The Precoi

Slavery is slavery. How's that for tautology? But it helps if I describe what I view as slavery. And that is the condition when one individual is under the control of another. He has no free will. He makes no independent decisions. They're not his to make. Only his master decides what he is to do and what his fate is. In ancient Rome slavery was accompanied by the power of life and death, and in more recent examples it was sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected. But even when rejected it was often tolerated. The control was, for all intents and purposes, total.

Murder is murder. It doesn't matter if the victim is nine days old, nineteen years old, ninety-nine, or somewhere in between. Or beyond these numbers one way or another. Killing an innocent individual is considered murder in virtually all modern societies and it is banned – though, as with slavery, the ban is sometimes overlooked.

What about abortion? The Guttmacher Institute estimates that between 2011 and 2014 there were about 56 million abortions annually. That's a lot of humans who never experienced extrauterine life or any form of liberty. Until they were murdered, they were slaves. Of course such a formulation requires a better description of a human being. From my perspective, whatever is alive and has the potential for being a human being is a human being. Many will disagree with me, but that is my view and what I'll use for the remainder of this essay. I don't think there is much difference between a fetus that will be born later today and one born this morning. And if we go back days or weeks or months the same basic premise applies. “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), the plaintiff in the Roe v Wade case (and its “poster child”) said later

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth— that's a baby!

The Supreme Court may have decided one way, but Roe decided another. As did Mary Doe (Sandra Cano was “Doe” in Doe v Bolan, a case which also supported abortion, but was repudiated by Cano.)

Abortion is murder. However it's sanctioned by the courts. It's the law of the land. But perhaps the issue should rethought. There are approximately a million abortions in the United States each year. That's the official number. In all likelihood the count is much higher since some are reported as non-stigmatizing procedures such as diagnostic d and c, or given some other such non-political title. But that's not the issue. Each year we lose a million children who may have grown up to be scientists, musicians, writers, teachers, and all sorts of other things. With the aid of the medical profession, their parents murdered them.

Why do people choose to abort. Clearly the pregnancy is unwanted by at least one of the parents, almost invariably the mother. The pregnancy is usually unplanned, although there may after the fact consideration. And many occur among unmarried women.

The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner. Also from Guttmacher)

They seem like good reasons, but murder is murder. They wouldn't kill their two-year-old so they could provide for the fetus, so what makes the reverse acceptable? If there is concern over other responsibilities, consideration should have been given to contraception or abstention. Most adults know “the facts of life” and the relationship of coitus to pregnancy, and should have factored in that possibility in their behavior. And intercourse may not be the best way to deal with problems – with your partner or anyone else.

Not all sexual relations are voluntary and there may be a desire to be rid of the evidence and burden if pregnancy results. The goal is understandable but not the means. Another concern, especially among the unmarried, is that the father will deny any responsibility or help in the support and raising of the child.

No. Those are excuses. Abortion is the best solution some people have for an unwanted pregnancy – usually an avoidable pregnancy. There are many contraceptive medicines and devices available that will avoid the issue. But coitus is pleasurable. And, sadly, it is often spontaneous with relatively little consideration of the consequences, among the married and the single. Which is the basis for my proposal. (And it is a serious proposal. Not a satire.)

The inspiration for the proposal is the already existing and popular prenuptial agreement (a “prenup”). That agreement spells out the circumstances to be covered and the penalties for failure to do so. My specific suggestion is a “precoi,” a precoital agreement. Details would be spelled out on numbered one-page clearly-worded, understandable sheets that would list the date, names of the participants, and the obligation of the male to provide DNA if paternity is questioned, and monetary and psychological support if is shown to be the case. The extent of the support could be left to a judge or a panel. The document would be signed by both parties, and they would agree that abortion, murder, is not an option. Both would agree to take responsibility for such an action. (And the abortionist is equally guilty and should share their fate.)

A variety of beneficial effects can be anticipated from such a procedure (although some would argue on that point). First of all it would slow down an affair or a connection that is proceeding too rapidly. It gives both parties a few moments to think. Indeed, it may result in the decision not go further – and that would certainly lessen the number of abortions. The document, if available at a legal proceeding, would establish consent. Absence of the document might suggest consent and spontaneity (and finessing the document), although the same result might follow rape (and the absence of the document) or a questionable accusation (and its destruction). The need for the justice system to make that determination remains, although the absence of the slip, if not reported immediately, would be a consideration for the adjudicator.

The agreement would be a starting point if there is any need to establish paternity. The willingness to provide DNA, and its availability would be of great value in such an endeavor. The results of such testing would help in the establishment of both monetary responsibility if the child is alive, and guilt if there has been an abortion. (Whether this agreement, which was obtained for an entirely different purpose – monetary responsibility – from the decision to “terminate the pregnancy,” constitutes inadmissible self-incrimination would be decided by the judiciary.) If a father is not identified, society should support the mother rather than allowing her to have an abortion.

But the most important result of such a document would often be the avoidance of a murder, and the continued life of a human being. It is the responsibility of society to make life worth living, but society has no right to sanction the murder of an innocent party.

The document would have its greatest application when the participants aren't married, but there are times when even married couples decide that an abortion is necessary. That's a legal issue. Monetary responsibility, which is the focus of the agreement, is usually not in question. Nonetheless, this, or a similar agreement, should be considered.

Bottom line: abortion is murder. I've said it several times both because I believe it and because society apparently does not. That's the first principle to be established. And the obligation to provide a good life for the survivor comes close behind.

September 25, 2017

Life And Death

We're a socially active nation. And we're concerned about all our members. We protest the inequalities of the "system," and the individuals who succeed in it. We're concerned over those who don't succeed and, indeed, any group that believes itself to be oppressed.

But we're an inconsistent society. Life and death are issues that we treat with opposing views and with opposing tools. We take to the streets and scream in protest when we think that will be beneficial, and to the courts when we see polite and reasoned disputation as our best bet. Our arguments may not deal with our actual concerns but they are the tools that sometimes accomplish what we may not get otherwise.

For example, we are infuriated by an organization that defeats an opponent in court because that party cannot pay the fees or afford the time that large firms dictate by their wealth and their resources. Yet we do not hesitate to defeat a project by invoking laws which we argue weren't observed fully, like environmental impact studies. It doesn't matter if their claims are true or not as long as they can delay the project.

The same applies to our beliefs and actions when it comes to life and death. We support what we consider the right of people to have their doctor take their life when they consider it intolerable. Or to take it themselves. Suicide. Yet we oppose capital punishment, even for those who would prefer death to life in prison. Their suicide would be contrary to any principles about the sacredness of life because the government is involved. (Some oppose killing in war, most do not.)

Yet our society is one based on costs and benefits. We know there will be thirty to forty thousand dying each year in automotive accidents (and many more who are maimed or otherwise injured) but we don't want to stop automobile manufacture. It's a large industry that pays a large amount in taxes and employs large numbers of our citizens, in addition to providing what we consider a vital means of transportation. And, predictably, lives are lost in bridge, tunnel, and other infrastructure projects. And in manufacturing as well.

We tolerate the manufacture, sale, and use of alcohol and tobacco because they provide us with revenue – and because we don't know what to do about them. We march and protest when one individual is killed – especially by a police officer – but do not do so when a large number of murders are committed. As Joseph Stalin said, The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. The same is true of hundreds or thousands.

But what about abortions? According to Wikipedia, between 1970 and 2013 there were nearly fifty-two million (reported). A statistic, not a tragedy. Except for the fifty-two million who never had the option of extrauterine life. They had life but only intrauterine. That definition of life is disputed by those who favor “choice.” The choice, is the mother's, not the fetus's. (“Mother's,” by the way, implies something about the status of the fetus.)

Perhaps Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe in Roe v Wade) made that point of view when she said

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth—that's a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit [involved in the Supreme Court case], I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion—at any point—was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear

Some may argue that those opposed to abortion should also oppose the death penalty. Consistency demands it. Both involve the taking of life. That's true, but there the similarity ends.

Those sentenced to death are viewed by most of us as evil and it is for their crimes that they are being penalized. But the same cannot be said of fetuses that have not harmed anyone. They have done nothing to deserve a death penalty. If they cause the mothers pain it is because of an act that their mothers, not the fetuses, performed. Even for acts performed under duress, although there may be some understandable debate, no one can blame the fetus. But we can remove it. Out of sight, out of mind.

There is far more to be said about life and death, but it will have to wait.

August 27, 2017

__________________?

Have you ever wondered what your offspring would be like if you had married someone else?ⁱ What would theyⁱⁱ look like? Would their intelligence be different? And what about personality? Chances are there wouldn't be that much of a difference. You'd probably have chosen a mate with some similarities to the one you did – physical, intellectual and personality ones – and that means the children wouldn't be all that much different from what you have. Your parenting techniques would probably be much like the ones you used or are using now, so nurture, like nature, wouldn't vary all that much from what's currently the case. Of course you'll never know. If that had been the case you'd have other offspring and there would be no one available for the comparison with them.

But there would be one major difference – _____________ [fill in with your children's namesⁱⁱⁱ] wouldn't exist. The ones you love dearly, simply wouldn't be there. And you'd never know the difference.^iv Nor would they. Not existing, how could they know the opportunity lost to them? And whatever impact they would have had on the world won't come about, but no one will ever be aware of that. And their children – the images of your beloved sons and daughters – will never be known to you. That, though, is life. Or, more to the point, that isn't life. And, of course, there's always the possibility that you might never have existed.

Abortion is like that – the child^v lost will never be known by us, nor ever self-aware. But there's one important difference, because no other would be born in his place. The first situation – a different child because one of the parents is different – represents a kind of zero-sum exercise, even if the gain and loss can't be compared because they won't both exist. In the case of abortion, it's all loss. It's not zero-sum, but all negative. The starting point – the fetus – will never mature into a human. It will be ablated before it is fully developed. Almost the same as contraception, except that the latter is more passive than active.^vi Almost the same, but not quite. There's no need to destroy what never existed. In that way, it's more zero-sum than negative.

What is the meaning of life? That's what it all comes down to, even if I have no idea what is the answer to the question. I don't even know what the question is.^vii It is clearly a matter of concern to the general population though. Just as the question of abortion^viii troubles society, so does the use of capital punishment in American society.^ix And there are numerous vegetarians and their “extremists,” vegans. Where they all stand on the treatment of bacterial infections, which require the killing of bacteria, I don't know. Perhaps, because they consider vegetables fair game, this doesn't bother them.^x,xi But what about killing tapeworms? And even if they believe the use of leather should be proscribed, what's the status of wool? Is there a single answer to the question of life or do individuals and society have to draw their own lines?

I don't recall the invention of fire. Nor do I remember Socrates, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, or Woodrow Wilson. I hadn't been born. I didn't exist. Suppose you never existed. Of course you wouldn't be aware of it. Nor would you be aware that you weren't aware. Nor would you be. You would certainly have no memory of those past events I mentioned. Or anything else. But, unaware, you wouldn't care.

That's all philosophy. The good thing about being a philosopher is that you can ask unanswerable questions and, if you come up with any kind of a system to account for the problems you raise, you can use terminology so arcane that it won't be understood. The only person who can come close is the clergyman. His questions, however, even if answered by unprovable assertions, are usually followed by an understandable explanation – but one that often ends with a declaration of faith.

So what's the point? There are no answers. The “ultimate question” will always be around and no one will be able to answer it. All we can do is imagine. And as you're considering questions of life and death – as you're formulating a position on the issues raised here – imagine, for example, that _____________ had never been born.

Next episode: “There She Is, Myth America?” – A conventional solution to an unconverniotnal problem.

i     Read on even if you're not married. The points are the same.

ii     For a single child make the appropriate pronoun substitution here and in later references.

iii     Or, if you have no children, the name or names of whoever is dear to you.

iv     You'd love whoever was there and not give any thought to what might have been.

v     Make substitution(s) here if needed. This is the last time I'll mention it. From now on you're on your own.

vi     Intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are abortifacients, not contraceptives.

vii    For Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything was 42. I guess that's as good as anything, even if the saga's computer had decided that the question was to find the product of nine and six. By the way, it words in base thirteen – however neither Adams nor the computer was working with this base.

viii   Viewed by the courts as an issue of privacy.

ix    Ignoring the question of whether mistakes may be made, there is a real argument about whether it is ever justified to take a life. Some pacifists don't even consider that war justifies such action. And self-defense is not an adequate reason. Life was given by G-d and only he is justified in taking it away. In the final chapter of Samuel II (24:14) David says: “... let us fall into the hand of the Lord for his mercies are great; don't let me fall into the hand of man.”

x    Some claim that vegetables are sensate and we should feel their pain.

xi    I'd view that as a facetious question except that I know that pacifists might not consider “self-defense” as a satisfactory reason for killing, and that some religious believers may prefer to leave all healing in G-d's “hands.”

Go Roe Doe

 

(In honor of noting/Remembering with regret – choose one) the United States Supreme Court decisions of January 22, 1973 in the matters of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, I am inserting, in place of my usual blog, an essay I wrote years ago on the subject. [It is, perhaps, of interest that Roeⁱ later decided that “abortion hurts women,”ⁱⁱ and Doeⁱⁱⁱ was apparently unaware that the suit was being filed, and she opposed it.^iv]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ending the Endless Argument

A Modest Proposal

for disposing of a troublesome Issue,

one dividing our Nation, yet pregnant with

the Potential for just and productive Resolution

to the Satisfaction of all Parties.

One need only sit among one’s fellows at a neighborhood establishment, satisfy himself with a little to ease the parched feeling in his throat, and dilate on the problems of the day to discover that too many of our citizens lack a tolerance for the opinions of others. One need simply read the daily tabloids and broadsheets, or their electronic analogs, to discover that the fifth estate is a significant contributor to the situation, although it is wont to ascribe its attention to such issues as the public’s interest or its “right to know.” And because by doing so they can distract their constituents from attention to matters of greater substance, our public servants confound these questions still further.

Of all disputes, the most difficult to resolve are those based on moral or religious principles, and those in which the emotions take precedence over a rational desire to reach some sort of accommodation so the parties can move on with their lives. Certainly, when political issues require resolution there are usually statesmen skilled enough to find common ground on which disputing parties can walk together; businessmen with interests in settling issues can generally negotiate an agreement that satisfies the needs of all sided; and attorneys make a living bringing disputants to settlements and framing compromises which are acceptable, if not a source of rejoicing, on all sides.

But absolute principles, the true arbiters of “Right” and “Wrong,” do not allow much leeway in problem solving. A typical example is the controversy concerning “women's rights” and “human rights.” Those who are “pro-choice,” who favor legal abortion see those rights as belonging to the pregnant woman, while “pro-life” advocates assign them to the unborn child. Since the issue is one of life and death, there does not seem to be much room for compromise -- at least in relation to individual cases. Because the dispute is one in which some organized religions have existing opinions, many are tempted to view those opposing their points of view as either religious fanatics attempting to impose their standards on others, or sinners who are violating universal standards of behavior; since it is always women who are seeking abortions, many who favor its availability see the opponents as sexists who are trying to control women’s lives. Such arguments are difficult to counter because they are very strongly felt and are based on belief, not reason.

Nonetheless, a solution must be found to a problem that has been polarizing our society for so long. As with all such solutions, it must be seen to meet the arguments of both sides to a sufficient degree that each can portray itself as at least partially victorious. To obtain such a result would seem to require the simultaneous acceptance and prohibition of abortion -- two contrary absolutes -- a difficult objective to achieve. What might be considered, however, is the establishment of specific situational criteria under which one or the other of these absolutes would be applied; in the one instance criteria would obtain in which unrestricted abortion would be permitted (perhaps even made mandatory), while in the other situation it would be prohibited under almost any circumstance.

If such standards were to be established, the greatest care and delicacy would be required to ensure their freedom from any hint of race or class bias. Indeed, they should not relate to religious or moral principles either. These are, in large part, the underpinnings of the existing arguments for and against and, since there is an abhorrence on each side of the other’s moral position, these issues should be set aside as a solution is sought. The fact that this is considered a “women’s issue” -- that, as many argue, perhaps with some justification, if men were to bear children they would support abortion rather than leading the fight to abolish it -- may provide a basis for finding a solution to the problem. While it would be facetious to suggest that the differentiating criterion might be the sex of the pregnant patient (prohibit abortion in men but permit or require it for pregnant women), sex might still provide the answer. Indeed, it has provided the issue.

In a democracy like the United States the majority sets the rules for all. That applies whether the community is as large as the entire nation or as small as the nine members of the Supreme Court. It is clear that the large majority of women favor abortion, and, consequently, it is appropriate that the majority speak for all. It is almost a certainty that a randomly chosen woman would agree with the opinion of the many. On the other hand, most of the males of the species may oppose such an act and a randomly chosen male would probably oppose abortion. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to extrapolate these specific points of view to a group who have not expressed themselves on the particular subject -- fetuses. We can safely assume that a female fetus would concur with her mother on the desirability of abortion, while a male fetus might question such a move.

Having clarified the issues involved, the solution becomes obvious, as soon as a pregnancy is diagnosed, appropriate testing should be performed to determine the sex of the fetus and all female fetuses aborted while the males are preserved. (That preference, though apparent in China, has not been universal. The Bible records Pharaoh’s preference for Jewish girls. However he preferred post-delivery family planning to achieve his goal.)

It would be naive to expect this proposal to be universally accepted even though a majority of citizens would surely support it. Indeed, there are many reasons to do so. These may result both from the decrease in female births and the relative increase in males -- a boon for females. In addition, it is immediately apparent that funds for abortion would be spent on a women’s health issue, an area to which everyone agrees far too little of our resources has been devoted. That the abortions will involve female fetuses exclusively skews the funding even more toward gender (dare I say “sex?”) equality in terms of health-care funding.

Another salutary effect of such an approach would be the availability of female fetuses for research projects, including stem-cell investigations. Currently there is a reluctance on the part of many to permit such research based on the fear that such sanction would encourage the performance of abortions. Since this new availability would be the result of a program aimed at limiting the number of abortions (although it might produce a larger number than are now performed) it could not be faulted on this count. And it should be specified that such research programs, which would deal only with female fetuses, would be well suited for the study of female health problems, to the complete exclusion of the study of diseases of males.

Equally salubrious, and resulting from the halving of deliveries (including c-sections), would be the immediate decrease in the incidence of pregnancy related diseases, death in childbirth, and post-partum depression. That would be followed almost immediately by the elimination of the abuse of female children, there being none to abuse. Presently the battery of women in general would end. There would also be a decrease overall in health-care costs as pediatrics, and later adult medicine and geriatrics, becomes less important.

An additional potential benefit which might be derived from the termination of half our pregnancies is suggested by the late Dr. J. Swift, a pioneer in the environmental movement who, in his own essay on the subject, urged the killing of children as a method of dealing with excess births in Ireland, and the utilization of their flesh as a renewable food source for other members of the population. Clearly his audience did not, at that time, recognize the wisdom of his counsel, and no improvement in the situation was obtained. Even today it is likely that few would accept the prudent suggestions he made since, though we are not at all reluctant to abuse them, we tend to shy away from the actual killing of children after they breathe their first. (It should be noted that this “shying away” is anything but universal and many children are actually killed by their parents and others.) As a consequence, we should be most unlikely to accept children as table fare. Indeed, the average American would probably be too delicate to taste even a fetus, though it might not be recognized as human life from its mere appearance. (There are two exceptions to this rule: One is the existence of cannibalism in some societies and among some of our own population who suffer from particular socialization disorders. Another possible exception is the processing and flavoring of the material for use as a substitute for the earthworms said to be incorporated into meat patties in some “fast food” establishments.)

Nonetheless, the idea of not recycling this high protein material would be anathema to most Americans. It would not be unreasonable, though, to deal with these byproducts of pregnancy much as we do with other materials which we manufacture but for which there is no market locally. We must export them as a means of properly reusing valuable resources, feeding the hungry in the Third World, and, of course, improving our balance of payments. It is a most propitious combination of benefits from a single act.

Returning to the results of the selective termination of female pregnancies, it should not be overlooked that the exclusive occurrence of male births would eventually result in increased homosexual behavior -- a consequence that would be repulsive to many of the men who currently eschew the sanction of abortion. There would, however, be a contrary result of the program which would more than satisfy the same super-masculine personalities troubled by what they would view as the weakness displayed by gay men. The greater number of males produced (for it is likely that there will be some compensation for the end of female births) would certainly increase the likelihood of that paradigm of strong, positive male activities, war. It would not be surprising if this were viewed as a signal benefit of the program, and a preference for sending gay men to the front might result.

Nonetheless, we could anticipate the continuation of the debate both in and out of the courts until the issue were finally resolved. What is, perhaps, most important about a solution like this one, a side-effect which might be overlooked at first glance, is that if it is implemented and made mandatory, we can, within a generation, eliminate both the problem and the debate. It would be wonderful, and perhaps unique in human experience, to be able to solve such a perplexing problem so quickly and completely as this.

It's certainly worth a try.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Next episode: “Intermezzo” – Words, not music.

i     Norma McCorvey.

ii    The New York Sun, June 23, 2003.

iii    Sandra Cano.

iv    “Cano, who opposes abortion rights, has said that she was unaware that Doe v. Bolton was filed on her behalf.” (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 11/12/01)