Posts
Letter to Barack Obama Concerning the Dialog on Abortion:
Slow Down, Urge
Aaron Schultz
CC: Congressman Rahm Emanuel
Congressman Mike Honda
Vice President Joe Biden
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Ken Salazar
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle
Attorney General Eric Holder
Senator Harry Reid
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Dianne Feinstein
1/23/09
Dear President Obama,
Congratulations on your inauguration. The country watched in awe at the first ever ascension of an African-American to the highest office of the land, me not excluded. I am, of course, happy at the fulfillment of reasonableness, fought for bravely by many for decades and centuries – that someone of any color, race, and sex can hold high political office in this great nation. But for my part, I am equally excited by your consistent platform of acceptance of dissension, of fostering dialog, of consensus building, and of shared sacrifice. The country needs your leadership.
In this spirit of dialog, of searching for truth, of consensus building, I humbly submit this note.
Writing not as a Democrat or Republican, not considering one religion or another, in fact only pandering to reason and morality, I submit that you have a golden opportunity to lead the country to true ethical and intellectual greatness. People on many sides expect and hope that you drive an abortion agenda, whether for or against. It would appear that protecting reproductive rights is unto itself a noble thing. However, we must consider morality as a whole. What makes sense? What is reasonable? The opportunity has been placed in front of you to stop the train and instead engage the country, slowly, in what in my view is the best way to deal with the issue. If the country stops and thinks, then a much more believable consensus can be derived.
I have a 10 second rule concerning abortion. I say to my fellow citizen, “Consider for more than 10 seconds late term abortion. Note that it is massively hideous torture against a person that undeniably exists.” After the 10 seconds, when the fellow is expectedly horrified, then the fellow considers the fetus at varying stages. It is valid to note that all body systems are assembled at 2 months, brain waves are detected from 1-2 months, and a heartbeat is heard at18-22 days. After this very quick review of undisputable facts, I say, “How, then, are we so confident when life is or is not? How do we know whether most abortions at any stage of pregnancy are not murder? If you are pro-abortion, then you must support your position and actually believe it in the context of ALL of your doctrines. Otherwise you do not deny that abortion might actually be murder on a scale almost inconceivable.”
This thought experiment has no relationship to pro-choice propaganda, pro-life religious doctrine, women’s health, Democrat or Republican stances, insurance companies, women choosing things, men choosing things, race, rape, incest, history of legislation, “but it’s already legal,” Roe versus Wade, economic hardship, other judicial decisions, etc. All of these hyped aspects in society muddle the core problem. Each tries to weigh in without dealing in the real predicament. Abortion is a moral issue, and it must be taught so. Naturally, these other factors do play a role, particularly women’s health, women’s rights, and rape, and need to be considered in effective, workable legislation; however, being ancillary, their treatment should not overtake the fundamental question.
Whether abortion is right or not should not be decided on sound bite opinions that adhere to party lines. What is needed is downright honest treatment. Is it murder or not murder? Everyone needs, inconveniently, to go through a thought process and come up with an answer. Only then can there be real progress on the issue.
We can also note
· There is a move to close
· There is a move in the new government to enact change. Then re-evaluation of the past is inherently acceptable. Roe versus Wade exists, but why drag it along as a given. Why not instead think from scratch?
· “Viability” has been bandied about as a means to determine when abortion is allowable. It is important to note that medical technology has changed how many weeks of pregnancy represent viability. Thus viability is not useful as a measure.
The premise, then, is that abortion should be considered, deeply, by every American for a significant time, weeks or months even, not quickly to win a personal exchange. I validate this premise not from theory, but from practice. In a real example, in two written paragraphs I turned a staunch, old-timer Democrat who believed in the pro-choice mantra into an anti-abortionist. He had not considered the issue previously because for him it had been muddled by religious involvement. When he thought about the issue of murder versus not murder, unencumbered by “being pro-choice” or “being pro-life,” he was able to think clearly and for the first time ever develop a real opinion. He continues happily to espouse and support the Democratic political party, but chooses to have separate opinions concerning abortion morality. Not everyone will be an anti-abortionist, and perhaps pro-abortion arguments can be validly made. At least people need to be motivated to think deeply, not shallowly, about the human baby present in every case. Men cannot choose to murder. Can women? Is it murder or not? Reproduction includes both the woman who has rights to be sure, but also a baby. It must be decided and legislated, not guessed, whether abortion is murder. Pro-choice is legislation by non-legislation. It very weakly decides not to decide on the murder issue.
You have the respect and admiration of
· Lead, not follow, by slowing down.
· Lead, not follow, by taking up the issue seriously, not pandering to groups with pre-ordained positions.
· Lead, not follow, by informing the public that it is an important moral issue.
· Lead, not follow, by exhorting the public to real debate, by teaching of the real need to decide whether murder is involved, by motivating people to think deeply.
If you candidly and repeatedly suggest that abortion is a difficult, important issue, and do not jump in quickly to match up to expected party lines, you will be not only a leader, but a hero of the intellectual, moral, and philosophical traditions of the West.
There is one more test, similar to the 10 second rule. If you imagine a policy that you can support, with science and reasoning and morality and ethics and religion all at your disposal, devoid of loopholes and inconsistencies, and deliver that policy in a convincing way in a speech to the entire country and also to yourself, then you can rightfully act upon that policy. If your policy does not stand the test of debate, dialog, reasoning, logic, morality, and religion, and consistency, then the policy is nothing more than unsubstantiated partisan rhetoric. Policy which does not stand the test of reasoning and morality, nay policy that you would avoid orating upon at length, is irresponsible because there are measurable consequences.
There are many issues on the table for you. The country is suffering. Abortion is but one issue, important to some and irrelevant to others. As the dust settles from the inauguration and the real work begins, it is important to note that bows with readied arrows await your move on abortion, so that they can cut you down in the aftermath. You will help to unify the country by quieting those whose existence depends on what they predict and hope will be your mistakes. Rather than maneuvering on abortion in ways that will create further moral divide in
Thank you for renewing hope in
Aaron Schultz
