Premises, Premises

So, I've had the idea for this post for a while, but haven't been able to put it in words. I had planned writing a long, rambling, boring post, but I realized it could probably be said better shorter.

Also, it helps that SF author, statistician, amateur philosopher and historian, and all around Cool Guy Michael Flynn has done the bulk of the work for me. Recently, he wrote a piece on the "ladder of inference". You should go read it. No, seriously. Go. I'll wait.

All done? To summarize for those too lazy to read, the ladder of inference is basically the process we mentally apply whenever presented with facts. It goes like this:

1. I observe objectively.
2. I select data from what I observer.
3. I add meaning to what I have selected.
4. I make assumptions based on the meaning I have added.
5. I draw conclusions, which prompt feelings.
6. I adopt beliefs about the world.
7. I take action based on my beliefs and feelings.

Now, there is a loop, called the Reflexive Loop from step 6 to step 2: our beliefs influence what data we select from our observations. This is why two people can be presented with the same set of data and draw completely different conclusions about it. Based on their beliefs, developed from previous experiences, people will notice different things, infer different meanings, and make different assumptions from the same things.

For our purposes, I will refer to these beliefs that influence our observations and actions as "premises". These are not, of course, philosophical premises in the sense of "first principles", since they are based on prior experiences. But, for a given situation, they are the things we assume are a given, and not topics for discussion.

Read more »

This Is Not a Baby

Why would the ultrasound technician use the incorrect terminology? One would think that trained medical professionals would know the difference.

His heart beats at a rapid 175 beats per minute but he is not alive.

We can see his arms, legs, fingers, toes, ribcage, nose, genitalia, and both hemispheres of his developing brain, yet he is merely a "blob of tissue" which can be removed like an appendix or the tonsils.

Indeed, we even know that he is a "he", but he isn't really.

His eye and hair color have already been determined. He has a unique set of genes, one that has never been seen before and will never be seen again in the history of the human race. Everything that makes him human is there. But he is only potentially human. Not "fully" human.

In time, as his muscles and organs form and grow, he will suck his thumb, yawn, cry, and blink his eyes. He will act just like a newborn baby outside of the womb, but he won't yet be a baby until he is born.

These are the facts that inform our society, our laws, and our beliefs.

“This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.”

*RESPECT LIFE*

LinkDump

"A group proposes to build a religious establishment on their own property near a site associated with great pain and significance for some people. These people, rightly or wrongly, associate that religion with the many deaths that were caused and so raise a great ruckus in protest against the said establishment. For their part, the religious establishment pleas that they intend to pray for all who died there, including their own co-religionists. But this plea is dismissed," writes philosopher, statistician, physicist, historian, SF author extraordinaire, and all-around cool guy Mike Flynn.

"I pause while you assume the proper attitude," he continues.

"I write, of course, of the Polish sisters who wanted to establish a convent near Auschwitz, which created a great outcry that it was insensitive to Jewish concerns. The Pope intervened and told the sisters to place their convent elsewhere, since if they remained intransigent they would do more harm than good. That they had a right to do what they planned did not mean it was right to do it."

We haven't discussed the ground-zero mosque in this space, and I am curious what my readers think. Me, personally? I am in favor of it, so long as they build a chapel to Our Lady of Victory right next door.

Read more »

A Pair of Deuces, Revisited. Part I: Abortion

I put on my robe and John C. Wright hat.


Devin has responded to my arguments that marriage does not apply to homosexual relationships. She has done so in more words than I used to make the original post. Her comment warrants a more detailed reply than what will fit in a combox, so I will dedicate two posts to it. This, the first post, deals with the first part of her reply, about the seemingly-unrelated topic of abortion. It is actually somewhat appropriate considering there is a direct and strong link between homosexual "marriage" and abortion, which I will talk about later.

Devin linked to a video from NARAL where several women spoke of alleged misinformation given to them at an unnamed "Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center". I watched the video, and my first response was the word most commonly written in red ink on my history papers by Miss Smyth, my high school history teacher: "evidence". I.e., the lack thereof. Unlike the video I linked, which shows the statements of a nurse in a Planned Parenthood clinic giving false information to a patient, the NARAL video consists only of a series of women stating things which allegedly they were told at an unnamed crisis pregnancy center, like neighbors gossiping over the fence. No context is given for these statements. We are not told who made them, if they were in printed materials, if they were spoken, what the context was, if they represent the view of one recently-hired nurse or the director of the center. We are not told the affiliation of the center, if it was run by a major national pro-life organization or out of someone's garage. All those details are left to the viewers imagination to encourage us, I guess, to assume the worst.

For these reasons alone, I could dismiss the entire video as uninformative and unhelpful, but I will address the allegations point by point.

Read more »

Content, Shmontent.

Time for the third-lowest form of blogging: a link without commentary! (Just above YouTube videos and Lolcats.)

This has been circulating the pro-life blogosphere. An abortionist describes aborting an 18-week fetus while she herself was 18 weeks pregnant:

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick - a fluttery "thump, thump" in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a "thump, thump" in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes - without me - meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling - a brutally visceral response - heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

The article is an interesting read.

QFT: "I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother's uterus - but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable."

Her world view is somewhat depressing. Dare I call it pagan? Her idea that denying a woman an abortion is violence against her, but performing the abortion is horrible violence against the baby.... It's as if violence is an unavoidable truth, an evil to which there is no alternative, and that we live in a world with no hope of ever achieving peace. There is something very sorrowful about that. But I suppose that's what a world without Christ is. As Tolkien understood it in The Lord of the Rings, prior to the incarnation, there was never any hope of lasting peace. "Only a fool's hope."

Ok that was, in fact, commentary. Fifth-lowest form of blogging (above baby pictures).

Smart Girl.

She won a contest for the speech, too.

I think she takes just the right approach. The pro-choice position is based on emotion, not reason, so a reasoned rebuttal is unlikely to change any minds. Instead, we need to take a page from Scott Ott and learn how to love them right.

Any argument against abortion that focuses on the humanity of the unborn is liable to fail, simply because the reasons for why an unborn child is human will never change the emotions of the pro-choicer about the mother's situation. That's why I like the approach of Lia here, who takes the time to talk about the impact of abortion on the emotions of the mother.

And I swear, this blog is not turning into an affiliate of the National Right to Life League. Maybe come August or so, when my child is actually granted rights under the Constitution, we can return to our normally scheduled programming.

And, again, congratulations to little Benjamin for surviving the most dangerous place in America. It shows that your parents love you very, very much.

Change We Can All Believe In.

That is, so long as you agree with the use of taxpayer money to fund foriegn abortions. What a brilliant, wonderful use of public funds during a recession.

As this commentor from John C. Wright's blog mentions, "I like to point out that now, you will get thrown in jail if you don't want to pay money to kill foreign children."

Let it be known that now and forever more, the argument of the pro-choice crowd that pro-lifers try to force their beliefs on others while they, taking the moral high ground, do no such thing, is now nothing but a bald-faced lie. You are now required to pay to abort children, even if you find the procedure a gross violation of your morals and ethics.

Also, this video was brilliant.

God Bless George W. Bush

It is fitting that he, whose first act in office was to block federal funding to foreign groups promoting abortion, left us with this as one of his last.  As Joe mentioned elsewhere, it will certainly be the last one for a while.

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

More info about this tradition instituted by President Ronald Reagan can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Sanctity_of_Human_Life_Day.  Rapidly deleted from the White House website after President Obama took office, it can now be found here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=85644.

Brilliant!

Who knew that our new president is a closet pro-lifer?

Quoted. For. Truth.

<<

When ordinary rationalization fails, people revert to other modes of suppression. We often see this when an unmarried young woman becomes pregnant. Suddenly her conscience discovers itself; though she was not ashamed to lift her skirts, she is suddenly ashamed to show her swelling belly. What can she do? Well, she can have an abortion; she can revert to the mode of suppression called "getting rid of the evidence." Once again conscience multiplies transgressions. But she finds that the new transgression is no solution to the old one; in fact now she has something even more difficult to rationalize.

Think what is necessary to justify abortion. Because we can’t not know that it is wrong to deliberately kill human beings, there are only four options. We must deny that the act is deliberate, deny that it kills, deny that its victims are human, or deny that wrong must not be done. The last option is literally nonsense. That something must not be done is what it means for it to be wrong; to deny that wrong may not be done is merely to say "wrong is not wrong," or "what must not be done may be done." The first option is hardly promising either. Abortion does not just happen; it must be performed. Its proponents not only admit there is a "choice," they boast of it. As to the second option, if it was ever promising, it is no longer. Millions of women have viewed sonograms of their babies kicking, sucking their thumbs, and turning somersaults; whatever these little ones are, they are busily alive. Even most feminists have given up calling the baby a "blood clot" or describing abortion as the "extraction of menses."

The only option even barely left is number three: to deny the humanity of the victims. It is at this point that the machinery slips out of control. For the only way to make option three work is to ignore biological nature, which tells us that from conception onward the child is as human as you or me (does anyone imagine that a dog is growing in there?)—and invent another criterion of humanity, one that makes it a matter of degree. Some of us must turn out more human, others less. This is a dicey business even for abortionists. It hardly needs to be said that no one has been able to come up with a criterion that makes babies in the womb less human but leaves everyone else as he was; the teeth of the moral gears are too finely set for that.

Consider, for instance, the criteria of "personhood" and "deliberative rationality." According to the former, one is more or less human according to whether he is more or less a person; according to the latter, he is more or less a person according to whether he is more or less able to act with mature and thoughtful purpose. Unborn babies turn out to be killable because they cannot act maturely; they are less than fully persons, and so less than fully human. In fact, they must be killed when the interests of those who are more fully human require it. Therefore, not only may their mothers abort, but it would be wrong to stop the mothers from doing so. But look where else this drives us. Doesn’t maturity also fall short among children, teenagers, and many adults? Then aren’t they also less than fully persons—and if less than fully persons, then less than fully humans? Clearly so, hence they too must yield to the interests of the more fully human; all that remains is to sort us all out. No, the progression is too extreme! People are not that logical! Ah, but they are more logical than they know; they are only logical slowly. The implication they do not grasp today they may grasp in thirty years; if they do not grasp it even then, their children will. It is happening already. Look around.

So conscience has its revenge. We can’t not know the preciousness of human life—therefore, if we tell ourselves that humanity is a matter of degree, we can’t help holding those who are more human more precious than those who are less. The urge to justify abortion drives us inexorably to a system of moral castes more pitiless than anything the East has devised. Of course we can fiddle with the grading criteria: consciousness, self-awareness, and contribution to society have been proposed; racial purity has been tried. No such tinkering avails to change the character of our deeds. If we will a caste system, then we shall have one; if we will that some shall have their way, then in time there shall be a nobility of Those Who Have Their Way. All that our fiddling with the criteria achieves is a rearrangement of the castes.

Need we wonder why, then, having started on our babies, we now want to kill our grandparents? Sin ramifies. It is fertile, fissiparous, and parasitic, always in search of new kingdoms to corrupt. It breeds. But just as a virus cannot reproduce except by commandeering the machinery of a cell, sin cannot reproduce except by taking over the machinery of conscience. Not a gear, not a wheel is destroyed, but they are all set turning in different directions than their wont. Evil must rationalize, and that is its weakness. But it can, and that is its strength.

>>

From "The Revenge of Conscience", J. Budziszewski, First Things, June/July 1998.

Today marks the 36th anniversary of the day the Supreme Court of the United States of America decreed that my child has no inherent rights.

It is interesting how becoming a father has influenced my view on abortion. Prior to last November, it was such an abstract thing. We were always talking about other people's children, some other child, outside my monkeysphere. I knew through reason that we were talking about some one that I should protect, but it's hard to muster feelings for an abstract concept. Even my own nieces and nephew, I did not begin to feel a bond with until after they had been born, after I had held them in my arms. My choler over the issue was driven more by the ignorance and lack of reason on the part of those who sought to promote it, rather than over the loss of any life.

But now, I have a hard time maintaining a stoic, rational distance from the issue. Now, it's personal.

On November 1st, my purpose in life—the very point of my existence—changed. A change of such magnitude had only occurred once prior, on January 10th, 2004. Before January 10th, the meaning of my life was simply "to know, love, and serve God in this life so I can share ever-lasting happiness with him in the next." On the tenth of January, 2004, a new reason was added: to Love my wife, as Christ Loves his church. And finally, on November 1st, a third reason was added: to protect and nurture our children so that they, too, may one day share in God's love.

When I die, and am judged before God in all his majesty and glory, he will ask me two questions, in particular. He will ask me: "Did you love your wife as I have loved you?" and "Have you raised your children to know me, and strived with all your might to keep them from all harm?" If I cannot answer both those questions with a powerful, resounding, unreserved, unhesitating "yes" then I will be in serious, serious trouble.

And that is why my fury is beyond anything that this world could cause when there are those who would deny my solemn responsibility to protect my child.

Perhaps the most common justification for abortion is that it is not really killing an inoccent human life. It is merely a "removal of the mother's tissue". Abortion is sometimes referred to as "the extraction of menses", or as I heard one pseudo-feminist refer to it, "just like getting your tonsils removed, only safer," an assertion so ludicrous (read from point 22 at the bottom of page 24 (30 by the pdf's numbering) to point 100) that it would be funny, if it did not involve the wounding of millions of women and the deaths of millions of children.

These people do not really anger me so much. Instead, I look at them with confusion and pity. Their claim that my child is not really a child, but instead just a part of my wife, is so out-of-touch with reality that I can only shake my head in wonder at the monumental ignorance and denunciaton of what is manifestly true. I have seen pictures of my baby. I have seen him bouncing and dancing in the womb, as alive as you or I. I have seen and heard her tiny heart, beating furiously, pumping her own blood through her own veins. For someone to come up to me and assert "that is not a child" or "that is not really alive" or "that is a lump of undeveloped tissue" is beyond reason and reality. It is as if some one came up to me and said, "your car is such a very fiery shade of red." I can only wonder if this person really occupies the same reality as I. Do I really need to argue such a thing? Is the truth not self-evident for anyone with eyes to see?

No, these people do not anger me; they merely arouse my pity.

The second group of people are those who recognize the humanity of the unborn, but are too cowardly, or too uncaring to do anything about it. These are the John Kerrys of the world; the "I personally believe abortion is wrong, but I'll be damned if I'm going to do anything about it." (And it is likely they will be.)

These people I look upon with disgust. While they claim to be on my side, functionally they are opposing me. Not only do they refuse to offer help, but they actively prevent my ability to safeguard my wife and child. They refuse to give me recourse to the law to be able to bring to justice those who would prey on the most innocent. These are the ones that, If they really do believe that abortion is wrong, then they are willingly and blithely condoning the largest holocaust the world has ever seen. It is cowardess of the highest and most ignominious kind. It is shameful and disgraceful. It is as if, when the Soviets come door to door looking for Gypsies, Catholics, Poles, Ukranians, or other Undesireables, I simply stood by and watched as they dragged my neighbor away. "I feel for you man," I might say to the poor, condemned neighbor, in an attempt to make him feel better, "but who am I to tell Comrade Stalin what he should do with his own body?"

Then there is the third group.

These are those who do not merely deny my resposibility to protect my wife and child; they do not merely fail to help me guard them from the butchers who would take the innocent life and, in the process, grievously wound my wife. No, the third group are those who openly champion the cause of the butcher. They are the ones who stand up and applaude those evil men who would slice my child into pieces and suck him out of my wife's body; or poison him with salt; or pull her feet-first out of my wife and then, when she is mere inches from birth, slice open the back of her sweet, precious little head and suction out her brains; or use any one of the cruel and barbaric practices that have been designed to destroy those who are most innocent and most needing of our protection. They are the Gloria Steinems and the President Barack Obamas.

If I lived in a less civilized time, or if I did not have the benefit of a faith informed by reason, these people would drive me to take up arms, and give me cause for violent revolution to defend the rights of those I love.

And they ought to thank God that I am Christian, for in my righteous fury, one of the only things holding me back is the hand of Christ on my shoulder, and his voice in my ear, whispering "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and forgive them for they know not what they do."