Saturday, April 30, 2011

Who frames the debate about abortion?

One of the people I'm keeping my eye on as a possible GOP candidate for president in 2012 (although he hasn't announced, as of this writing) is Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. He has raised the ire of some fellow conservatives by suggesting a 'truce' with Dems on social issues, so the serious business of our national debt and an economic recovery can be tackled.

I like that, because if a Republican candidate is to be found who can win, he or she cannot be too far to the right on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. But, of course, that raises the question of what constitutes 'too far' to the right. Daniels _is_ a conservative, and he will shortly be signing a bill passed by the Indiana legislature which puts further restrictions on abortions in that state. It also defunds Planned Parenthood in Indiana, a provision Daniels didn't particularly favor, but which was not enough to deter him from signing. That provision will likely mean the loss of $4 million in federal funds, something Daniels, as a cost-conscious executive, isn't happy about, but which didn't trump his conviction that the abortion restriction was morally right.

For my most liberal friends, _any_ restriction on abortion, or any beyond what currently exist, is too far to the right. For someone really on the right of the spectrum on this issue, the Indiana restriction wouldn't be enough. So, what is it? Indiana will now be one of only a handful of states--five, I think--which outlaw abortion after 20 weeks. I believe a much larger number use 24 weeks as the cutoff.

Abortion is such a flashpoint precisely because it _is_ so complicated. Philosophically and from a religious standpoint, if a fetus in the womb is considered a life, then 'when' an abortion is acceptable and when it's not, doesn't matter because it could never be acceptable. I respect those who sincerely believe that, and I think they are maligned when pro-choice advocates portray them, often as a deliberate tactic, as wanting to oppress women by taking away a woman's 'rights.' What they really believe, is that a woman's right to an abortion does not trump another human being's right not to be murdered.

For them, the point at which a fetus becomes viable, i.e., could live outside the womb, doesn't matter, and again, I respect that view. But as a practical matter--in terms of making public policy--it does matter, and history demonstrates that viability has always factored into the equation. In many societies and time periods, the idea of terminating a pregnancy in the early stages was accepted; the common conception was that at a certain point--often when the baby could first be felt moving--the child became 'ensouled,' or became a person.

Is moving from 24 weeks to 20 as a cutoff a good thing? I believe it is. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc., think not, of course, because they believe it is merely an early salvo in a coming war to chip away abortion rights further, if not eliminate them altogether. Certainly, some people would like to see that happen, but the idea that preventing such an outcome depends on digging in and fighting _any_ restrictions is just not logical--it's emotional.

I have no numbers to cite, but I believe a significant majority of Americans accept that a woman's ability to obtain a safe abortion should not be taken away, but also believe there is a responsibility on the part of that woman to obtain it as expeditiously as possible--that there IS a moral difference between aborting a half-inch long fetus that is not yet capable of feeling pain, and aborting one that could actually live, if delivered. I know that a baby delivered several years ago at under 22 weeks survived, and there may be others younger than that, that I haven't heard about. Certainly, given that, 20 weeks as a cutoff, rather than 24, is reasonable.

For those who would say that there are plenty of reasons a woman could be 5-1/2 to 6 months pregnant or more and still require an abortion, maybe so, but most of them aren't compelling enough to warrant the abortion of a baby that is viable. Genuine danger to the mother's life, yes. And as sad as some individual cases might be--women who were victims of incest, for example, who were prevented from seeking help earlier--it is reasonable to decide that unusual and isolated cases should not be the basis for state law. And for those who will argue that late-term abortions will be sought out, anyway, in unsafe conditions, if they are not legally permitted, I don't see that that fact, upsetting as it is, constitutes sufficient reason for deciding there should be no legislation aimed at reducing a practice which does, in fact, take viable lives.

Because that's at the crux of the contention between so-called 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' factions. Whether we like it or not, some reasonable middle ground must be achieved and maintained because a woman does have rights. But her rights are not unlimited, and babies have rights, too.

I know there are many who will disagree with me, so feel free to let me know why.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Thanks a lot, DOOFUS

If anyone works in management at Harris-Teeter (or knows someone who does) please mention to them that a few moments on basic manners might be in order, when training employees who obviously didn't learn them at home...

I popped in for a couple of things before I went to an overdue hair color appt., so maybe it was the grey hairs, or the fact that I'd gotten about four hours of sleep, or just that to the child running the register, anyone over a certain age qualifies as old, but he cheerily asked me how my day was going, rang up my purchases and in a booming voice said "Do you qualify for our senior discount?"

I waited a beat, noticing that he reminded me of one of those adolescent dogs that are friendly and eager to please, but who you know will jump up and paw you and slobber all over you because no one ever taught them not to. (I should mention, lest you think I'm oversensitive, that the senior discount kicks in at 60, and I turn 55 in July.)

"Gee, no," I replied, "I don't believe I do, but I really appreciate your asking!"

The irony flew high above his head, of course; he said, "No problem!" and proceeded to put my items in a bag. One of them was a 14-lb tub of cat litter, and you could almost see a little light bulb come on over his head before he solicitously inquired, "Do you need a cart to get this outside?"

I regularly tote 40-lb bags of cat litter, a fact this young man couldn't be expected to know, but it apparently didn't occur to him that I'd managed to get it up there without a cart, including standing in line holding it for a good while. I spent a couple of seconds wondering if I had the arm strength to lift it over my head and bring it down on his, with any accuracy, decided it wouldn't be worth it even if I could, smiled sweetly and said, "No thanks. I'll try to manage."

When I was a kid, I never could understand why so many old people were grouchy...

Monday, April 11, 2011

Pastor Terry Jones, back at it, but Koran-burning isn't the issue...

When I first wrote about Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who ignited a worldwide firestorm last year by threatening to burn the Koran, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, something for which a number of people took me to task. Although I don't think I was necessarily wrong to have done so at the time, his recent behavior does indeed reveal him to be a pathetic publicity-seeker who deserves just about as much notice as the U.S. press gave him this time around. His feeble assertion that he is not responsible for the deaths of nine UN staffers at the hands of outraged Afghan civilians ten days ago is technically true, but how he can live with himself, I don't know. The mullahs who incited the violence, after the Koran burning was publicized by our "ally" Hamid Karzai, are responsible, along with the murderers themselves, but the tool they used was Jones. If his actions were--in any way--necessary or important, then one might view him with less disdain, but they weren't.

No one has attempted to restrict his free speech rights, in his church or in public. He can, and presumably has been, expressing his views about Islam and the Koran to whoever will listen. He said, last year, that he would not burn the Koran--then or ever--but went back on his promise. That, alone, condemns him and his motives. He should be ashamed and contrite, not to mention distraught at the deaths of the UN staffers.

But, Jones is not the point. Most of us can see the difference between his desire to burn the Koran--ultimately an act that is as pointless as it is inflammatory, if you'll pardon the pun--and the desire, for instance, of Danish
cartoonists to publish their work. We can see that in the latter case, there is a clear 'slippery slope' in censoring the cartoonists or expecting them to censor themselves, in spite of the fact that offense will be caused and people might get killed.

But the radical mullahs and their followers do _not_ see that distinction, and never will, because our notions of freedom of speech and religion, not to mention separation of church and state, mean nothing to them, if they even understand them. The murders of the UN staffers were precipitated by three mullahs who urged worshipers at Friday prayers to take to the streets to agitate for Jones' arrest. Whether these particular mullahs were ignorant of the fact that Jones did not commit an arrestable offense under American law, or not, doesn't much matter. Our supposed partner in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, certainly knows he didn't, yet he chose to exploit the incident for political gain by publicizing Jones' actions instead of simply ignoring them, like the rest of the world. This is the same Karzai who recently said he is eager to reconcile with the Taliban.

What are we doing there? The most prominent of the mullahs who incited the murders, Mohammed Shah Adeli, said that if Jones isn't punished, Afghanistan should cut off relations with the United States. What a great idea! I know it's all about Pakistan, really, but I can't help but wish we would just shake the dust of that place off our boots and leave them to it.