There's Always A Choice

To Republicans: Please, feel free to ban abortion. I'll wait...

Done?

Good.

What have you accomplished? Nothing. Well, not nothing, but perhaps something you couldn't conceive of, as if you were in full belief that the stroke of a pen simply causes people to behave differently. If that were the case, you're probably actually follow the precepts of The Bible...

But I digress.

So you slam the door on "baby killing," padlock Planned Parenthood, pat yourselves on the back, and call it a day, thinking you have rid the world of one more "scourge." You have put women in their place, depriving them of something you are sure they didn't need anyway.

And somewhere, in a kitchen, or a family room, or a trailer, or a shack, or a church, or a car or a clinic, there sits a woman (or to be far to the transgendered, any person with a womb), clutching the awful news that they are pregnant, at a time, in a place, in a situation, where such a thing is unwanted, or unwarranted, or complicating. It wasn't meant to happen, it wasn't supposed to happen, it shouldn't have happened... and yet there it is, the report, the pregnancy test, saying that it is, in fact, so.

Maybe there is mere fretting, but more likely there might be sobbing, anger, frustration, fear, uncertainty, fright, panic, depression... maybe all of these things, in various levels and proportions. Suddenly, a world which seemed to be operating as smoothly as it does any day, lurches and shakes and shudders, and someone is left to pick up the pieces. They need an out, not because they enjoy the thought of it, but because in this time and place is not the right time and place.

But you've left them no choice... have you?

That's what you think.

You'd like to believe wholeheartedly that your damnation of abortion has expunged the idea and practice from the face of the Earth. You want to believe that anyone seeking one will now simply shrug their shoulders, give up, and bring the fetus to term, to fill the world with another helpless, mewling soul. Anyway, it's not your business at that point...

Don't kid yourself.

Desperation leads to drastic action.

Our forlorn mother-to-be will be wracked with spasms of horror, but will more than likely be pushed to take a course that you refuse to acknowledge: She will do it herself.

Maybe with help, maybe alone, maybe with chemicals, maybe with tools, maybe in a way unfathomable, but she will not be denied the surcease of the pain this pregnancy is causing, will cause, no matter how much anyone abhors it. She will follow through... and perhaps will not live to see the morrow.

You have done what you thought was best for all involved, only to allow the rose-colored shortsightedness you are cloaked in to hide the truth: a woman always has a choice. Short of manacling the pregnant to beds, there is no way to banish abortion. No will, no law, no admonishment will make it stop, merely place it beyond your prying eyes, in back alleys, and motel rooms, and silent apartments.

All because you tried to play God.

Sleep well. When you arise the clinics will be silent... and so will be the screams of women dying in tortured anguish.

If Not War, Then What Would You Call It?

It should come as no surprise that Reince Priebus -- Chairman of the Republican National Committee -- is fully unaware of the onslaught of attempts by Republican legislators in state legislatures and in Congress to limit and/or strip away the rights of women to make their own choices about what they do with their body. It turns out that in his eyes, the whole thing is a fabrication:

“If Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that the Republicans have a war on caterpillars then we would have problems with caterpillars.”

So... There you have it. The constant barrage of laws and policies designed to strip away already existing rights, marginalize others, and basically take women's complete liberty and freedom away from them is something the Democrats came up with.

Let's just see...

No Longer In The Pink

Breast cancer is a scourge. It can, unchecked, eat away a woman's dignity, as well as her life. Like so many chronic, noncommunicable diseases, there is no cure, only treatment, and the treatment is sometimes worse than the disease in debilitation of the body and depression of the mind.

Sadly, I have been privy to the monster's ravages, both within my family, a friend's family, through an associate of my wife, and through the glimpses brought to light by people I follow on social media. Something which I had thought of in the abstract, has become only too clear and terrifyingly close to me in recent years, like a tide advancing and eroding the barrier between my quiet life and the bedlam of the raging sea.

So, when Susan G. Komen For The Cure decided to pull its funding of breast exams at Planned Parenthood, due to a "policy change," thereby depriving women of limited means access to critical health care, I became incensed. And I was not alone.

The Womb Of The Unknown Woman

You did not know her, and if you did, you did not know of her. Her life appeared in the broad view of passing time as a smooth, flowing continuum, wearing a path through the world along well-worn channels, but the quantized fragments of that path at the level below the skin and behind the eye were an unknown universe of misery, heartache, doubt, and uncertainty. The end point of her journey was at a place and time unforeseen in the delta streams of motion through her life and the world around her, but that end point was no less certain for being unknown.

A point before the end came, and that moment was either quite well illuminated or somewhere in the murk of human interaction, but cell met cell, and triggered a sequence of predetermined events that, unchecked, would lead to an irrevocable altering of her life. The product of the merger of many functions collapsed into a certainty, and with that, a potential new being was formed, consisting at first, of undifferentiated bits, merely dividing and expanding to fill space, mindless and automatic. Straight replication gave way under coded signals and altered to become differentiation, and at this point, still an insignificant and insubstantial mass, it settled down in a new home, tapping into the environment surrounding it, and drawing on the power it found there, accelerated its growth.

She was pregnant.

Misconceptions

Human law and human beliefs cannot alter physical systems. No decree can change the motion of the Earth's crustal plates as they slide across the face of our world. No amount of determination can bend the Second Law of Thermodynamics to create unlimited energy. No declaration will place the Earth at the center of our solar system. No force of will can alter the motion of the stars through the heavens. No avarice can force chemical processes to turn lead into gold.

So, it is laughable to think that some in our country believe, wholeheartedly, that they can command the very mechanism of the creation of life through law, by declaring a fertilized egg a "person." At its most elementary level, the idea is farcical, and the stolid determination of those who seek to bring this about would be comical if they were not so earnest, and more importantly, if they were not in positions of power in government. The shame in it, is that ignorance cloaked in belief is being used as a yardstick for legality, and reason is being shoved out of the room. Worse still, is that there is no hue and cry from the vast majority of reasonable American, shouting down this travesty of lawmaking.

Let me, then, light the fire of outrage, as we take a little tour of why this execrable legislation and all its kin need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

What Was Plan A?

Kathleen Sebelius does not strike me as an intolerant or ignorant person. Surely, being Secretary of Health and Human Services, President Obama had faith in her knowledge and ability. Why then did she feel the need to block the FDA's plan to push the Plan B pill to over-the-counter status? Further, why did she feel the need to engage the President on this issue, when he has more pressing matters to attend to, such as high unemployment and a sluggish economy?

The suggestion is that is was done for political reasons, and there might be some truth to that. A second term for President Obama rests in the hands of independents, especially those in key swing states, and to be seen erring on the side of caution would no doubt grease the wheels with some more conservative independents. But surely, there are not really enough of them to cater to in this regard, and as sex, sexuality, and teen pregnancy are polarizing issues, the dividing line is pretty firm. There is really no hay to be made through making this decision for political reasons.

Perhaps, the truth lies, as always, somewhere in between what we see and what we know

Belief Versus Biology

Strange to say, it has been my pleasure of late to engage some anti-choice adherents in spirited discussion of the nature of human biology, pregnancy, birth, and the definition of a human being. I use the term "discussion" rather than "debate," for to be a debate, there has to be some agreement upon the basic grounds, and that is where the discussion of abortion breaks down, because both sides have very different definitions of what constitutes a human being, or a baby, or development. This is what hampers any attempt to find common ground. In the end, the discussion is more about biology and belief.

No One Is "Pro-Abortion"

No one really is in love with the idea of ending a potential human life, and if they are, they are sick. Sadly, though, a fetus comes about through many circumstances that prove to be disadvantageous or disquieting to the woman carrying it. Her birth control may have failed, or she may have forgotten to take it. She may not be on birth control, and her partner may have been so callous and unfeeling as to have sex with her without taking precautions himself. Worst of all, she may be the victim of rape, implanted with the seed of a vicious and violent felon.

Those of us who may never be in such a position, or may never be forced to endure those circumstances, have little right to pass judgment on those women who are. We have even less of a right to limit the choices they do have. No matter what we may think of the medical procedure, abortion is an alternative, and must be, for the safety and well-being of a woman who is not planning on being a mother, or may be, but not at that time.

If you are a woman, and you choose never to avail yourself of abortion because it offends your moral sensibilities, that is you right. But your right to refuse the choice does not give you the right to take the choice from other women. They must decide for themselves what is best; that is the law of this land. If you are a man, you will never know the uncomfortable feeling of being in the position of being pregnant when you are not ready to be, and so your opinion on the matter means little. If you attempt to enforce your opinion on others, you are violating a woman's sovereign right, endowed her by her creator, to make such a choice for herself.

In the end, no one can really "ban" abortion. A woman, faced with a choice placed on her by circumstance, will simply find whatever expedient is necessary if it comes to it, to end her pregnancy. No doubt in a back room of some dingy building, with non-sterile equipment, at the hand of a "doctor," or perhaps in her own bathroom, with any of a number of wicked implements. Most likely, she will die, too, and so a potential life and an actual life will be lost, all due to the obstinacy of people who would impose their morality on everyone, contrary to the spirit and law of the nation.

I stand with all women, in giving them their full rights to their body and what is to be done with it. I condemn all those who would take those rights from women, as callous, unfeeling, and ignorant. I will not stand for a country that seeks a return to a time when women were chattel, little more than ornamentation and slaves, to be passed around as representations of political power, or to become baby-making machines. The pronouncement "be fruitful, and multiply," was not intended to sentence women to a life of constant pregnancy, simply to fill up the world, for no God would ask a people to multiply beyond what they could support, simply to do so.

This is only the edge of the abyss -- what starts here with the denigration and dehumanization of women will spread, and we will devolve into the mire of the Dark Ages, frightened by shadows, fearful of the unseen and unknown, fighting over scraps. We must move forward, not backward. We must move beyond the petty, toward the betterment of life for all of us, not just those who live a life of privilege. We are not human, where we allow poverty, hunger, disease, and ignorance to flourish still, while we have them means to eradicate them. The war against the right to abortion goes far beyond that simple act; it is the first step toward a precipice from which humankind may find it hard to retreat once it is too much further down the path. We have a choice -- reject the dogma of the past, or wallow in it. I choose the former. I choose humanity.

Whose Life Are You Trying To Save?

To say abortion is a contentious issue is to make a pronounced understatement. To say that some people believe with all their heart that a fetus is a fully-formed and functional person from the moment of conception is a given. To say that it is a medical procedure is often glossed over. To say that both sides of the "debate" often cannot see the other's side clearly goes without saying.

What does it say, however, that a state that leans heavily in the direction of conservatism, is willing to codify the killing of an abortion doctor as being perfectly legal?

Debatable

What could possess a couple to decide that the decision to continue a pregnancy or not was best left in the hands of millions of people on the Internet? Whatever the reason, the decision reeks of moral turpitude; one would have to examine their competence to have and care for children in the first place, given this turn of events. It would seem however, when we would look past the first blush, that there is more to this than meets the eye. Pete Arnold – with or without the tacit consent of his wife Alisha – seems to be playing a trick on the world. His explanations are hollow, filled with bullet points that sound vaguely contrived, as if handed to them from somewhere else. The whole episode smacks of a desperate attempt to put the abortion debate back in the spotlight after a contentious election season.

Any political playing aside, what would possess anyone to do it, for any reason?

Smile, Even Though Your Heart Is Breaking

I want you to imagine the following scenario (WARNING: this may disturb you, so tread lightly): you are a young girl, past puberty, and you were raped by your father, brutalized in a way you never thought possible, left feeling unclean, like your soul is now black. You are confused, dazed, and swept up in a maelstrom of recrimination, law, scandal, gossip, and depression. Then, as if it can't get any worse... you are pregnant, carrying the seed of incest within you, an occurrence that is anathema socially and problematic genetically. Now, the horror can never truly go away, for in a few months time, you will have a living, breathing reminder of it.

It would take a powerful constitution, intestinal fortitude, and a great deal of forgiveness, to keep the child. No one likes the thought of a potential life lost, but you would be forgiven for seeing this as a burden that you cannot bear, and no one should ask it of you. This is a decision that is best made by you.

Except that some would say that it isn't your decision, that no decision is required. A life is a life.

To be more specific, Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle believes that "two wrongs don't make a right," and so, a young girl subjected to the brutality of incest has an obligation to carry the baby to term, even at risk to her own life and sanity. In Ms. Angle's own words:

I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.

The carrying of an unplanned -- and potentially unwanted -- child to term is off-handedly compared to a clichéd bit of advice that has little to do with reality. It's akin to telling a death row inmate to "make the best" of their time in jail.

I commend any young girl who can, actually, carry such an unwanted pregnancy to term, and learn to love a child that is the result of such a brutal and vicious assault, either by a stranger or a family member. However, that decision cannot be mandated by the State, either directly, or through the removal of the option of abortion; to do so, is to condemn no-longer-innocent girls to lives of constant psychological torture, and to subject their babies to the machinations of a mother who may see them a font of their unhappiness and self-loathing. Such a lack of compassion is sign of blind faith and ignorance.

It is despicable to replace another person's right to self-determination with your own morality, especially where that morality is based upon a faith that not everyone else shares. The right to freedom and liberty as written in The Bill of Rights makes it clear that the State has no right to tell an individual how to worship, and by extension, cannot promote any particular social view based on one religion. If your faith tells you that abortion is amoral, so be it -- no one is asking you to have one. To then substitute your judgment for that of a young girl, who must suffer all the consequences of the theft of her dignity and pains of pregnancy, due to your misguided belief that you must save her from herself, is criminal.

No Compassion For Pregnant Women

She is there, and you probably do not notice her. She is a woman with a problem, a problem you cannot see and which she does not advertise. It could be a woman on a subway car, in the cubicle next to yours, sitting by herself at a cafe... you have no way of knowing. She is pregnant.

And she's not sure she wants to be.

The reason could be that she cannot support a child. Or that the father would not support her in any way. Or, perhaps, it was "not supposed to happen." Maybe, it was the result of indiscretion, or worse, the result of an assault. Whatever the reason, she may be confused, feeling vulnerable, and unable to come to a clear decision. It's still early in the pregnancy -- what to do?

Many of us will never know this feeling, If, like me, you are a man, you will never be forced to make this decision. It is perhaps the most personal decision a woman can make, as it involves a life growing inside her, a life that, in the beginning, she may not even know is there. It will tax reason and belief and logic to come to a decision. Given the gravity of the situation, it is best that there be support and not recrimination.

But some would have you believe that what is best for her is to speak to her about the mortal danger to her soul, how she would be "killing a baby," and to question her sanity and competence to make such a decision. They would relieve her of the burden by threatening her, pressuring her to take a course of action that may very well leave her limited or no options in the future. They would be more concerned with the present than the future. Their short-sighted and misguided attempts to "help" this woman would be nothing short of moral bullying.

It is easy, from the outside, to decide what is right in such a situation, to force the issue into the narrow confines of black-and-white certainty. No one wants to think of human life becoming an easily disposable commodity, but the flip-side of that is to sanctify and venerate such life beyond any realistic measure. To worship a fetus, to promote its life over the life of the mother who carries it, supplies it with a safe environment and the nutrients to allow it to grow to term, is to reduce the mother to a simple vessel, an incubator, and nothing more.

Why should we, beings capable of rational thought, strip away the humanity of a mother? What gives the fetus inside her a greater share of our compassion and care than the very person who will bring that life into the world? Without the mother, there is no child, and yet it as if the fetus obtains its full humanity from the moment of conception, even though it would be months before it could even survive outside the womb, and even then, only with great difficulty. The mother is not a shell to be discarded or a husk to be removed; she is the reason the child will come into the world. It is to her protection and health and well-being we should be directing our energies.

Whatever our personal feelings on the matter may be, the misguided effort to simply fill the world is a destructive and futile one. Even now, fully one-sixth of the population of the planet does not get enough to eat or does not have clean water to drink. It is not enough to simply bring new lives into the world, if they cannot be provided for properly. A child needs food, clothing, shelter, education, and protection, all things which take resources. Many already do not have enough of those resources themselves; to impose upon them the extra burden of another mouth to feed is to potentially condemn a "precious child" to a life of deprivation, want, neglect, or, sadly, abuse.

If, indeed, human life is to be considered precious, then our energies should be turned toward making the world a child enters the best world possible, eliminating poverty, disease, and war, and providing every human with equal rights and equal protection under the law. To invest all out efforts into protecting potential human life, while paying lip service to actual human life, is a folly our society cannot afford to support.

The Big Picture

It is interesting how so many of the more divisive issues we face are the result of a narrow scope on a much larger problem. It seems far easier for many to simply lock in on a singular aspect of society that they find objectionable, ignoring the grand scale that encompasses it.

Take abortion. Much fire and brimstone is traded back and forth over its propriety and legality and morality, but it is simply a singular aspect of a larger framework: human reproduction, more specifically, a woman's ability to regulate when and in what manner she becomes pregnant. With the advent of reliable chemical birth control, it became possible for a woman to gain complete control of her reproduction, allowing her to enjoy her sexuality without the constant fear of becoming pregnant at an inopportune time. This remarkable breakthrough would allow humanity to better manage its resources, as it could have lead to fewer unwanted births, and a reduction in the need for social services to help mothers care for unplanned children. Instead, the whole span of reproductive management has come under attack, with abortion being made into the crux of the issue, instead of sex education. Rather than dealing with the causative factors making abortion more prevalent (rape & incest, poor family planning, lack of sex education, inadequate access to birth control), those who would seek to eliminate it concentrate solely on the procedure itself, instead of its place in the grand scheme.

Take oil. For close to a century now, our insatiable need for energy has been fed by a non-renewable source, oil. While abundant energy on a titanic scale pours down upon us every day, we harness our industrial might, our societal growth, and our military muscle to the yoke of a resource we can no longer control. The sources of oil within our political control our limited, and even if we were to drill in every forest, nature preserve, and sea bed within our grasp, we would find little enough, to quench our insatiable thirst. This leaves us vulnerable to the machinations of other groups and countries; do you remember the oil embargo of the early 70's? Even then, when our consumption was nowhere near the peaks it is at today, we were vulnerable. At that moment, we could have diverted our appetite away from fossil fuel, toward clean and renewable energy. The Space Age had given us the solar cell, but rather than pick it up and run with it, we continued to guzzle gas. Our foreign policy, our political will, and our place in the world has been shaped by a resource we can no longer dominate. We have lost our view of the big picture, and left ourselves vulnerable to dictators and terrorists, rather than making renewable energy a matter of national security, as well as environmental policy.

Take poverty. Despite decades of declaring "war" on it, poverty is even more prevalent now than it was in the days of The Great Depression. While the country's economic power continues to increase, and our influence in the world rises, we continue to neglect our own people, relegating whole swathes of our society to a miserable life of deprivation, disease, and despair. The average American is too easily subject to the vagaries of a system whereby those in power become more powerful at the expense of decent, hard-working, tax-paying people, without paying their proper due. So many groups pour so much effort into "saving" things, or "preserving" things, and yet they walk by people who are hungry, homeless, and without hope. How can we talk of our greatness on the one hand, while we continue the policies that keep so many of our citizens bereft of the basic necessities for a decent life? We are only as strong as the weakest among us, and sadly, there are so many who are too weak to fight, too weak to dream, too weak lift themselves up from the mud. Some would dismiss them, claim they should "think more positively," "work harder," or "stop living off my dime," but they would be missing the bigger picture: that we are a nation, a people, brought together to provide mutual support, and charged by our founders to provide for the common good.

Take any polarizing issue, and you will see that it is generally part of a tableau, a small part of a grand production. While it is always easier to live with blinders, to see only that which is before us, it is our duty to look back at what we've done, and look ahead to what we must do, and strive to reconcile where we are as part of the greater scheme of life. Like it or not, we, humanity, are all in it together. What affects one of us, affects all of us, in the end. Like the butterfly, whose flapping of wings brings about additional perturbation of the atmosphere, so each of us adds to the general course of human events through our action, or inaction. If we are to finally grow as a species, then we must accept that life is far more than the sum of its parts. We must look to the broad scope of humanity, and work toward a greater good for all.

Leap Of Faith

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of one of the most remarkable books to ever come out in the many fields of science: On the Origin of Species. It is interesting to note that the book, that outlined the process of natural selection which is the driving force behind evolution, was not as feared in the mid-19th Century as it is today. In fact, Charles Darwin sent a copy of the book to Reverend Charles Kingsley, a prominent member of the Church of England, who, upon reviewing the work, wrote back to Darwin: "It's just as noble a conception of God to think that he created animals and plants that then evolved, that were capable of self-development, as it is to think that God has to constantly create new forms and fill in the gaps that he's left in his own creation."

The fact is, that if you look down the corridors of history, and specifically those of science, you see that faith was often the starting point for explorations of the workings of the universe. In every faith, everywhere, we see thinkers, looking around at the world, and up to the heavens, wondering how it was all put together, why it all works the way it does. The natural curiosity of philosophers, scientists, and even clergy, throughout the centuries, led to the expansion of human knowledge and the growth of human society. Concepts first outlined in one place and time worked their way forward to inspire others. So it was that the Egyptians inspired the Greeks, who inspired the Romans, and so on, taking concepts of the universe and its workings and passing them down the line to be refined.

One has to realize that this process, of identifying nature and attempting to explain its workings in more rational terms, is not some new phenomenon of the later centuries of Mankind, but a continuous thread that runs through the tapestry of human society. Science, far from denigrating faith or impugning religion, sought to open up the curtains, to see how the creation of the universe was accomplished. It was not enough for some to believe in a god or gods, but that if these deities were responsible for everything, including the appearance of Mankind, then surely their fingerprints were still indelibly etched on the world. To their minds, the perfection of creation was something to not just be mindful of, but to be understood, that they might know their creator better.

Their names are writ large throughout history: Archimedes, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, and yes, even Einstein, who remarked: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." At some point, their personal beliefs drove them to think about, and discover, more about the universe. They believed that if the creation were the work of a god or gods, then it should be comprehensible and logical.

Thus it is inconceivable, given the breadth of human knowledge and the world we now live in, that at the beginning of Third Millennium of Humanity (as per the Christian doctrine), we should see religion attack science for its attempts to pervert or destroy faith. Specifically, we see Christian faiths decrying such things as the teaching of evolution in schools, because it somehow "attacks" their faith. The "intelligent design" movement is just the latest "theory" to provide a direct response to this "threat," attempting to show that there is a "scientific basis" for creationism. This goes far beyond a refutation of evolution, for traces of it can be found in the firestorm of protest over stem cell research, abortion, and the rights of homosexuals. It is all part of a toxic mix, designed to cloud judgment and pander to fear. It is not too far removed from the conditions that ultimately led to the Salem Witch Trials; faith in Christ can lead to salvation, peace, and a better regard for your fellow humans, but it can also lead to suspicion, self-righteousness, and fear-mongering.

It is a measure of the fear of some Christian groups -- and the Roman Catholic Church, from which they sprung -- that such vehement opposition is raised. The mantra heard most often is that science, and government, seek to destroy faith, through the imposition of secular ideals at the expense of that faith. Evolution offends them, contradicts what they know from The Bible, and that somehow diminishes them. Allowing a woman to decide if she will keep a child or not contravenes the lessons of their belief, that it is the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply," that to terminate a pregnancy somehow extinguishes a soul. Allowing homosexuals to marry will erode the meaning of what it is to be married, because homosexuality is an "abomination" in the eyes of the Lord and for them to marry means their faith is somehow stained, and they will not be found worthy.

What the Christian faithful do not truly understand, is that science is not interested in matters of individual faith, per se. Science is interested in teasing apart what makes the universe, and the great variety of things in it, work. It seeks to uncover the watchmaker's fingerprints, to understand the architecture and peruse the blueprints of the creation. Far from annihilating faith, science expands the avenues of it, by showing us the glories of the universe. Who can look at a picture taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and not be moved by how the glowing stars and their home galaxies stretch out into space, filling it with delicate structures, like cathedrals of light? Who cannot marvel at how the sum total of the universe is built of the tiniest number and type of particles, particles too small to see, yet leading to the profusion of things we experience? And how can you not be astounded by a feat of biological engineering, to build such a simple mechanism as evolution, to take a handful of living things, and fill a world?

Blind faith is just that: blind. To take only the words of a book as gospel, to avert your gaze from the true marvels of creation, to wallow in a comfortable stupor as the world changes around you, to never question or show curiosity, is to travel a lonely road to salvation. If you believe in God, and you believe Mankind was made in his image, then is it so far a leap to believe that the brains we were given, the curiosity we were imbued with, and the world we were placed upon are not at once his gifts, but also his puzzle and the means to solve it? Perhaps salvation does not rely on a closed system of faith, but an open system of wonder and belief in a greater world to be explored.

Compassion, Not Inquisition

Abortion. If it can be said that there is one issue that polarizes us, it is this. It pits science, reproductive health, politics, and religion against each other, in a cage match that is a continuous ball of fury, with no clear victor, but many losers. If it can be said that abolition was a major causative factor in The Civil War, in that is was the call for the abolition of slavery that drew a line between the North and the South, and ignited the fuse which led to Fort Sumter, then abortion carries the hallmarks of the next great divisive split in American society. The problem in this interpretation, is that the battle lines are not so clearly drawn, as the battle is waged across the length and breadth of the nation, in small hamlets and large cities, every single day.

The problem with the "debate" (a term used very loosely) is that there is no common language, no agreed upon mutual framework to allow for rational discussion. On one side, stand those who believe ardently in a "right to life"; on the other, the "pro-choice" forces. Right there is the initial contradiction -- each side approaches the question of pregnancy and abortion from its own ground, by labeling their cause for their fundamental belief. The "right to life" group can be better termed the "anti-choice" group; despite the range of individual beliefs held by members of the group, they are united by their desire to see the ability to "choose" abortion as a reproductive health option completely removed. On the other side, it is hard to see the "pro-choice" movement as "anti-life"; the group does not advocate the utter destruction of living things.

If we decide to use roughly comparable terms for the groups (pro-choice/anti-choice), we are not out of the woods. The anti-choice group has taken to calling those who perform abortions "baby killers" or "child murderers"; their position is that from the moment of conception, when sperm meets egg, a "baby" exists, a living being which has a soul, and which is the subject of the depredations of abortion providers. The pro-choice group aligns more with the definitions delineated by science, where gametes meet to form a zygote, which begins a long process of division that forms a fetus, which eventually reaches a stage where it is as developed as it can be in the womb, and must be expelled to live on its own, independently of the mother. The stages of development are well-defined, and it is possible to say how developed the fetus is at any stage in the process.

The gulf between both sides broadens and deepens as you take the debate outward, until, as during The Civil War, you have two sides, poised behind their barriers, shouting, harrumphing, but not communicating. Battle cries uttered, shots fired, and in the end, mindless casualties.

To a woman who has become pregnant unexpectedly, it is like being trapped in the No Man's Land between both sides, as they fire fusillade after fusillade of invective ordinance. It is not enough that she suffers from her own doubt and uncertainty about the life growing inside her, but now she is assailed by voices professing her doom if she "kills that baby" or telling her that "she is in good hands." What right has anyone, outside of her deity or her own conscience, to tell her the fate of her soul? And while abortion, when done legally and under proper conditions, might be a safe and effective medical procedure, where is the assuaging of doubt or guilt? Can it be so clinical or cold, so easy to do? And how can someone else tell her it will be all right, when she does not know if she should be doing it in the first place?

Lost in the cacophony of the fight, is the piteous cry of a woman who does not know, in her heart, what is best. Perhaps it easier for some women, for what woman would wish to carry to term the seed of a rape, or a child that will definitively be shouldered with some horrible malady that will lead to early death? For many, it is not so clear cut. For many, while they understand the mechanics of abortion and know the risks of pregnancy, there is a sense that there is something larger at stake. Whether they are afraid of their own guilt, frightened by the thought of losing the support of friends and loved ones, scared of being cast out of their chosen belief system, or even simply muddled by the glow of potential motherhood, they carry with them an angst not so easily dealt with, or assuaged by reason and logic. It is they, who are ultimately the casualties, souls wrenched by the gravity of the decision they know they must make. In a time of confusion, when the answer is not clear, they need to know that there is no right or wrong answer, only what they feel is best for them. In the end, compassion should rule the day.

Four Words

You shall not kill.

Now, you may take those words at face value, and if you do, their intent is pretty obvious. Killing, it would seem, is wrong.

Mind you, there is not a lot of specificity there. Kill what, precisely? Other people? Animals? Microbes?

Without context, as powerful as the words are, we are left to wonder about their true intent. When placed in the context from which they sprang, the Ten Commandments, there is much better clarity. The Ten Commandments were a series of rules to live by, the codifying of life in terms all could understand and recognize. They told you what to do and what not to do to be seen as good in the eyes of the Old Testament God.

And these 4 words makes sense, even out of that context.

Whatever your belief system, there seems to be a fundamental right to be alive. You are here, brought into this world, raised, part of human society, and it seems perfectly natural for you to stay that way. More to the point, given that we are all human in this society, it seems reasonable to assume that if you have the right to be alive, so do your fellow humans. Taken further, it is an unforgivable breach for one human being to deprive another human being of their life, an asset that cannot be restored, once taken.

What seems obvious, right, and logical to one person, or even group of people, does not always translate. Throughout time, it has always been easier to simply deprive others of their life in order to get what you want. Someone has land you want: you kill them. Someone is in love with a woman you desire: you kill them. Your country is in a shambles and those people are to blame: let us kill them. They do not look like we do: kill them. They do not believe what we do. 

Kill them.

Miraculously, human society still exists, despite the ever-increasing conflicts we pursue, on the ever-increasing scales we pursue them. And where large portions of human society have not managed to wipe other large portions out, there are the small, daily skirmishes, chalked up to daily survival, or worse, the defense of a "way of life."

You shall not kill.

For all the power of those 4 words, they are easily enough ignored when desired. Even the most devout can find a justification for murdering someone, if they try hard enough. Perhaps it is easy to do, because they know they can ask for absolution, a kind of "get out of jail free card" for the soul. Perhaps they are convinced that it is the hand of God that made them do it, and that places them beyond the grip of mortal, human justice. Perhaps they need no more justification than "I can do it, so I will." They do not fear degradation, retribution, or the judgment of other humans, cocooned in a shell of their belief, as unbreakable as their personal faith.

So, it is easy enough for them to justify their actions to themselves, if no one else. Yet we know, there are those who believe as they do, who see these actions, not as deplorable or reprehensible, but as justified, on some loose moral ground. They are driven by a desire to see everyone believe as they do. They are frustrated that their will is not enforced. They see it as their "right" to make the world in their own image. Reason, appeals to sanity, logic... these do not sway them. Their belief is their sword and their shield, and backed by nothing more, they would trample others who stand in their way, all the while hiding behind the protections granted them by their country.

Death begets death. They who live by the sword, die by the sword.

And those who would take up arms to enforce their point of view, or revel in a blow struck for their beliefs, can rest peacefully in their bed, because nowhere will others who oppose them plan the same fate for them. They will not have to worry about being brutally murdered to prove a point.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.