No "national dialogue" on abortion

Both William Clinton and Barack Obama have called for a national dialogue on race. Because this issue divided the country before and after independence, entailing slavery and then segregation; and because it continues to divide the country with the current reverse discrimination, the call struck few people as unreasonable. Unfortunately, those making the call are less interested in dialogue than they are in stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with them as bigots and racists. President Obama has acknowledged that the issue of abortion also divides the country and has made similar dialogue gestures. But, given his thoroughly pro-abortion position, it is unlikely that any national dialogue that he supported on that issue would be any more productive than one on race.

My own experience confirms this. Abortion generates more outrage whenever I write a column about it than any other except homosexuality/gay marriage. Last week’s column drew five responses off site (three opposed, two supporting). In spite of my pessimism about a national dialogue led by a Democratic administration, I favor a dialogue on abortion.

Surely no such dialogue would serve any purpose if it were merely an academic exercise. No political debate occurs in a vacuum: while people are talking, babies are being killed. Pro-lifers favor a debate because they want abortion on demand to end. Pro-aborts oppose it because it they want no restrictions on abortion. It’s that simple.

I am grateful to those who commented on last week’s column, even if they find my arguments wanting. A person who emailed me from Kansas, the state in which the recently murdered George Tillman performed late-term abortions, said that I "glorified" women who refused to abort their babies, even in the face of dangers to themselves or their babies. This error is explained by the fact that I hold abortion to be "wrong period."

Regular readers here know that I do not oppose abortion "period" but give principled reasons based on the political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence. Few critics of abortion are blind to the fact that there are hard cases, such as rape and incest (which make up a tiny percentage of them). But as Oliver Wendell Homes famously said, "Hard cases make bad law." In order to accommodate those rare cases, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the exception to swallow the rule. Abortion on demand is the law.

More to the point, children being diagnosed in their mother’s wombs as defective are not being given the benefit of any doubt. Whereas the doctors’ Hippocratic Oath enjoins doctors to err on the side of life, the abortion "ethic" mandates just the opposite. Is this not appalling?

One opposing reader makes the point that abortions are very hard for women and that none would consent to a late-term abortion unless the need was compelling. But that is hard to square with the massive number of abortions performed since 1973 (45 million and counting), not to mention the attraction of Dr. Tillman for those "rare" cases.

Most doctors want nothing to do with abortion, and most abortionists don’t perform them late term. Is this reluctance explained by some mild anxiety, or is it genuine moral revulsion at crossing what used to be regarded as a very bright line, whether early or late in pregnancy?

Another critic reminds me abortion has been the law for 36 years and urges me to "get over" my opposition to it. Thirty six years is a long time from one point of view, but for those who waited 100 years for racial segregation to end it is not so long, and for those who waited much longer for slavery to end, it is a trifle. Prolifers have patience.

The bedrock pro-abortion position is that every woman has a right to control her own body. Yet the baby growing inside her is not her body but someone else’s. Slave holders argued over a century ago that every black they held by force was their "property," and demanded protection for it. Is there any difference in principle between these positions? I await a response.

And the similarities do not end there. Slave masters denounced opponents of slavery as insurrectionists, just as proaborts routinely call their critics "terrorists." Both became "tired" of criticism and favored ending it. Nothing would satisfy slaveholders then, or proaborts today, until everyone calls them right.

Let the dialogue continue.

Family ties through music

Recently I attended a wedding of a friend at church, followed by the customary reception. After a delightful meal, some charming innovations to commemorate the occasion and the cutting of the cake, there followed hours of dancing, slow and fast, as also is customary. What struck me in this quite ordinary and conventional setting was how a kind of folk music has returned to our society that had been practically banished long ago by the popularity of ballroom dancing with the waltz, foxtrot and two-step and the decline of what was called folk dancing, not to mention square dancing. The latter are by no means dead but it would be inaccurate to say that their appeal had not been eclipsed by the dancing of couples as distinguished from larger groupings. As a children, many of us developed a decided prejudice against folk dancing as quite beyond the pale, for squares and old fogies. But those who have attended ethnic weddings, as we tend to call them, particularly Jewish and Greek (or just seen movies), experience, if only vicariously, group dancing on as big a scale as the number of people in attendance will encourage. Young and old, "cool" and "uncool," will join hands and dance with abandon with no reservations about being out of place, or worse, mixing adult dancing with kid dancing. I still recall a comment made by a friend who suggested that we not object to loud, raucous music played by young people because it is "their" music. That divide always has bothered me.

However, partly because I am widowed and partly because I like the exercise, I have taken to the floor and "danced' for hours to whatever music was being played, occasionally but not often well, and enjoying it. (I just learned how to line dance too.) At the wedding last week I danced with my 30-something daughter and two teenagers from her church youth group and realized that it might just as well be a Jewish or Greek wedding, because adults were dancing with children and bonding by means of music. Indeed, the bride was holding a small child and dancing around the room, quite common these days. I realized that some of the music was the sort that I have long disdained, especially "rap," but because the occasion called for a sort of communal expression, I danced to whatever was playing.

I used to criticize the rather unstructured form of dancing that has become so popular, on the grounds that there were no partners per se. But that presupposed that the only legitimate form of dancing was the kind I grew up with. (Granted, growing up in the 1950s, as I did, meant learning to dance to rock 'n roll, etc.) As a parent I tried to impress upon my children the virtues of slow dancing, and that lesson has been learned well enough. But now I'm just having fun and glad that the generation gap can be bridged at least under the circumstances which originally threatened to foreclose that possibility. If it is natural for families and friends to bond, then nature has found a novel way to reassert itself. That's a gain.

Abortion stalks women every day

From time to time the issue of abortion is a matter for political controversy, but for women it is an issue every day. With 45 million abortions for the last 36 years, that is, 1,500,000 annually, 125,000 monthly, 28,846 weekly and 4,109 daily in this country. Those children could have been men and women who became mothers and fathers, employers and employees, civilians and soldiers, craftsmen and professionals, and so on. But abortion is an ever-present temptation, legal for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.

Last year when I was on the campus of Barstow Community College, I encountered a small group of young people who identified themselves as Survivors, meaning they were born since January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade invalidated the laws of all 50 states with varying degrees of restrictions on abortion. The Court found them in violation of a recently discovered "right to privacy" that included the power to take human life in the womb.

These young people are alive because their mothers decided to bear them. Advocates of abortion emphasize that this decision is "personal," suggesting that no one should take that from women. But they ignore the fact that reassuring authority figures, from politicians to doctors, are pressuring them to "terminate" their pregnancies.

Take the case of M, who is pregnant with her first child, having waited nearly four years after marriage, but is having difficulty all during her pregnancy. Bed rest is prescribed, and the labor and delivery look to be yet another challenge. She is comfortably cared for in a hospital room that resembles a nursery, in which compassionate care givers want only what is best for her.

For those months of waiting the "choice" is gently proposed of avoiding all difficulty by a procedure which will eliminate the "problem" and postpone birth to some other pregnancy. But the young woman ignores the entreaties and goes ahead with 33 hours of labor and a difficult delivery anyway.

Then there is A, who has given birth in marriage, but that marriage is over and she has met another man who captures her heart but also gets her pregnant. There is no shame these days, it seems, in unwed pregnancy, but she is in the midst of her higher education and means to become a professional, a teacher it turns out. Abortion was a theoretical but not a real possibility for this young woman who, with the support of her family and church, gave this child up for adoption to a childless couple.

Finally, there is H, who has already given birth to two children and her husband has had a vasectomy so that their budget is not strained by another child. But, lo and behold, she learns that she is pregnant anyway, her husband’s timing being a little off. In a visit to her doctor she is told of a procedure known as amniocentesis, the results of which will tell her if hers is a healthy child and in particular whether it is a Downs Syndrome baby.

She surprises, nay, horrifies the doctor when she declares that she is not taking the test, for she is going to give birth to that child whatever its condition. The doctor can hardly believe what he is hearing and remonstrates with the young woman for not taking this "sensible" precaution. But H is adamant and when the doctor pushes back she says, "Go ahead and schedule the test but I won’t show up!"

The massive issue of abortion is dealt with every day by women such as these acting from their minds and hearts to do right by their children. But a powerful array of perhaps well-meaning but definitely misguided persons requires them to affirm what was rarely questioned in an allegedly less "enlightened" time. Then abortion was viewed as a criminal act that both threatened the health and life of the mother and was at war with her natural desire to give birth to a child.

Despite the legal status of abortion, abortionists are still not seen as respectable people, just as slave catchers were low on the list of possible friends despite centuries of legal slavery. "Law never made just what is by nature unjust," declared George Washington when speaking of Great Britain’s exploitation of colonists. Somehow, despite the easy choice of abortion, millions of women know that abortion is the wrong choice and refuse to make it. God bless them.

GOP must keep defending marriage

Standing up for your principles is as important as knowing what they are. That's a key post-election lesson for Republicans. After 2008 we’ve learned that we need to know who we are and then not betray the party faithful. But that also means we must be careful to choose wisely the principles we adhere to and defend. For political expediency, and to increase the size of the tent, our political leaders condone, and some even advocate, abandoning some long-standing social principles (i.e. Log Cabin Republicans). We should take pause and carefully consider our individual action or abstaining in this area. We must be thoughtful when we stand up and take ownership of this party.

Bending with the gale of social passions is something the left is comfortable doing. Power is their only purpose and the fuel with which to feed itself more power. They abandon any principle they feel will hamper their drive for complete social power. For example, in Ben Smith’s recent blog on civil unions and marriage, he writes how in a few short years, the political correctness of gay rights has moved dramatically ‘pro’ and become more socially acceptable. He writes:

“Here's a marker of the warp-speed change in the politics of same-sex marriage: Back in 2000, Howard Dean was a gay rights hero for signing a civil union measure -- forced on him by the courts -- into law. Four years later, civil unions are the fallback for the center-right, and Vermont is considering same-sex marriage, and Dean was campaigning for it in Burlington last weekend.”

Those who are agnostic with their social principles will continue to hammer on those who are not. Why should anyone take a stand and go against the tide of social convenience? Because it matters.

Teacher's Desk: Shape Up, Parents

I keep telling myself I like my job and love my students, but when the weather is mild, students’ behavior gets wild. And boy, could I use a mental health day today. I awoke this morning with a bad case of crabbiness, but unlike regular public school teachers who get ten sick days and five personal days a year, I came in. I only get five days for both personal needs and illness. I used three already because I needed two for the Jewish holidays. I understand that I work with at-risk youth, but I also know many of their parents. If these nice folks knew how disrespectful these adolescents act toward adults, I’m sure most of them would be very embarrassed.

I’m as guilty as many supporters of charter schools and vouchers about blaming poor instruction for the sorry state of not only Colorado’s but America’s declining student achievement. That is really not fair to many teachers. What I haven’t alluded to enough is the shabby habits of many of our students’ parents. Shut the television off. Turn off the video game. Give your child a healthy dinner and conversation. De-clutter a desk or table, so he has space to do homework. Ask him to show you his homework. Don’t make your teenager babysit a younger sibling and miss school. Set up doctor and dental appointments after school. Keep the iPod at home. Don’t call him on his cell phone in the middle of the day. Use the school telephone. Call his teacher regularly. Show up for parent/teacher conferences. Provide money for lunch, or better yet---make him lunch. Make your child go to bed at a reasonable time, and make sure he gets to school on time in the morning. I’m sorry if you are a single parent. I’m sorry if you are here illegally and cannot speak or understand English well. I’m sorry if you, yourself, were a high school drop out; if you are not going to be responsible in properly raising your offspring, then don’t have them. I know that sounds really harsh (I warned you I was crabby!).

Good parenting includes continuing to parent during the high school years. I know some of these young adults wear parents down, so some parents are just counting the days until the fledgling leaves the nest! But poor parenting while your child was younger had considerable effect on his behavior now. Your young adult or your small child does not need another friend. He needs a parent. He needs someone to model reasonable behavior. He needs someone to show the consequences of behavior. He needs you to say NO.

Kathleen Kullback is a special educator with an MA in educational leadership. She is a former candidate for the State Board of Education.