Abortion is Just War for Obama

Barack Obama has spoken about abortion on various occasions. One of the last times he spoke about abortion specifically was at Notre Dame when he received an honorary doctorate of laws degree. The other two times of note were during his “100 Days Press Conference” and during the campaign after he spoke at Pastor Rick Warren’s Church during a presidential debate with Senator McCain. The relevant parts of Obama’s words are reproduced below.

Interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos on ABC
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcVN8DpwWE0]

...As a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into (Stephanopoulos interrupts: As respect to Augustine) It does. It's a pretty tough question and so all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue. That's it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions. I think the better answer, and this was reflected in the Democratic platform, is to figure out how do make sure that young mothers or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices including adoption....

100 Days Press Conference
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obama-100-days-press-conf_n_193283.html]

You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

Obama's Notre Dame speech
[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-barack-obama-notre-dame-speech,0,2951798.story?page=2]

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.

I noticed that in all three monologues above, he said that abortion is a moral, ethical, or spiritual issue. Further, he said that women, mothers, or families must make this choice without government interference.

After some reflection on these common principles, it seemed that Obama was applying just war theory to abortion. Mothers (et al.) take the role of defending entity (defender), while the baby takes the role of the aggressing entity (aggressor). The defender decides, through parallel applications of just war theory to abortion, whether going to war is just or unjust.

In 1991, Francis Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, wrote, "If War is Just, So is Abortion." [http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/op-eds/1990s/19910417ifwarisjustsoisabortion.asp] In addition, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, wrote two articles and one speech that picked up on Ms. Kissling’s ideas.

In essence, Ms. Kissling said that women, who were once not considered moral agents, are in reality the primary moral agent to decide if pregnancy termination is necessary. Ms. Thistlethwaite agrees, writing, “Obama Acknowledges Women as Moral Agents.”

In comparing the need for war and abortion, Ms. Kissling writes, “Both constructs would recognize that the taking of life in war and in abortion (though not equivalent acts) are never in themselves moral goods. But these values are not absolute. They can be overridden in serious circumstances and after reflection on the moral guidelines established by the church.” These circumstances, according to her, include self-defense and “[the protection of] a nation's integrity”, or “a woman's physical and emotional health”.

Ms. Thistlethwaite goes further in saying that it is not possible to know if a preborn person has a soul in her speech (to Planned Parenthood), “How Is It With Your Soul?” Ms. Kissling mentions this conundrum briefly, but does not expand the thought. It would seem, for the moment, that the preborn human is a person in the same way that an enemy soldier is a person. The topic of personhood of the perborn human is beyond the scope of this essay.

If it were accepted that abortion could be analyzed with just war theory, the four-prong test of just war theory must be applied. In order to pass the test of a just war or abortion, all four prongs must be true at the same time. The test includes the following (http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp).

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor [preborn person] on the nation or community of nations [pregnant woman] must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it [the pregnancy] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success [in terminating pregnancy];
4. the use of arms [abortion] must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated [death of mother or “a woman's physical and emotional health”]. The power of modern means of destruction [chemical and surgical abortion] weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Right away, prongs two and three are almost guaranteed. Only a few preborn persons have survived abortion. The real questions are one and four.

How is damage inflicted by the preborn person on the pregnant woman lasting, grave, and certain? For one, the clear and present danger of the woman (immanent death) would suffice. Since pregnancy lasts nine months and not the lifetime of the woman (assuming adoption used), pregnancy itself would not be lasting. Since miscarriage is very probable, pregnancy is not certain.

Does abortion produce evils and disorders graver than the death of the mother or “a woman's physical and emotional health”? Assuming that the preborn human is a person, killing the preborn human and letting a mother die are equivalent evils. Killing the preborn human produces a greater evil than a detriment to a woman's physical and emotional health.

It seems that the only reason an abortion can be just is for the life of the mother if death from the baby's presence is a clear and present danger. However, just as in the application of war, the objective of defense is not to kill people, it is to stop the means of destruction. In order to stop bombings, bomber planes may be shot down; it just happens that there are people flying them. The "enemy" person must be protected as humanely as possible. In abortion, the preborn person must be protected whenever possible. If the fallopian tube or uterus is removed, or drugs must be administered to protect a clear and present danger to a mother, the secondary effect of killing the preborn person is not unjust.

The caveat is that a woman cannot choose abortion if the framework of just war theory is applied. Since the only just war against the preborn person is for the clear and present danger of a mother’s life, only a doctor (or team of doctors) can justly "wage war" on the preborn person. Only a doctor can determine the gravity of a life-threatening situation.

In conclusion, if Barack Obama is using the ideas of Ms. Kissling in terms of applying just war theory to abortion, he is incorrect in his evaluation. No woman or family can justly determine if a preborn person should die for his or her desires (inconvenience, pride, need for adoption, &c), only an objective doctor can conclude that a pregnant mother is in clear and present danger due to the mere internal presence of the preborn person. If the just war theory is applied to abortion, the moral, ethical, and spiritual decision must conclude that abortion is not the just action to take. Government must make sure that unjust wars against preborn people are not undertaken at the whim of any other person’s will.

Despite the fact that the preborn person in the mother’s body may present clear and present danger to the life of the mother, how can the preborn be considered aggressors? Ms. Kissling addresses this in one sentence in "If War is Just, So is Abortion.” “As we have seen, even in high-tech modern warfare, innocents will be killed.” Does this make sense? If abortion is the equivalent to just war, who is the person that is threatening the mother’s life? Is the preborn person “innocent” according to Ms. Kissling? The preborn person is not an innocent bystander; she is an innocent participant in an intrinsically evil act.

If Barack Obama does not think that preborn humans are people (until the soul enters at some undetermined time by him), why does he call abortion a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue? If he thinks that preborn humans are not people, abortion should not be an issue at all to him; if it is so, he should be honest and say so now.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion?
-Mother Theresa

The Absolute Tyranny of Autonomy

I finished a conversation with a female (from Ireland) on youtube (in my personal mailbox). It's below (my comments are in parentheses).

---

"Your essential question/holdings:
(1)"Why is being human so special?"
(2)"A human is a person when they are sentient and capable of consciousness."
(3)"my [sic] issue is with your attitude that a fetus has the 'right' to use a woman's body against her will- that's it, plain and simple."

Re. (3), the US Supreme Court: "If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment]." Therefore, your opinion (3) has no value if the woman carries a "person", according to US law. (This is apart from my or your opinions; The rule of law is what counts ultimately, apart from appeals/dictates from "Nature's God".)"

Thats quite laughable. NOBODY has the right to use anothers body without their consent- how is establishing personhood in a fetus going against this? What is unclear here?

"(1) begs to question, "Why is being a person is so special?" (To me, they are the same question.) What value does life have? Who is entitled to bestow value on someone else? [I should've asked "Who is entitled to negate the value of someone else?"] If you respect animals so much, why not respect all humans (subset of animals in your view)? Do animal mothers have the right to eject their offspring at any point (no, this is not a joke)?"

No, human is not synonymous with person. A dead human being is not longer a person, a human permanently in a vegetative state has no qualities of a person. Simply having a human body does not give you a unique right to life. I do respect humans, equally with non-humans, I just place more weight on the right to autonomy of an existing person than the non-existant rights of a potential person.
You clearly think you have the right to bestow value. Of course animal mothers do, all females do.
Believe it or not, we are thinking, autonomous beings that can make individual decisions and require no input from you.

"(2) is still not a clear definition of personhood (terms not focused; my response is on my understanding of (2)). A person in the zygotic stage reacts naturally to external stimuli. A 7 week old baby has tiny active nerves. Any human before or after viability is sentient. When an adult sleeps, they are not conscious. Are we a person one moment and not the next (vis sleep)? It takes some finite time to become conscious. It just takes a zygotic (embryonic and fetal) person a longer time to become conscious. See http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm (and other writings by Francis J. Beckwith) for more info."

Yes, it is. What are your specific problems with it? Why is it that you dont call a tree a person? I imagine it has something to do with the existence of a brain/self awareness/consciousness.

"Are (1) and (2) just a red-herring for (3)?"

No, they are equally valid reasons for my stance.

"At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"

Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist.

"At the end of the day, this is my business since you and others insist on killing my neighbor, preborn female and male persons."

No, it really isnt. You risk absolutely nothing by taking your stance, you dont even have a concept of the barbaric nature of what you suggest. As a male your view is entirely negligible from the point of ignorance. I notice you didnt answer a lot of my questions and did not even address the autonomy point.

---

It was very enlightening, really.

Is it self-contradictory if she says:
(A) "(1) and (2) [are not] a red-herring for (3)" but "equally valid reasons for my stance".
(B)"If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, [] the woman still [has] a right to kill the non-viable human []."

I didn't "address the autonomy point" because I wanted to first find out if personhood really mattered to her. Since in reality it didn't, autonomy is the absolute tyrant.

On George Tiller's Murder

This video was in response to a popular (and foul) Youtube channel host. He mentions Mr. Tiller in the beginning of the video.

The War on Terror

[President] Obama's speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, as provided by the White House [talking about the "war on terror"/Guantanamo Bay/torture/etc.]

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens -- fell silent.

Weapons of mass destruction is to the war in Iraq/terror as denial of personhood/human life beginnings is to legalized abortion.

Water boarding, that's nothing. How about tearing humans limb to limb, sucking their brains out, salt poisoning, and burning them to death?

Newly Proposed Mailing Project

Have you heard about the Red Letter Project? Purple Envelope Project? Lots of envelopes.

I have an idea that works on the Judicial Branch. Unfortunately, it's a little more expensive, but I'm doing it. Why not you?

This is the idea:
Send a specific book to Chief Justice Roberts (with an accompanying explanation letter, or course). It's Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by Joseph Dellapenna. (BTW, I have no connection with the author, publisher, or any book seller. I used this book when I visited my senator to discuss FOCA (both my senators (MD) co-sponsored FOCA).)

Below, I'll list the dispelled myths and write a little about why it's so important for the Supreme Court to read this book.

The myths:

(1) that abortion was always a common practice in human history; (2) that voluntary early abortions were not crimes until the nineteenth century; (3) that the nineteenth-century abortion statutes were designed to protect the life of the mother rather the life of the child; and (4) that the statutes were enacted through a conspiracy of men to accomplish several nefarious purposes—to subordinate women, to eliminate competition from women health-care workers with male physicians, and to ensure adequate birth rates among white, Protestant women to prevent “race suicide.”

Why dispelling the myths are so important, in my understanding:
In Roe v. Wade (1973), it was found that “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of the States today are of relatively recent vintage.” This was the initial premise that set the stage for the Roe conclusion (not that abortion was a right, but that one has a right to privacy to make such a personal decision, including with abortion; the preceding link is an interview with Mary Ann Glendon which explains the lack of the "abortion right" in Roe).

By bringing serious doubt to this premise which started the ball rolling for all the federal court cases, the court will be able to, or even must, revisit the original precedent in Roe under the principle of stare decisis.

From the book:

“It is time that the Court took seriously its own premise that the constitutional status of a claimed right to abort is to be tested against history and traditions of this nation. The accumulated wisdom relating to abortion teaches us that the prohibition of abortion was always viewed as the protection of emerging, yet real, human life —a concern only made more certain by the continual growth of medical knowledge of gestation during the last two centuries.” (p. 1084)

If Chief Justice Roberts received even a few dozen of these books, imagine how his curiosity would compel him to open and even consider reviewing an abortion case with this book in mind.

I wonder if it's possible. I pray that it is.

(tips: buy it used, send by USPS media mail)

Margaret Sanger Knew When Human Life Begins

Margaret Sanger, the founder of what would eventually be called Planned Parenthood (PP), knew the answer to the question of "When does life begin?" (or "When does human life begin?") as early as 1916.

In her autobiography, Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, she wrote,

...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.... (emphasis added)

So, why does PP now insist that a human person from conception (zygote) to birth is just a clump of cells?

Well, it's just a clump of cells. If you get it early enough it doesn't even look like a baby.

This quote from Margaret Sanger is telling and prophetic.

No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable [perhaps to save the life of the mother only?] but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception [Did she think that the point of conception was the moment that a human person's life begins?]. [Contraception] is the only cure for abortions. (emphasis added)

Once one believes that contraception is a cure from pregnancy, their contraceptive mentality will force them to have an abortion (now as the contraception of last resort). They will no longer be free, but a slave to PP (and other things/persons).

Instead of curing the need for abortions, Margaret Sanger's contraception crusade made the demand for abortion skyrocket (and perhaps the reason why abortion is now legal). This is why the American Birth Control League (now PP) is the largest and most profitable (contraceptive) abortion provider ever.

(Some cure, huh?)

"From might to may to must: zero to sixty in a cultural instant."
-Sally Thomas

(Now, abortion is seen as a good.)

The women wearing "I Had An Abortion" t-shirts at the 2004 Democratic National Convention obviously share Mr. Sanger's desire to see the abortion rights argument move to a newly aggressive level.

When Does the Human Soul Develop?

An attempt to answer about the human soul's development. Any suggestions for improvement?

[Pres.] Obama's First 100 Days Parody

See 4:20 for the original text.