Abortion

I am getting more interested in abortion rights since the murder of Dr. George Tiller on May 31, 2009.

Pro - Life groups have an argument that interests me. They argue that the legalization of abortion defined fetuses as nonhuman and, thus, not subject to protection under the law. You can't have a doctor kill your two year old child, they say, so why can you have a doctor terminate your 6 month old fetus? They compare legalized abortion to eugenics laws, such as those in nazi Germany, that defined the disabled, homosexuals, gypsies, and Jews as nonhuman and unworthy of legal protection. The Nuremburg trials declared that all people will be required to use their own moral sense, not merely the law, to determine if actions they take are illegal in the larger sense. If they fail this test they can be rightly and legally executed after later legal prosecution. That makes this a very grave matter for all people - if you make the morally wrong choice, even if you follow the law or you follow your orders, you could be rightfully hanged by some future tribunal!

So, Pro Life activists argue, they must act to stop abortion since it is, in their eyes, tantamount to the genocide imposed by the nazi regime. They even argue that, since violence can be justified if it helps to stop a genocide, violence against abortion providers can be rightful.

I have two rebuttals.

My first rebuttal regards the role of state power. The role of state power and coercion is exactly and diametrically opposed in the two cases. In abortion, the mother decides on the fate of her pregnancy and the state may not interfere with her decision. In the nazi genocide the state sent armed men to tear babies from the hands of mothers, to starve mothers with their children, and to burn them together. In the case of abortion a woman makes a difficult and often sad decision about how best she can give herself, and any children she choses to have, the best lives she can. I cannot see two more opposite social phenomena than that. It would seem to me that conservatives should be especially opposed to any government forcing women to have unwanted babies. In the most extreme and awful example, Pro Life advocates would demand that the state send armed men to force little girls who have been raped by their own fathers to bear the unwanted babies that could result.

My other rebuttal concerns the status of a fetus. I believe that a fetus is, certainly, human life. But I believe it is a special case of human life. Fetuses cannot possibly perceive the world the way a postpartum child or adult does. This is simply demonstrated by the fact that the fetus spends nine months in extreme confinement, dark, and immersed in liquid. These conditions would be completely intolerable to a baby or adult and they approximate some people's worst and most primal fears of being buried alive. If fetuses were aware of discomfort they should have a nine month long claustrophobic panic attack, and we could measure their racing hearts and soaring cortisol levels. Thus, comparing the treatment of fetuses and children leads to some absurd conclusions. One could argue that, if you packed your two year old child into a rubber bag in darkness and underwater for nine months you'd be indicted for child abuse, therefore it should be illegal to carry a fetus to term.

The brains of fetuses are in the earliest possible state of development, never having begun to coordinate sensory inputs from vision, language, or motor feedback. No one remembers being in the womb, probably because the fetal brain is not developed enough to form memories. I would assume that this state would be like a coma. But of course no one can know.

What I do know is that there are worse things than never being born, and all of them are more likely to happen to an unwanted child. I think that a child who is never really loved is a greater tragedy than a life that never really gets started. A recent study I read showed that people who had experienced any form of childhood trauma, even if they had merely entered foster care at some point, had a many times higher risk for suicide than other people. Suicide is a leading cause of death in our society. How much misery could be alleviated if every child could experience stable, secure, and loving childhoods?

Surely it would be worse if the government forced women to bear unwanted children than to give women a second chance to start their families when they are prepared.

Politics - Racism, Sotomayor, and Gates.

I just wanted to write this down because of the Sotomayor confirmation and the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr.

I find it remarkable that Conservatives have criticized Sonia Sotomayor as a racist for suggesting that people with different racial backgrounds can see matters of law and evidence in different lights.

Conservative strategists have found ways to suggest that anyone who acknowledges the consequences of race is a racist. They have attempted to promote an alternative to racial considerations where simply treating everyone equally and looking at social issues with strict objectivity is the only way to be just. I think that this view is too simplistic. Facts about social issues such as police wrongdoing mean different things to people with different life experiences.

A case in point is the arrest of Dr. Gates. Gates has been described by Conservatives as "having an inflated view of himself" for talking back to his arresting officer. Even the President has apologized for initially calling Dr. Gates' arrest stupid. But I think that, to racially aware people, the facts in the Gates arrest carry obvious meanings that may not be perceived by Conservatives or even by most white people.

let's consider Justice Sotomayor. Sotomayor grew up poor in the Bronx. Chief justice Roberts, on the other hand, grew up in less troubled suburban Indiana, and then went straight to Harvard.

Is it racist or reverse racist to say that Sotomayor might have a different perception of American society than Roberts, and that this would benefit the Supreme Court? Judges ultimately rely on their own compiled experience, or wisdom, to decide what legal arguments are credible and what ones are not. Strict logic, important as it is, can only be applied to factual evidence, and the meaning of such facts is socially determined.

So, if a case about police misconduct comes before the court, isn't it likely that Sotomayor will be more accustomed to the possibility that the police make mistakes than Roberts? In New York in just the last ten years or so we have at least three cases where white police officers killed or tortured black men wrongly. One man was killed by police after taking out his wallet, one was himself a police officer, a third was tortured while already in custody. People in poor communities have long been more fearful of the police than those in affluent ones. Roberts would almost certainly find it harder to believe that police would kill someone who had done nothing wrong than Sotomayor, just because the view of police in white suburbs is far more positive than in poor neighborhoods in inner cities. One's automatic and subconscious reactions, even, are programmed by such life experiences.

On the Gates matter, his arrest was stupid, and the President should not have apologized. He was arrested when he had not committed a crime. I believe he was arrested because he angered Officer Crowley by refusing to submit to him utterly. I think that Gates was outraged that Crowley would not accept that Gates was in his own house. I think that Gates' questioning of Crowley was (rightly) perceived as disrespect, and that Crowley arrested him out of anger. That is wrongful arrest, as I understand it. Police can only legally arrest people who are suspected of committing crimes. Crowley should have known that it is not a crime to get angry at a police officer, or even to insult a police officer, especially in one's own home where no public disruption could result.

The fuel of the Gates and Crowley conflict, of course, was racism. Most black people know that they are prone to be unlawfully stopped, arrested, or killed by police. I believe that some Black conservatives deny this, but it is common knowledge in most Black communities. A black man being questioned by the police has to fear for his life, and when it becomes clear that the police are not treating him fairly this will, of course, provoke great outrage in him. This fear must have been heavy on Dr. Gates during the incident that led to his arrest. His defiance of officer Crowley must have begun when Crowley refused to believe that Gates was the occupant of the house, and Gates knew that the only possible reason for that was his race.

Moreover, the President knew that a white professor in the same situation simply would not have been arrested. Even if a white professor insulted an officer, the officer would have been more likely to fear being disciplined for wrongful arrest. And, paradoxically, a black man getting angry at a white officer is perceived by the officer as especially unreasonable and threatening. These subconscious assumptions about power, security, and privilege underlie race relations in America, and pretending otherwise makes Conservatives look especially dishonest in these two latest matters.