is there in potential. Then over a period of time it grows and develops. Exactly, WHEN is the morning glory plant a full morning glory plant? Hard to say–are the seedlings a full morning glory plant? Are the vines? Are the vines a full plant only when they have flowers? There is a continuum here. You yourself declared your healthy vines to be unviable plants because they did not flower. I say the life of the human body is similar. It is a continuum. Hard to say exactly when the human body is fully human.
Notice that in the above I spoke of the human BODY. Which brings me to a question that I have never heard anybody at all address: When is there a human PERSON? What about the consciousness level of the individual? Or some might say what about the question of when the human body becomes the human person. I’d say when the spiritual (or intangible or consciousness) part develops to the point that it changes the human body from a human body into a human person. But there again there is a continuum in the human person.
I also wonder if the greater “sin” than that of abortion is not the striking down of a generation of young teenagers (as we have had here in Chicago this last year). Surely this generation of young pesons reached a higher level of life (they were human PERSONS rather than simply human BODIES) than an embryo or fetus at some level of development but still en utero.
And once again, I simply must reiterate that if men carried a child in their bodies, the entire discussion of abortion would take on a totally different aspect. Personally, until there is such a time, I myself simply cannot take seriously men getting themselves all worked up about something of which they have no experience and never will have. (Again, all due respect to you, Jim.)
MCS
Comment by MCS — August 23, 2008 @ 9:28 am
Jim,
First, with all due respect to you as a man, I simply must wonder exactly why it is that men get themselves so worked up about abortion. Unless I’m missing something it seems to me that most of the public discussion that goes on about abortion is conducted by MEN–men who never will have to carry a baby, men who if they ever had even one period in their life would spend the entirety of the time lying in bed, wondering at the enormity of what it is they are asked to endure, expecting all and sundry to wait on them because of what they must endure, and then would fly a flag on the front porch proclaiming the fact that they endured their period. (This last point is borrowed from Gloria Steinem who long ago expressed the same idea in much more graphic terms.)
Second, with regard to abortion and exactly when “life begins.” Here I respectfully must disagree with you. One does not have to draw a line and say that past this point there is life and before this point there is no life. That seems seriously simplistic to me.
Rather, I think in terms of the life of the human body as a continuum that extends from conception to death. How about a comparison to a seed planted in the ground–much like the morning glory seeds you planted. (See August 9, 2008 blog.) One COULD say all life is contained in the seed–but it is there in potential. Then over a period of time it grows and develops. Exactly, WHEN is the morning glory plant a full morning glory plant? Hard to say–are the seedlings a full morning glory plant? Are the vines? Are the vines a full plant only when they have flowers? There is a continuum here. You yourself declared your healthy vines to be unviable plants because they did not flower. I say the life of the human body is similar. It is a continuum. Hard to say exactly when the human body is fully human.
Notice that in the above I spoke of the human BODY. Which brings me to a question that I have never heard anybody at all address: When is there a human PERSON? What about the consciousness level of the individual? Or some might say what about the question of when the human body becomes the human person. I’d say when the spiritual (or intangible or consciousness) part develops to the point that it changes the human body from a human body into a human person. But there again there is a continuum in the human person.
I also wonder if the greater “sin” than that of abortion is not the striking down of a generation of young teenagers (as we have had here in Chicago this last year). Surely this generation of young pesons reached a higher level of life (they were human PERSONS rather than simply human BODIES) than an embryo or fetus at some level of development but still en utero.
And once again, I simply must reiterate that if men carried a child in their bodies, the entire discussion of abortion would take on a totally different aspect. Personally, until there is such a time, I myself simply cannot take seriously men getting themselves all worked up about something of which they have no experience and never will have. (Again, all due respect to you, Jim.)
MCS
Comment by MCS — August 23, 2008 @ 9:28 am