My Favorite Pro-life Feminist

Susan B. Anthony:

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

This is from Feminists for Life which features an excellent page of quotes from early pioneers of the Women's Suffrage Movement.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm#egoldman

Even better Robbie George article

This interview was published on U.S. News and World Report online. In it, Prof. George of Princeton presents the scientific data related to embryonic life in even fuller detail.

Here's the link to the full post:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/04/03/robert-george-answers-doug-kmiecs-questions-on-life-issues.html

Here's one of my favorite quotes:

Science has important things to contribute to ethical reflection, but by itself it cannot resolve ethical questions. Science cannot tell us whether there are such things as dignity and rights, or whether all human beings or, for that matter, any human beings have them. Science cannot tell us whether slavery or segregation or rape or torture is right or wrong. It cannot tell us whether mentally retarded individuals or victims of senile dementia have the same fundamental dignity and right to life as the rest of us possess. It cannot tell us whether it is unjust to kill infants or mentally disabled people to harvest their vital organs to use in transplantation surgery. It cannot tell us whether it is wrong to kill blacks to save whites, or Jews to save gentiles, or human beings in early developmental stages to save those at later stages. Science can confirm that blacks, no less than whites, Jews, no less than gentiles, and embryos, fetuses, and infants, no less than adolescents and adults, are living individuals of the human species—human beings. The questions that then must be faced are ethical, not scientific: Do all human beings, or only some, possess inherent dignity? Do we truly hold that all human beings are "created equal"? Or do we deny the principle of human equality and hold that some human beings may be regarded and treated as superior and others inferior based on factors such as race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency? As a nation, we are formally committed to the principle of human equality in fundamental rights—above all, the right to life. The history of our nation is, to a considerable extent, a history of our struggle to live up to what this principle demands. We have made great progress. Let us not turn our backs on it now.

"I was wrong" about abortion

Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton was once on a panel discussion with Prof. Stanley Fish of Duke University. Fish was one of America's most prominent secularists and a staunch abortion advocate. When posed with the question: "Can we debate important moral issues when people proceed from deeply divergent starting points?" Fish argued that reason can never solve debates because there are no universal truths. Before the convention, Fish had pointed to abortion as a perfect example:

"A pro-life advocate sees abortion as a sin against God who infuses life at the moment of conception; a pro-choice advocate sees abortion as a decision to be made in accordance with the best scientific opinion as to when the beginning of life, as we know it, occurs. No conversation between them can ever get started because each of them starts from a different place and they could never agree as to what they were conversing about."

Prof. George responded with an essay, pointing out that one can defend the unborn without an appeal to religion. What scientific evidence tells us that at the moment of conception, a distinct, unique living being is created, with the full genetic code of a human being.

At the debate, Prof. Fish responded by saying, "Professor George is right, and he is right to correct me." Furthermore, Fish, who had been a staunch abortion rights advocate, admitted that science overwhelmingly favored the pro-life position, and condemned abortion rights advocates for ignoring such evidence.

The debate over abortion and stem cell research truly is one of science vs. ideology, except that it is actually the pro-aborts who rely on ideological arguments. Were the abortion debate to be decided by scientific evidence alone, the pro-life position would be vindicated, and an unborn child would be recognized as indistinguishable from any human person.

Here's a link to Prof. George's essay, in which he explains what science tells us about the being in the womb: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0041.html

Here is an article about the debate by Chuck Colson: http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0000029.cfm

Quotes by Robert George for Reference

This week, a prof. debated me on abortion. Essentially, this prof. framed the debate in this manner: a pro-life advocate is motivated by their religion; instead the debate should be motivated by scientific inquiry. That analysis is similar to that of Professor Stanley Fish of Duke University, which is quoted in this article by Professor Robert George of Princeton. In this article, Prof. George presents what science does tell us about the abortion question. He concludes that:

"The scientific evidence establishes the fact that each of us was, from conception, a human being. Science, not religion, vindicates this crucial premise of the pro-life claim."

I'll simply quote Prof. George at length here (mostly this is just for myself so that I can find these quotes later for reference, though I'd encourage you to read Prof. George's article, which I linked to  earlier):

"Professor Fish is mistaken, then, in contrasting the pro-life advocate with the pro-choice advocate by depicting (only) the latter as viewing abortion as “a decision to be made in accordance with the best scientific opinion as to when the beginning of life . . . occurs.” First of all, supporters of the pro-choice position are increasingly willing to sanction the practice of abortion even where they concede that it constitutes the taking of innocent human life. Pro-choice writers from Naomi Wolfe (“Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic (1995), reprinted with commentaries by pro-life writers in The Human Life Review (Winter, 1996)) to Judith Jarvis Thomson (“A Defense of Abortion,” in Marshall Cohen (ed.), The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion (Princeton University Press, 1974)) have advanced theories of abortion as “justifiable homicide.” But, more to the point, people on the pro-life side insist that the central issue in the debate is the question “as to when the beginning of life occurs.” And they insist with equal vigor that this question is not a “religious” or even “metaphysical” one: it is rather, as Professor Fish says, “scientific.”

In response to this insistence, it is pro-choice advocates who typically want to transform the question into a “metaphysical” or “religious” one. It was Justice Harry Blackmun who claimed in his opinion for the Court legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) that “at this point in man’s knowledge” the scientific evidence was inconclusive and therefore cold not determine the outcome of the case. And twenty years later, the influential pro-choice writer Ronald Dworkin went on record claiming that the question of abortion is inherently “religious.” (See Ronald Dworkin, Life’s Dominion (Alfred A. Knopf, 1993).) It is pro-choice advocates, such as Dworkin, who want to distinguish between when a human being comes into existence “in the biological sense” and when a human being comes into existence “in the moral sense.” It is they who want to distinguish a class of human beings “with rights” from pre-(or post-) conscious human beings who “don’t have rights.” And the reason for this, I submit, is that, short of defending abortion as “justifiable homicide,” the pro-choice position collapses if the issue is to be settled purely on the basis of scientific inquiry into the question of when a new member of homo sapiens comes into existence as a self-integrating organism whose unity, distinctiveness, and identity remain intact as it develops without substantial change from the point of its beginning through the various stages of its development and into adulthood."

Boldness

Ephesians 6:19-20 Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

Acts 4:29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness.

 Philip P. Bliss:

“Dare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone!  Dare to have a purpose firm!   Dare to make it known!”

Democrats May Kill D.C. Scholarship Program

President Barack Obama’s two daughters, Sasha and Malia Obama, may lose two of their classmates soon. The $410 billion spending bill which is currently before Congress includes a provision which would threaten the Washington D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), which provides up to $7,500 to low-income families so that they can afford to send their children to a private or religious school of their choice. Over 1,700 students receive money from this scholarship, and the future of their education may be drastically affected by the bill if it is passed as is. This would include Sarah and Matt Parker, who attend the same private school as Obama’s daughters, Sidwell Friends School. Without the scholarship, it is likely that these students will no longer be able to afford the tuition for the school of their choice.

The question this raises is, should public money be used for private school vouchers, including religious schools? Obama has repeatedly asserted that they should not, arguing that people shouldn't abandon the public schools just because they're failing their children. Of course, when it came to choosing a school for his own daughters, Obama wisely chose private education over the inferior public schools in both Chicago and Washington D.C. Though his anti-school-choice policies, Obama is denying low-income families the chance to make the same choice he did.

Vouchers are strongly supported by poor families, especially parents from minority groups. Citing evidence from a 2008 Education Next/Harvard PEPG survey, J. William Reed of The Washington Times wrote, “65 percent of African-Americans support private school vouchers for low-income students (14 percent opposed). Among Hispanics, 63 percent support vouchers for low-income children (16 percent opposed).”

The Supreme Court has ruled that all parents have a fundamental right to choose where their child is educated, whether they choose a public school, a private school, or a Christian school. However, many parents cannot afford to exercise this right. By killing the OPS, Democrats in Congress are doing indirectly what they are forbidden to do directly: denying parents the opportunity to choose a private school.

An amendment for the stimulus is being put forward by Republicans, which will remove the damaging provision. It's the last chance for OSP because Obama promises to sign the spending bill as soon as it's passed, regardless of the provision.

During the campaign, Obama promised to go through the budget "line by line" and cut wasteful spending. Why hasn't he exercised this power yet? Why sign a bill which will deny two kids the opportunity to go to Sidwell Friends School when he could easily cross out the provision?

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/03/06/d-c-school-voucher-program-jeopardized-by-spending-bill/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030701767.html

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/08/scholarships-at-risk/

Obama and Dr. Evil

Obama gave a speech supporting the proposed annual federal budget: 3.6 Trillion dollars. Man, Dr. Evil only wanted $100,000,000,000, in the James Bond spoof, Austen Powers. Along with the Trillion dollar "stimulus package" the new government is spending more money than was spent by the federal government from the founding of this country to the current day. 

During the campaign, Obama sharply criticized the massive debt incurred by Bush. But if this budget does not change, at the end of four years Obama will have added twice the amount to the national debt that Bush added in eight years. If Obama is reelected, he will add a total of triple the amount Bush spent to the national debt. Looks like we're in for four more years of Bush's financial follies.

Bleakhouse - a Congress controlled by Democrats

A tragic character in Charles Dickens' Bleakhouse is Richard Carstone, whose mindset reminds me of the Democrats in control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the (Bleak) House. 

Richard Carstone has unusual logic regarding how he spends his money. Say Richard wants to spend 10 pounds on something he doesn't need, but his friends Esther and Ada (all three wards of the benevolent Mr. Jarndyce) stop him from wasting his money. Later on, he may waste 6 pounds on something else he doesn't need. However, as he repeatedly insists to his fellow wards, he has really saved 4 pounds, because earlier on he did not spend the 10 pounds. Richard carried this unusual logic further and further until eventually, he ends up deeply in debt.

Obama and the Democrats argue that, by getting out of Iraq, they will be saving over a billion dollars annually, which is a generous estimation on their part. Somehow, "saving" a billion dollars somehow makes it fiscally sensible to spend over a trillion dollars, which is now their annual budget. The Democrats are actually carrying the financial insensibility of Richard Carstone a step further then that poor fictitious soul ever could.

By not spending billions, we can now afford to spend trillions? Never mind that it was thanks to the surge (and George W.) that we were on the path to a successful withdrawal from Iraq, already. Never mind that over nine thousand earmarks in the new stimulus bill will easily erase these perceived savings.

The logic behind this argument is fundamentally flawed, and certainly does not make such massive spending fiscally responsible. 

Richard Carstone came to an unfortunate fate at the end of Bleakhouse. Time will tell if the Democrats will lead America's economy to a similar end with their fiscal policies. 

Things They Carried

(Blogger won't let me post this image right now. I'll get it up soon, but if you want to see it, check out my DeviantArt Gallery.)

For Mira Wiegmann's Intro to Lit class, we read Tim O'Brien's short story, "The Things They Carried." I decided to illustrate the story with a sketch of an American soldier in Vietnam, burdened my the many objects he carries. Many of these were inspired by the story. I chose John Wayne for several reasons: first, he is awesome, second, he is identified with America's strength of spirit throughout history (he even made a film about Vietnam), and third, "John Wayne complex" was something we discussed in class. Real soldiers adopted Wayne's persona to cope with the stress of war. If you're familiar with the story, you'll recognize my inspiration for many of the unusual objects he carries. See how many you can spot!

Answer key: In addition to various weaponry, including the M-16, he carries socks, an illustrated New Testament, a comic book, a plastic jug, a bandage, a feathered tomahawk, a human thumb as a good luck charm, a sling shot as his last defense, and barely visible a water canteen on his left side

GS 201

Oh brother! The whole GS program is just laid back.

March to a Promised Land, is thorough, but a bit dull. However, I found this quote rather intriguing:

Until the middle of the twentieth century, relatively few blacks voted. Some blacks had voted in the segregated states for years without incident or protest . . . The Republican Party, seeking a way through the solid white Democratic wall in the South, had some success in the early to middle part of the century attracting blacks. But the political control in the South was not in the Republican camp at that time. It was a white Democratic South. (87)

Who knew? I have always heard the civil rights movement framed as progressive Democrats versus Republicans. Yet, without the support of Republicans, the Civil Rights act of 1964 would not have passed. "The opposition was led by Southern Democrats who had dominated Senate leadership for many years" (124). On what basis does the Democratic take sole credit for championing the civil rights movement in politics.

By the way, Alabama Governor George Wallace, famous for proclaiming "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" was a Democrat. I had never heard that about him before.

President Garfield

Here are a couple quotes by President James. A Garfield, which I believe still ring true:

Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature ... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation...it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

"The chief duty of government is to keep the peace and stand out of the sunshine of the people."

Obama's Swearing In

Ronald Reagan's Inaugural Address

Obama's Inauguration

An old comic I wrote when it became clear that Barrack would overcome the Clinton machine. 

The feeling I get when I see an advertisement for a Christmas shopping sale before Halloween is the same feeling I'm starting to get when I see Obama's face, again. It's inescapable. He's in Sports Illustrated, he's in fine art magazines, he's on every news station all the time. 

Well, while you're enjoying the inauguration, I'll be in class watching Othello.

"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause." - Star Wars Episode III, Revenge of the Sith

10 steps to Communism

These are Karl Marx's "10 Planks" or 10 steps that must be instituted in order to achieve communism. Some of them may surprise you:

1. Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.

2. A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.

3. Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.

5. Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.

6. Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.

7. Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.

8. Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.

9. Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.

10. Free Education for All Children in Public Schools.

    Would it surprise you to learn that we in America can already check off a few items on this list? First, America already possesses a progressive, graduated income tax, and this year, a man who thinks it needs to be even more progressive, "As a matter of fairness," is coming into power. By bailing out corporations, the federal government has also gotten into the banking business, fulfilling step five. Bank of America, now, really is the bank of America. 

    Though Karl Marx may not have thought so, the most important step of all is 10. If you control the schools, you can control what the next generation will think. Karl Marx would not have supported school choice, voucher programs, or any form of private education, including home schooling. 

Thoughts on Gaza

Haven't posted in a while. It's hard to keep up a regular blog while juggling the responsibilities of college life. Some days, like today, I have so much free time to kill, I can post twice in one day. I have been thinking a lot about the situation in Gaza. 

In one of my classes, a student declared Israel guilty of genocide, based solely on the fact that some innocent Palestinians had been killed in combat. The very next class period, we discussed the civil rights movement, non-violent protest, and basic human rights. Someone asked us to pray that Israel adopt non-violent methods when dealing with Hamas, accusing Israel of violating the basic human rights of the Palestinians in Gaza.

To quote C.S. Lewis' character, Professor Kirke, "Why don't they teach logic at these schools?" 

 I am not thoroughly up-to-date on the latest news from the frontline, but let us step behind John Rawls "veil of ignorance." (In other words, pretend you know absolutely nothing about Gaza or Israel.) Say that for decades, your country and your people have been under attack by a terrorist group, one that will not rest until you have been obliterated. Your government, under immense pressure from countries around the world, tries to appease this organization by giving them a chunk of land they want. "Land for Peace," cries the world. However, the terrorists are not placated. In fact, using this strip of land as a base, this terrorist organization can now fire missiles even deeper into your country. Over the course of a few years, the terrorists fire over 100 missiles into populated towns. You are a civilian in one of these towns, and in your town there is a siren. When it goes off, you have 15-30 seconds to dive for shelter before a missile strikes the ground, firing deadly shrapnel in all directions. Men, women, and children must walk the streets listening for this siren. 

Now, what course of action is proper to deal with this problem? If the country were America, and a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda, situated in any given county, had fired 100 missiles into our country, can you honestly tell me that you would not support military action to protect American lives? Or shouldn't America take the moral high-road and, in the spirit of friendship, express our problem using only non-violent protest, in the spirit of Ghandi? Maybe, just maybe, Al-Qaeda, impressed by our benevolent spirit, will decide that they don't want to exterminate us and abandon their attacks on our country!

Now, let us step back out of the veil of ignorance. The country is Israel, the terrorist organization is called Hamas, and the strip of land is called Gaza. What do you expect the Israelites to do? Sit outside the border of Gaza and sing Kum-ba-ya?

It's called defensive warfare.

Robert P. George on Killing Abortionists

Professor Robert P. Geroge of Princeton is a genius whose opinions on ethics and law are widely respected. When asked whether it is justifiable to use lethal force against those who perform abortions, he wrote this brief response. It is one of the most witty and brilliant pro-life arguments I have seen:

I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice.