Is the Pro-Life View Connected to Racism? [Serge]

Quite a charge leveled by Pejar in the comments here and his accompanying post here. Here's his summary, followed by the fisking it deserves:

Both the white supremacist and pro-life view require that a genetic fact (respectively being white and being human) is crucial for deciding who should be protected. On the other hand both the anti-racist and pro-choice positions say that genetic facts are irrelevant and that what is important is the characteristics of beings as beings, ie that they have some kind of consciousness to violate. This does not include very early zygotes.

To argue otherwise asserts that the mere genetic fact of humanity is determinative, and this is exactly what white supremacists argued (and argue) about the genetic fact of being white.

First, Pejar asserts that pro-lifers require a "genetic" fact to decide who should be protected. I believe he is repeating the oft-repeated straw man that we believe human value is based on an entity that possesses human DNA. This is simply wrong. In fact, I just removed 4 wisdom teeth that had the "genetic fact" of human DNA. One can argue that the human DNA in those wisdom teeth is more "human" than a child with Down syndrome, which has an extra chromosome. However, pro-lifers do not value the tooth more than the child. It is not the "genetic fact" of humanity that matters, but the biologic certainty that comes with a living organism of the species homo sapiens that gives us value.

Second, Pejar asserts that white supremacists also depend on the "genetic fact" of race for their discrimination. This is simply wrong. White supremacists base their discrimination on physical appearance, not on genetic content. Just like those who look at an early human embryo and claim that it isn't human because it does not "look like us", they practice their foul discrimination based on appearance.

Third, from his post on the topic, look at the things that Pejar believe are more better determinants of human worth than membership in our species:

People recognised that protection was needed because of the ability to suffer and feel pain or to grow and flourish. This is common to all colours and unifies our conception of those worthy of moral consideration.

Maybe they didn't mention this at Oxford Law School, but aren't the characteristics of being able to feel pain also genetically determined? There is DNA that codes for the whole complex in our nervous system which allows us to experience and feel pain, and the development of each and every one is controlled by human DNA. By his own criteria, the characteristics he asserts are important are just as genetically determined as skin color. They are just as much a "genetic fact", using his vocabulary.

Fourth, I know a bit about this because right now there are 6 human beings walking around not feeling pain from surgery because I have temporarily changed their ability to feel pain by the use of local anesthetic. By Pejar's criterion, I have somehow changed their human worth and deservedness for protection as a result. Furthermore, I have earlier today effected their humanness even more by rendering them unconscious during the surgery. This makes no sense, but is inevitable using his criteria for human value.

Lastly, the pro-abortion choice view uses arbitrary criteria to decide which human beings live and which die. The truth of the matter is that the brain of a newborn is far more similar to the brain of a third trimester fetus than an adult. It is more similar in appearance, size, and function. Yet Pejar asserts that it is OK to kill the fetus but (I assume) not OK to kill the newborn. This is discriminatory.

The pro-life view is open to all. All human beings, as beings, are worthy of protection and should not be killed because they do not fit into an arbitrary criterion that gives then value. That is the true liberal, non-discriminatory position.

Warren on Obama Again [Serge]

I'm not sure that this changes anything, but is anyone else uncomfortable with the coziness that Warren is displaying to one who advocates for the intentional death of pre-natal humans?

BLITZER: What did you think of Barack Obama?

WARREN: He’s an amazing man. I think…

BLITZER: Do you think he’s got it? In other words, he’s got that potential like so many other presidential prospects, to be the president of the United States?

WARREN: I think he does.

BLITZER: Because?

WARREN: I think he has good character. I think both Sam Brownback and Barack Obama — the reason I invited them both, first, they’ll tell you the truth. They’re not just going to beat around the bush. They’ll tell you what they believe. And I appreciate that.

Second, they’re men of civility. And I’m so tired of the rudeness we’ve got in our society where people are just mean to each other. We need to return to civility, which says, I treat you with respect even if I violently disagree with you. That we’ve lost the “civil” in civilization.

The False Dilemma Fallacy [Serge]

..as practiced by pro-lifers:

The debate over incremental anti-abortion laws, versus working toward the goal of stopping abortion altogether, is a necessary crisis of conscience for pro-lifers. Its resolution will determine the future of abortion in America.

Not only is this a logical fallacy, it is a particularly sloppy and mean-spirited one. It should be clear that every one who is pro-life is attempting to stop abortion altogether. This issue in not one of goals, but of tactics. The question is: what is the quickest and most effective way to end the evil of abortion?

If the "future of abortion in America" is best addressed by making laws that make abortion illegal without exception as the only acceptable tactic, I believe abortion will continue to be common for a very, very long time. That tactic did not work out very well 2 months ago in one of the most pro-life states (see S. Dakota), so can someone offer an argument that it would work throughout the rest of the country?

In the meantime, claiming that your tactic is the only one that works towards the goal of stopping abortion altogether is simply wrong and an utter misrepresentation or lack of the ability to understand an argument. Our opponents must be loving this.

Unprotected [Serge]

Danielle Crittenden hits the nail on the head in her description of the inability of the medical field to address problems young students face today. Read the whole thing, but this will give you a flavor:

Heather is not an unrepresentative case. The author meets patients who cannot sleep, who mutilate themselves, who exhibit every symptom of psychic distress. Often they don't even know why they feel the way they do. As these girls see it, they are acting like sensible, responsible adults: They practice "safe sex" and limit their partners to a mere two or three per year.

They are following the best advice that modern psychology can offer. They are enjoying their sexual freedom, experimenting, discovering themselves. They can't understand what might be wrong. And yet something is wrong. As the author observes, surveys have found that "sexually active teenage girls were more than three times as likely to be depressed, and nearly three times as likely to have had a suicide attempt, than girls who were not sexually active."

And should all this joyous experimentation end in externally verifiable effects--should girls find themselves afflicted with a disease or an unwanted pregnancy--then (and only then) do their campus "women's health" departments go to work for them. They will book the abortion, hand out a condom or prescribe a course of antibiotic treatment. And then they will pat their young patients on the shoulder and send them back into the world, without an admonishing word about the conduct that got them into trouble in the first place.

The Pistons Need Me [Serge]

Who can hold Duane Wade in check? I can. Despite Scott actually witnessing my slow-motion defensive skills at Biola a few years ago on the court, the stuff that I do held Wade scoreless for 2 games this week.

RE: Warren, Obama - Some Concerns [Serge]

I actually agree with virtually everything Scott said here, and I also must admit that many of the criticisms of Warren have been off base. However, I do have two concerns about Warren's decision to allow Obama use of his pulpit.

First, although I agree that you should not have to pass a religious litmus test to join in the fight against injustice, from what I understand Obama did use his opportunity to speak of his faith and convictions. His inclusion and discussion of his faith makes it appear that his pro-abortion choice advocacy, including having his wife sending out a fund raising letter in favor of partial birth abortion, is simply a in-house discussion amongst brothers. In other words, allowing Obama to speak of his faith in that context masks the clear differences in worldviews. If he wishes to limit the discussion on HIV, I would have no concerns.

Second, it seems the main reason Obama was there was to appeal to evangelicals and soften his clear opposition to many things that are Biblically sound. Here is a sample of a Time article describing what Obama accomplished: The invitation works perfectly for Obama. Through his autobiography The Audacity of Hope and his public statements, the Senator had already positioned himself as one of the rare potential Democratic Presidential candidates who can truly talk the Christian talk. Today's speech can only reinforce that impression. Says Collin Hansen, an associate editor at the Evangelical monthly Christianity Today, " I think the Senator's political team, or whoever's making the decision, was smart to associate him with Warren. It suggests that there are Evangelical moderates that they can work with, or reach, or maybe even attract their votes." We should not be interested in helping a politician who will advance the cause of evil if he reaches his goal of the presidency to fool us by "talking our language". If this places Obama one step closer to the White House, I believe it may not be a such a noble idea.

In short, we need to accept the help of others who differ from us theologically and in some ways ideologically if they wish to fight for justice. Nat Hentoff would be welcome to speak about abortion in my church anytime he would like to. However, we need to be careful that we are not, even unsuspectingly, providing one who clearly promotes evil an avenue to do so.

Update: Case in point. This story from the Chicago Tribune. In the approximately 25 paragraphs exactly one discusses the AIDS epidemic. The rest of the story speaks of Obama's attempt to court evangelicals.

Dead Solid Perfect in the National Post [Serge]

The National Post, who doesn't seem particularly pro-life, seems to understand this debate better than any mainstream press that I have encountered. Read the whole thing, but here is a good excerpt:

Pro-Choice, Pro-Censorship

Student governments and student activists (often indistinguishable) do not usually deserve the scrutiny of the national press, on the sensible grounds that imprudent decisions made by novice politicians in the hothouse campus environment are best left ignored. Moreover, as is well known, student governments are usually comprised of a rather small and often radical segment of the student body, the majority of which never bother to vote in campus elections, and pay no attention to what their alleged representatives are doing. Don't blame Carleton students for their government.

That said, CUSA's action is Orwellian, mean-spirited and more than a little weird.

CUSA's policy is aimed at what it calls the "anti-choice" agenda. Their anti-anti-choice solution is to do what they can to penalize students who argue for a different choice. The new policy at least clarifies that CUSA is not "pro-choice" at all, but flat-out pro-abortion. In CUSA's conception, choice means denying students the choice of forming clubs to reflect their interests. It is straight out of Orwell's 1984.

At Queen's University, for instance, the campus pro-life club was re-established recently after many years of inactivity. The issue arose at Carleton when a new club -- Carleton Lifeline -- held a debate on campus and increased its profile. Anecdotally, it appears that pro-life students are more confident of taking part in campus life today.

That makes CUSA's decision, frankly, mean-spirited. To the extent that pro-life students want to organize themselves, it is mark of civic engagement, a willingness to question campus orthodoxies, and of no little courage, given the hostile environment on campus. A vibrant campus should welcome such students. To set them aside for special, punitive treatment fails even the basic test of courtesy, to say nothing of fairness.

Moreover, the CUSA policy is oddly pointless. If the campus is as enthusiastically pro-abortion as CUSA claims, what added advantage is to be gained from this policy, at a serious cost in terms of the university's reputation as a place of debate and free speech?