Now that the buying holidays approach, Kay Jewelers is making its move, sowing the air waves with pretty seeds that depict fairytale couples spicing up their romance with a diamond. The fantasy concludes with an audacious well-worn pitch, “Every kiss begins with Kay.”
This facile claim could be dismissed as wishful and silly, if only the diamond trade weren’t such a blood-bloated pustule on the face of humanity. I’m talking the 1990’s, not the British Empire in the Age of Imperialism.
The movie “Blood Diamonds” (2006) starring Leonardo DiCaprio was a stunning exposé of this modern monstrosity, which hasn’t magically gone away since then.
“Every kiss begins with Kay.”
It is hard to begin to address the evils of this snake oil. But I’ll try. Number One: the juxtaposition of a beautiful, free and natural thing--love--with something corrupt ugly violent and perverted--the exploitation, massacre, enslavement and torture of the African people in the name of profit.
It is hubris and horror enough, on the part of Kay Jewelers, to suggest that love requires a diamond. But they don’t stop there. Even a kiss requires a diamond, Kay cajoles us. This brazen bauble of exaggeration deserves some kind of award for marketing hyperbole. It’s crazy in an infernal way, admen getting around your defenses by cloaking the dagger in a jingle.
Love is beautiful, yes. But the diamond industry is the opposite. Thoroughly tarnished with a layer of duplicitous shit. Kay’s jingle itself is a mean lie of omission. It hides a corporate karma that has implications for your conscience as a purchaser of hypnotic stones.
Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” has nothing on the De Beers corporation, which monopolized the diamond industry through the 1990’s:
“De Beers is well known for its monopolistic practices throughout the 20th century, whereby it used its dominant position to manipulate the international diamond market. The company used several methods to exercise this control over the market: Firstly, it convinced independent producers to join its single channel monopoly, it flooded the market with diamonds similar to those of producers who refused to join the cartel, and lastly, it purchased and stockpiled diamonds produced by other manufacturers in order to control prices through supply.”
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers )
At the same time De Beers was in charge, the following occurred:
“Blood diamonds captured the world's attention during the extremely brutal conflict in Sierra Leone in the late 1990s, where rebels carried out systematic amputations of limbs during an eight-year brutal campaign. During this time, it is estimated that up to 14% of the world diamond production was being used to fund bloody civil wars. Illicit rough diamonds have also been used by rebels to fund conflicts in Angola, Liberia, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo (also known as Congo Brazzaville). During this time, Unita, a rebel militia group in Angola, generated close to $1.5 billion from sales of diamonds mined in areas it controlled, using the proceeds to wage a brutal civil war that killed 500,000 people before ending in 2002.”
( http://www.diamondsforafricafund.org/realdiamondfacts/conflict.htm )
Have things miraculously changed to an angelic state since 2002?
Not unless those angels are cardboard masks over the faces of sneaky devils.
A collective of nations has a monitoring system in place now called the Kimberley Process, but it is rife with flaws. First of all, it is based on trust and fulfilled through a certificate issued by the producing nation member. Containers of rough diamonds are put in “tamper-resistant” containers with a certificate that promises them to be oh so good.
If anyone messes with the certificate or rough diamonds, the system fails. And of course, if the government in question is corrupt, the certificate could just be bunk.
With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, I seriously doubt that tamper-resistance containers and notices of trust are going to override a fierce history of rampant greed.
To make things worse, a Catch-22 is built into the system. The following is truly mindboggling. I couldn’t believe what I was reading:
“The biggest weakness of the Kimberley Process is how it is monitored. Any country can become a member of the Kimberley Process by sending a letter to the organization's president, currently, the European Commission. Whether or not the country meets the standards of the Kimberley Process, it can still become a member. This means that many conflict diamonds are still getting past the Kimberly Certification Scheme because some countries don't meet the requirements of the Kimberley Process.”
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_diamonds )
Am I reading this right? A country can become a member of the Kimberely Process (KP) even though it doesn’t abide by the Kimberely Certification Scheme? What the F*$% ????
In other words, membership doesn’t imply ethical behavior.
However, Kay Jewelers makes a big deal of the protections provided by the KP on their website:
http://www.kay.com/lwp/wcm/connect/Kay/Customer+Service/Privacy+Policy+and+Terms+&+Conditions/Conflict+Diamonds/
[All future references to Kay’s site are the above url]
“Our Source of Diamonds
We comply with the Kimberley Process and require all our trade suppliers of diamonds and diamond jewelry to provide us with a warranty that they do not supply us with conflict diamonds.”
Kay Jewelers seems all too aware that the Kimberley Process is heavily flawed. They point out that the diamond industry has established its own set of warranties, independent of the KP:
“To supplement the government program, the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA) and the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB) - representing virtually all significant processors and traders - have established a regimen of self-regulation. Its principal element is a system of warranties that will accompany invoices covering the sale of rough diamonds, polished diamonds and diamond jewelry. The requirement applies to rough diamonds mined after December 31, 2002 and products fabricated from them.”
Note that, like the KP, this protection scheme is built on a system of self-regulation, a chain of promises extending through many money-happy hands. If anyone in the chain decides to cheat, the oversight fails.
Moreover, it is unclear at what stage in the production process this corporate chain of promises starts.
Worst of all, a promise doesn’t mean oversight or supervision. It simply states that, to the best of some employee’s knowledge, everything is going fine. Anyone can promise that diamonds are being ethically mined, cut and sold. But if the promisors aren’t doing an inspection themselves, that promise doesn’t mean much, because there’s a knowledge gap.
Who is really watching what’s going on, and who is just saying that they think it’s all fine from afar?
Do Kay staff go into the mines, monitor the treatment of the workers, and watch the rough stones get put in the initial tamper proof containers? Do they guarantee that the tamper proof containers aren’t tampered with? That blood diamonds aren’t snuck into the system?
Kay doesn’t say on their website, which surely means no. Otherwise they’d brag about it.
To make things worse, right after Kay Jewelers reassures us that they are trying hard--but not certain--that their products don’t contain conflict diamonds (ahem, aren’t they more honestly called blood diamonds?), they report that the Kimberley process and other protections have broken down in Zimbabwe. So much for the chain of trust:
“On November 5, 2009 Members decided, amongst great debate against suspension of Zimbabwe, and has instead implemented a 12-month Work Plan, that specifically targets exports of rough diamonds from the country’s Marange diamond fields, the site of reported human rights violations.”
In other words, human rights violations won’t make you lose your Kimberley membership card.
Does Kay buy diamonds from Zimbabwe? They don’t say. All we get is:
“The U.S. State Department ... has called for the full and expeditious implementation of stringent controls for rough diamond shipments from Zimbabwe, and in particular, the Marange diamond fields.”
We are left to imagine the effectiveness of these “stringent controls.”
Maybe the best jingle for Kay Jewelers is, “Kay Don’t Say.”
If Kay cares so much, why don’t they mention the ethical issues in their advertisements on TV? Nah, they hope that people just won’t know or won’t ask. Better profits.
Here is the name of a diamond jeweler who focuses on the ethical issues instead of trying to hide them. Judging by their website, you have a much clearer trail of accountability and ethical oversight if you work with them:
http://www.brilliantearth.com/
To be comprehensive, here is a fact sheet provided by the diamond industry, followed by one from critics of that industry:
http://www.diamondfacts.org/facts/index.html (Corporate)
http://www.diamondsforafricafund.org/realdiamondfacts/conflict.htm (NGO)
The corporate fact sheet points out the wonderful things the diamond industry is doing for Africans. The NGO fact sheet puts this glamorization in perspective.
Finally, note that factory-made diamonds are available. They are pure carbon just like diamonds from mines, and have the same octagonal molecular structure. In other words, they’re every bit as scintillating and fascinating. They only way to distinguish between the two is advanced spectroscopic tests, which the diamond industry developed to save themselves from being wiped out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_diamond
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Idiot Loyalty, Meredith Vieira, and Amanda Knox
This morning, on the Today Show, a ridiculous account of the Amanda Knox trial in Italy. Knox is accused of tormenting a roommate and slashing her neck after a foiled attempt at starting a drugged-up sex game.
The varnish runs thick as Knox gets painted as a victim of a corrupt foreign government. It’s a hideously skewed slant by reporter Meredith Vieira, including a hocus-pocus of commentary and visuals. A snake-oil salesman pitching his Kickapoo Indian Cough Syrup would be proud.
Knox’s defense attorney gets a sympathetic interview. The prosecution gets no air time at all. Instead, the American author of a book called, “The Monster of Florence” suggests that the prosecutor is tyrannical, belligerent, and incompetent.
DNA evidence against Knox gets dissed by the defense lawyer, who claims a bunglefuck by Italian forensics. No rebuttal allowed. Telling details are strangely absent from the Today Show segment, even though they are juicy and scandalous, something TV shows generally gravitate to like flies on a pachyderm’s dump.
Vieira excludes important points: trouble with the alibi, reasons to suspect that a break-in was faked, and also Knox’s disturbing behavior, including bouts of nonchalance, like making out with her boyfriend in public the day after the murder, and blaming someone else for the crime, one Patrick Lumumba, a black man, who spent two weeks in jail.
Lumumba is now suing Knox for defamation of character. Knox showed no remorse when questioned about it at trial:
“Did you ever apologize to Patrick?” Pacelli [lawyer for Lumumba] asked. “No,” said Knox, passing up what seemed like a good opportunity to make the apology in front of the court.
“Did you ever offer compensation to Patrick?” asked Pacelli. “Who, me?” she laughed. “No.”
( http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-12/amanda-knox-tells-her-story/ )
My point here is not to argue for Knox’s guilt, but rather to underscore how unprofessional Vieira’s coverage was. The media version of a drumhead acquittal. Crazy Italians unfairly accusing cute white sweetness.
Why such absurd spin? A large part of it can be explained by a term that I hereby coin: idiot loyalty. The basic idea is that you are loyal to members of your own in-group, defending them vigorously, no matter the evidence that they have done something despicable.
In the Knox case, we have the idiot loyalty of nationalism. How dare those foreigners accuse a US citizen? And not just any US citizen: a nubile paragon of apple pie. She’s beautiful. She’s wholesome. The kind of girl our soldiers keep in their hearts and loins when they occupy other countries and kill their folks.
“U.S.” might as well be synonymous with “us” as in “us versus them enemies of ours.”
Back to Knox. Vieira might as well have said, “How dare those foreigners accuse one of us!”
Idiot loyalty. It manifests in other contexts too, such as the corporate boardroom or the battalion on the battlefield. Anyone remember the cover up after the Mai Lai massacre?
Idiot loyalty occurs in families too, where it is perhaps forgivable in doses. Love for your child is more sincere and deep than love for your CEO, your sergeant, or some anonymous fellow American you don’t even know. This might not be idiot loyalty all but rather an overriding force of healing love.
But if the crime is heinous or the consanguineous bond remote, forget it. Too often a drunk Mr. Jones mows down someone else’s child, only to have it covered up by the Jones household. The family forms a shoulder-to-shoulder wall of deception, a tight team defense while the mother of the slain weeps at the coroner's office.
Speaking of which, a good breeding ground for idiot loyalty is football or some other violent sport, where you root for the home side regardless of their sportsmanship. Perhaps this is okay, because no crime is involved on the field, unless you count the stick jabs frequent in hockey.
We could call the limited fanaticism, the sort that enthralls sports fans, “football-think.” When ruddy throngs take football-think out of the arena and use it in everyday life, trouble emerges. Then you get idiot loyalty: corporate obeisance, brute patriotism, or blind protection of your ‘buddies’, whoever they might be (police officers, frat chums, etc). You get the denial of monstrous wrongs because no wrong can be done by our side.
That’s idiot loyalty in a nutshell, and it doesn’t even have a figleaf of justice.
When idiot loyalty leaps into the mainstream media, it becomes a fulcrum for fascism and mass control. No American overseas can do wrong because, gosh golly darn, America is always right.
The loss of objectivity in journalism is sad, but especially when the root is idiot loyalty, and the robotic outrage it implies.
The varnish runs thick as Knox gets painted as a victim of a corrupt foreign government. It’s a hideously skewed slant by reporter Meredith Vieira, including a hocus-pocus of commentary and visuals. A snake-oil salesman pitching his Kickapoo Indian Cough Syrup would be proud.
Knox’s defense attorney gets a sympathetic interview. The prosecution gets no air time at all. Instead, the American author of a book called, “The Monster of Florence” suggests that the prosecutor is tyrannical, belligerent, and incompetent.
DNA evidence against Knox gets dissed by the defense lawyer, who claims a bunglefuck by Italian forensics. No rebuttal allowed. Telling details are strangely absent from the Today Show segment, even though they are juicy and scandalous, something TV shows generally gravitate to like flies on a pachyderm’s dump.
Vieira excludes important points: trouble with the alibi, reasons to suspect that a break-in was faked, and also Knox’s disturbing behavior, including bouts of nonchalance, like making out with her boyfriend in public the day after the murder, and blaming someone else for the crime, one Patrick Lumumba, a black man, who spent two weeks in jail.
Lumumba is now suing Knox for defamation of character. Knox showed no remorse when questioned about it at trial:
“Did you ever apologize to Patrick?” Pacelli [lawyer for Lumumba] asked. “No,” said Knox, passing up what seemed like a good opportunity to make the apology in front of the court.
“Did you ever offer compensation to Patrick?” asked Pacelli. “Who, me?” she laughed. “No.”
( http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-12/amanda-knox-tells-her-story/ )
My point here is not to argue for Knox’s guilt, but rather to underscore how unprofessional Vieira’s coverage was. The media version of a drumhead acquittal. Crazy Italians unfairly accusing cute white sweetness.
Why such absurd spin? A large part of it can be explained by a term that I hereby coin: idiot loyalty. The basic idea is that you are loyal to members of your own in-group, defending them vigorously, no matter the evidence that they have done something despicable.
In the Knox case, we have the idiot loyalty of nationalism. How dare those foreigners accuse a US citizen? And not just any US citizen: a nubile paragon of apple pie. She’s beautiful. She’s wholesome. The kind of girl our soldiers keep in their hearts and loins when they occupy other countries and kill their folks.
“U.S.” might as well be synonymous with “us” as in “us versus them enemies of ours.”
Back to Knox. Vieira might as well have said, “How dare those foreigners accuse one of us!”
Idiot loyalty. It manifests in other contexts too, such as the corporate boardroom or the battalion on the battlefield. Anyone remember the cover up after the Mai Lai massacre?
Idiot loyalty occurs in families too, where it is perhaps forgivable in doses. Love for your child is more sincere and deep than love for your CEO, your sergeant, or some anonymous fellow American you don’t even know. This might not be idiot loyalty all but rather an overriding force of healing love.
But if the crime is heinous or the consanguineous bond remote, forget it. Too often a drunk Mr. Jones mows down someone else’s child, only to have it covered up by the Jones household. The family forms a shoulder-to-shoulder wall of deception, a tight team defense while the mother of the slain weeps at the coroner's office.
Speaking of which, a good breeding ground for idiot loyalty is football or some other violent sport, where you root for the home side regardless of their sportsmanship. Perhaps this is okay, because no crime is involved on the field, unless you count the stick jabs frequent in hockey.
We could call the limited fanaticism, the sort that enthralls sports fans, “football-think.” When ruddy throngs take football-think out of the arena and use it in everyday life, trouble emerges. Then you get idiot loyalty: corporate obeisance, brute patriotism, or blind protection of your ‘buddies’, whoever they might be (police officers, frat chums, etc). You get the denial of monstrous wrongs because no wrong can be done by our side.
That’s idiot loyalty in a nutshell, and it doesn’t even have a figleaf of justice.
When idiot loyalty leaps into the mainstream media, it becomes a fulcrum for fascism and mass control. No American overseas can do wrong because, gosh golly darn, America is always right.
The loss of objectivity in journalism is sad, but especially when the root is idiot loyalty, and the robotic outrage it implies.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Acceptance in The Recusant
Alan Morrison, editor of the The Recusant, or tR, as he likes to abbreviate it (at least in his note to me), has informed me that my poem “City Mirrors” is up:
http://www.therecusant.org.uk/
The website for tR is sui generis, a work of art in itself, and absolutely different from the norm. This fits with the zine’s philosophy of assailing the status quo with poems that are looking to push your brass buttons with smudgy fingers or invoke that rarest of outlaws: genuine feeling that doesn’t brake for bureaucracy.
Here’s part of the philosophical creed you will find on location:
“In terms of poetry, we have a preference for work that deviates from the mainstream. We particularly like political, social and polemical poetry. We wish to promote non-conformist work, in other words, that which does not submit to the ease of contemporary trend. the Recusant is here to expose the work of those writers who write on their own terms, irrespective of fashion.”
Renegade though he is, Morrison’s tR has racked up a tally of 181, 571 visitors. Wow. I’m proud to be included, and I’m going to get to work on my “biog” for the contributor’s notes right after I finish this blog.
OWL
http://www.therecusant.org.uk/
The website for tR is sui generis, a work of art in itself, and absolutely different from the norm. This fits with the zine’s philosophy of assailing the status quo with poems that are looking to push your brass buttons with smudgy fingers or invoke that rarest of outlaws: genuine feeling that doesn’t brake for bureaucracy.
Here’s part of the philosophical creed you will find on location:
“In terms of poetry, we have a preference for work that deviates from the mainstream. We particularly like political, social and polemical poetry. We wish to promote non-conformist work, in other words, that which does not submit to the ease of contemporary trend. the Recusant is here to expose the work of those writers who write on their own terms, irrespective of fashion.”
Renegade though he is, Morrison’s tR has racked up a tally of 181, 571 visitors. Wow. I’m proud to be included, and I’m going to get to work on my “biog” for the contributor’s notes right after I finish this blog.
OWL
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Defending Abortion: Part II, Pro-Choice Christianity
Defending Abortion: Part Two, Pro-Choice Christianity
Angelic Wolves
Anti-abortion fanatics often cloak their zeal in religious trappings, convinced that God is on their side, and that they are martyrs for the ultimate Good. However, intense passion and intractable belief do not insure veracity, nor immunize one from misapprehension. History is full of single-minded zealotry, accompanied by hysteria and histrionics, which, in retrospect, was horribly unfounded and tragic in the misery it inflicted.
For instance, in 16th and 17th century England, Protestants and Catholics butchered each other on a massive and constant scale.
Every ardent follower of a cause will tell you they are willing to die for their principles and that they serve the ultimate Good. But thick-skulled single-mindedness is more likely to induce error than enlightenment. When applied to large groups, it correlates with lots of spilled blood.
The dangers of fanaticism and false prophets were well understood by ancient peoples, whose subsistence could be thrown into upheaval by charismatic yet de-stabilizing mystics. Warnings to avoid the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” occur frequently in the Bible, as do exhortations to avoid false prophets, such as the following from Deuteronomy:
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams ... Thou shalt not hearken. (13.1)
Conviction for cherished ideals is wonderful, but must be balanced with judicious thought. Otherwise, a grave danger emerges of being duped, deluded, and drawn into someone else’s scheme for power. History is full of unwitting pawns.
When you see anti-abortion extremists raising their arms to heaven, screaming out to God, and extolling with intense and colorful theatrics, go ahead and get emotional. It is indeed an amazing sight, and probably will invoke a reaction in you, one way or the other. But don’t be swayed to a cause just because the adherents are emotionally tortured.
Although passion is what makes life special, it is not the be-all-end all of Goodness. Wisdom can not live by passion alone, and passion has led many people to the slaughter.
The Pro-Choice Christian
Religion goes well with pro-choice arguments, far better than it does with anti-choice.
Take the Bible, for example. There is no direct mention of abortion in this hallowed text, let alone any thunderous decree that forbids it. A lot of things are divinely outlawed in the Bible, including adultery, stealing, and coveting thy neighbor’s ox--but not abortion.
If abortion is a horrible sin, more so than adultery or ox coveting, why isn’t it mentioned?
The knee-jerk response is to say that abortion is murder, and murder is strictly forbidden by God. Unfortunately for those putting forth this argument, it assumes what it is trying to prove. This sort of poor reasoning is so common and egregious that it has a special name in philosophy: begging the question, or to put it formally in latin petitio principii.
Even worse for the “abortion is murder” screamers, the Bible provides damning evidence, pardon the pun, that in the eyes of the Lord, it is not.
Key passages necessitate this conclusion. As does the overall picture of ancient nomadic tribespeople that emerges from a serious perusal. In legal terms, the Bible sees the preborn as a kind of property, not a full-fledged being that can be murdered.
Given time considerations, I’m going to discuss just a few excerpts. They are already well-known in the general debate, so I’ll include commentary on the responses by anti-abortionists.
The following two excerpts are so telling the Jehovah’s Witnesses rewrote them in their New World Bible, obliterating the original text and its evidence that the preborn did not have full legal standing for the ancient Israelites.
(For more on the New World Bible, which doesn’t deserve to be called a Bible at all, go here: http://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html)
For those who don’t bowdlerize or rewrite history, and dare to look at honest translations by expert scholars, as in the NRSV, or even just the good ol’ King James Version , the evidence is clear and determinative. Let’s check it out.
Leviticus 27: 2-7
This is powerful passage that associates monetary values with males and females of various ages. Humans below the age of one month have no value at all. Quoting from NSRV:
“When a person makes an explicit vow to the Lord concerning the equivalent for a human being, the equivalent for a male shall be: from twenty to sixty years of age the equivalent shall be fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary shekel. If the person is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. If the age is from five to twenty years of age, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and for a female the equivalent is three shekels of silver.”
This passage is legally explaining how much money is needed to substitute for a vow. Pay this amount to avoid the consequences of the vow. As you can see, men are more highly valued than women. Adults more than children. It’s not as if all human life is considered equal.
Furthermore, to emphasize, youngsters below the age of one month have no value assigned. Not a single shekel. Yikes! The Oxford Companion to the Bible sums all this up nicely:
“Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27: 3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status. (p.4)
In other words, the Bible differentiates between the legal value assigned to adults and infants, assigning the big zero to newborns, and in effect the fetus as well.
Anti-Abortion Response to Leviticus 27: 3-7
When I typed “Leviticus 27 and abortion” into Google, or variants of that search phrase, I was surprised to find no ready and easily obtainable statement by the anti-abortionists (in contrast to the next excerpt I discuss, for which they have plenty to say).
I think their best argument is to point out that the above passage isn’t dealing with abortion but rather the avoidance of restrictions placed by vows. If we’re talking about vows, how can this be relevant to an entirely different issue, abortion?
But this argument isn’t going to satisfy anyone who doesn’t want to be satisfied by it. The excerpt sets up a hierarchy of values associated with human life, and legally assigns newborns and preborns a monetary value of zero.
This provides a useful window into the thinking of the nomadic Israelites. These were hard times, lacking modern medicine. The miscarriage rate is estimated to be about 50%, not to mention the likely deaths to disease of infants. Forming tight emotional bonds to preborns and young children could result in huge and frequent amounts of pain.
It is likely, given the physical and cultural circumstances, that the Israelites did not emotionally attach to the preborn as the anti-abortionists seem to love every fetus and embryo, wailing and lamenting and hurling out comparisons to the Holocaust.
The overall cultural perspective in the Bible, exemplified in Leviticus 27, makes this a quite reasonable conclusion.
Exodus 21: 22-25
This section is another killer, pardon the pun, for the Christian anti-choice crusade.
The passage reads as follows:
“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Note the penalty for inflicting a miscarriage is a monetary payment, whereas the penalty for harming the women is much more serious. Monetary payments were customary for property damage; but if you accidentally break the woman’s hand, your hand gets broken in retributive justice.
If the miscarriage were itself a case of murder, the eye-for-an-eye code would call for the death of the person who caused the miscarriage, wouldn’t it? The little being in the woman’s stomach is not considered to have full legal protections. It’s right there in the Bible.
Anti-Abortion Response to Exodus 21: 22-25
Unlike the Leviticus passage, there is a great deal of anti-abortion response to Exodus. At least ten strong commentaries come up on a Google search. Many of them have a frantic yet excited air, for they are eager to explain away this dangerous excerpt. The crucial strategy is to attack the word “miscarriage.” The woman’s child isn’t dead, they claim, just born prematurely.
Some even serve as primers, telling the reader how to respond when confronted by pro-choice folks, as in the following:
“When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.
First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word “miscarriage” entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.” The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?
Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).
Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn’t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.”
( http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700 )
Pro-Choice Rebuttal
The crucial task for the anti-abortionist is to prove that “miscarriage” is a faulty translation. Or is it? Suppose the woman doesn’t have a miscarriage, but only gives birth prematurely. But remember, premature birth is often going to result in death of the child, given the lack of medical technology available to the ancient goat-herders, and their generally hardscrabble and difficult life. Even today, with all our fancy machinery, only about 60% of premature births can be saved.
You’re deluding yourself if you think ancient Israelites weren’t aware of the high chance of death in premature birth, especially if the woman was induced to labor through extreme violence.
Death of the preborn had to be on the minds of the ancient Israelites when crafting the law in Exodus 21:22-25. It’s just common sense. Most pregnant women who “give forth” their child from violence will be giving forth embryos and non-viable fetuses.
And of course we must ask: Is “miscarriage” the wrong word to use for the translation. Now you get into a hornet’s nest of linguistic analysis of ancient Hebrew and translation methodology, a great place to find a loophole to support your own perspective, especially if you're desperate and have no other resort.
The anti-abortionists claim that the ancient Hebrew term, “yatsa” is generally used to mean “to bring forth” and that therefore miscarriage is not implied.
But this ignores common sense. Why make a law that covers only a fraction of pregnancies, and avoids the obvious threat of death?
Maybe the ancient Israelites were speaking in euphemism. Maybe the ancient Hebrew language in the cultural context of the nomads calls for a gentle explanation. Or maybe “bringing forth” is perfect to cover both the case of miscarriage and premature birth which leads to death of the child.
Or maybe translating ancient Hebrew to English is a difficult task that requires looking at variations in culture, predispositions of translators, technical questions in semiotics, nuances in exegesis, etc. Maybe we can't with any certainty hang a lot of meaning on "yatsa" except by stepping back and looking at the issues faced by a hardbitten tribe of herders.
So, I’m not entering the linguistic debate. This isn’t my field of expertise. But there is strong pragmatic evidence that miscarriage, including loss of embryo or nonviable fetus, would have been on the minds of the Israelites when a shepherd’s crook rammed into the belly of a woman.
A Thousand Years Plus
The view that the preborn does not have full status was common and widespread throughout Christianity and Judaism for well over a thousand years. In the 16th century, a young scientist using a primitive microscope claimed to see a small fully developed human in a sperm cell. Based on that sketchy evidence, the Catholic Church changed its view to the current dogma: the soul is present from conception.
Before this ridiculous maneuver, the view of St. Augustine reigned supreme: that abortion was acceptable well into pregnancy, because the soul was not present until the preborn could “feel.” Interestingly, this accords with the scientific observation that the brain’s ‘neural circuitry’ develops later in the pregnancy. At six months the basic system is in place:
“The cerebral hemispheres now cover the whole top and sides of the brain including the cerebellum. Cerebellar development begins from this moment, but will not be complete until two years after birth. Six distinct layers are now differentiated within the cerebral cortex, and almost all of the neurons within the central nervous system are present by the end of this sixth month of life and neural 'circuitry' continues to develop.”
(http://www.learningdiscoveries.com.au/StagesofBrainDevelopment.htm#TheFoetalStageofDevelopment)
The New Testament
Although the books referenced above, Leviticus and Exodus, are Old Testament, the New Testament provides no extra insight on abortion. Jesus condemns many things, including looking at your neighbor’s wife with lust; but he doesn’t feel it necessary to bring up the fate of the preborn. Apparently it wasn’t as pressing to him as members of Operation Rescue.
However, one passage gets frequent use by the anti-choice crew, Luke 1: 41-44:
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy.”
The child may have indeed kicked in Elizabeth’s stomach, quite possibly in response to the her excitement. This happens all the time in the third trimester of pregnancy. Many people, including me, think abortion in the third trimester should only occur in special circumstances; for example, to save the mother’s life. The Justices in Roe vs. Wade did not extend the mother’s right to choose to the third trimester, except in special circumstances.
If Elizabeth’s child leapt for joy in the third trimester, it is a moot occurrence.
On the other hand, if the child’s leap was miraculous, prompted by the appearance of the Mother of God, we are left to wonder about ordinary circumstances, when the Divine Mary is not immediately present.
Miracles change things. In a miraculous context, anything can happen. Trees can raise up their limbs to exalt. Rocks and stones can sing hallelujah. Still, no one is rushing to claim that trees and rocks deserve a right to life.
Conclusion
There is no basis in the Bible for the totalitarian mentality of the anti-choice extremists. While they claim they are serving God’s Will, they are doing just the opposite, at least in terms of Yahweh.
I haven’t covered all the relevant excerpts and arguments by any means. For truly in-depth coverage, try these urls:
http://rabbimichaelsamuel.com/2009/10/more-reflections-on-abortion/
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm
Let me supply a quote from the last url, which sums up the general situation nicely:
“The Bible does not comment directly on abortion, even though abortion was practiced even then. All Biblical arguments on abortion are indirect and open to interpretation, and debate continues even among the world's most respected theologians. Even so, the Bible seems to suggest in several places that the unborn are not endowed with the qualities or rights of personhood. In fact, the Jews, who are famous for their preservation of tradition, have never considered abortion to be a sin.”
Angelic Wolves
Anti-abortion fanatics often cloak their zeal in religious trappings, convinced that God is on their side, and that they are martyrs for the ultimate Good. However, intense passion and intractable belief do not insure veracity, nor immunize one from misapprehension. History is full of single-minded zealotry, accompanied by hysteria and histrionics, which, in retrospect, was horribly unfounded and tragic in the misery it inflicted.
For instance, in 16th and 17th century England, Protestants and Catholics butchered each other on a massive and constant scale.
Every ardent follower of a cause will tell you they are willing to die for their principles and that they serve the ultimate Good. But thick-skulled single-mindedness is more likely to induce error than enlightenment. When applied to large groups, it correlates with lots of spilled blood.
The dangers of fanaticism and false prophets were well understood by ancient peoples, whose subsistence could be thrown into upheaval by charismatic yet de-stabilizing mystics. Warnings to avoid the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” occur frequently in the Bible, as do exhortations to avoid false prophets, such as the following from Deuteronomy:
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams ... Thou shalt not hearken. (13.1)
Conviction for cherished ideals is wonderful, but must be balanced with judicious thought. Otherwise, a grave danger emerges of being duped, deluded, and drawn into someone else’s scheme for power. History is full of unwitting pawns.
When you see anti-abortion extremists raising their arms to heaven, screaming out to God, and extolling with intense and colorful theatrics, go ahead and get emotional. It is indeed an amazing sight, and probably will invoke a reaction in you, one way or the other. But don’t be swayed to a cause just because the adherents are emotionally tortured.
Although passion is what makes life special, it is not the be-all-end all of Goodness. Wisdom can not live by passion alone, and passion has led many people to the slaughter.
The Pro-Choice Christian
Religion goes well with pro-choice arguments, far better than it does with anti-choice.
Take the Bible, for example. There is no direct mention of abortion in this hallowed text, let alone any thunderous decree that forbids it. A lot of things are divinely outlawed in the Bible, including adultery, stealing, and coveting thy neighbor’s ox--but not abortion.
If abortion is a horrible sin, more so than adultery or ox coveting, why isn’t it mentioned?
The knee-jerk response is to say that abortion is murder, and murder is strictly forbidden by God. Unfortunately for those putting forth this argument, it assumes what it is trying to prove. This sort of poor reasoning is so common and egregious that it has a special name in philosophy: begging the question, or to put it formally in latin petitio principii.
Even worse for the “abortion is murder” screamers, the Bible provides damning evidence, pardon the pun, that in the eyes of the Lord, it is not.
Key passages necessitate this conclusion. As does the overall picture of ancient nomadic tribespeople that emerges from a serious perusal. In legal terms, the Bible sees the preborn as a kind of property, not a full-fledged being that can be murdered.
Given time considerations, I’m going to discuss just a few excerpts. They are already well-known in the general debate, so I’ll include commentary on the responses by anti-abortionists.
The following two excerpts are so telling the Jehovah’s Witnesses rewrote them in their New World Bible, obliterating the original text and its evidence that the preborn did not have full legal standing for the ancient Israelites.
(For more on the New World Bible, which doesn’t deserve to be called a Bible at all, go here: http://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html)
For those who don’t bowdlerize or rewrite history, and dare to look at honest translations by expert scholars, as in the NRSV, or even just the good ol’ King James Version , the evidence is clear and determinative. Let’s check it out.
Leviticus 27: 2-7
This is powerful passage that associates monetary values with males and females of various ages. Humans below the age of one month have no value at all. Quoting from NSRV:
“When a person makes an explicit vow to the Lord concerning the equivalent for a human being, the equivalent for a male shall be: from twenty to sixty years of age the equivalent shall be fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary shekel. If the person is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. If the age is from five to twenty years of age, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and for a female the equivalent is three shekels of silver.”
This passage is legally explaining how much money is needed to substitute for a vow. Pay this amount to avoid the consequences of the vow. As you can see, men are more highly valued than women. Adults more than children. It’s not as if all human life is considered equal.
Furthermore, to emphasize, youngsters below the age of one month have no value assigned. Not a single shekel. Yikes! The Oxford Companion to the Bible sums all this up nicely:
“Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27: 3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status. (p.4)
In other words, the Bible differentiates between the legal value assigned to adults and infants, assigning the big zero to newborns, and in effect the fetus as well.
Anti-Abortion Response to Leviticus 27: 3-7
When I typed “Leviticus 27 and abortion” into Google, or variants of that search phrase, I was surprised to find no ready and easily obtainable statement by the anti-abortionists (in contrast to the next excerpt I discuss, for which they have plenty to say).
I think their best argument is to point out that the above passage isn’t dealing with abortion but rather the avoidance of restrictions placed by vows. If we’re talking about vows, how can this be relevant to an entirely different issue, abortion?
But this argument isn’t going to satisfy anyone who doesn’t want to be satisfied by it. The excerpt sets up a hierarchy of values associated with human life, and legally assigns newborns and preborns a monetary value of zero.
This provides a useful window into the thinking of the nomadic Israelites. These were hard times, lacking modern medicine. The miscarriage rate is estimated to be about 50%, not to mention the likely deaths to disease of infants. Forming tight emotional bonds to preborns and young children could result in huge and frequent amounts of pain.
It is likely, given the physical and cultural circumstances, that the Israelites did not emotionally attach to the preborn as the anti-abortionists seem to love every fetus and embryo, wailing and lamenting and hurling out comparisons to the Holocaust.
The overall cultural perspective in the Bible, exemplified in Leviticus 27, makes this a quite reasonable conclusion.
Exodus 21: 22-25
This section is another killer, pardon the pun, for the Christian anti-choice crusade.
The passage reads as follows:
“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Note the penalty for inflicting a miscarriage is a monetary payment, whereas the penalty for harming the women is much more serious. Monetary payments were customary for property damage; but if you accidentally break the woman’s hand, your hand gets broken in retributive justice.
If the miscarriage were itself a case of murder, the eye-for-an-eye code would call for the death of the person who caused the miscarriage, wouldn’t it? The little being in the woman’s stomach is not considered to have full legal protections. It’s right there in the Bible.
Anti-Abortion Response to Exodus 21: 22-25
Unlike the Leviticus passage, there is a great deal of anti-abortion response to Exodus. At least ten strong commentaries come up on a Google search. Many of them have a frantic yet excited air, for they are eager to explain away this dangerous excerpt. The crucial strategy is to attack the word “miscarriage.” The woman’s child isn’t dead, they claim, just born prematurely.
Some even serve as primers, telling the reader how to respond when confronted by pro-choice folks, as in the following:
“When someone raises this issue with you, ask these three questions.
First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word “miscarriage” entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.” The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?
Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).
Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn’t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.”
( http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700 )
Pro-Choice Rebuttal
The crucial task for the anti-abortionist is to prove that “miscarriage” is a faulty translation. Or is it? Suppose the woman doesn’t have a miscarriage, but only gives birth prematurely. But remember, premature birth is often going to result in death of the child, given the lack of medical technology available to the ancient goat-herders, and their generally hardscrabble and difficult life. Even today, with all our fancy machinery, only about 60% of premature births can be saved.
You’re deluding yourself if you think ancient Israelites weren’t aware of the high chance of death in premature birth, especially if the woman was induced to labor through extreme violence.
Death of the preborn had to be on the minds of the ancient Israelites when crafting the law in Exodus 21:22-25. It’s just common sense. Most pregnant women who “give forth” their child from violence will be giving forth embryos and non-viable fetuses.
And of course we must ask: Is “miscarriage” the wrong word to use for the translation. Now you get into a hornet’s nest of linguistic analysis of ancient Hebrew and translation methodology, a great place to find a loophole to support your own perspective, especially if you're desperate and have no other resort.
The anti-abortionists claim that the ancient Hebrew term, “yatsa” is generally used to mean “to bring forth” and that therefore miscarriage is not implied.
But this ignores common sense. Why make a law that covers only a fraction of pregnancies, and avoids the obvious threat of death?
Maybe the ancient Israelites were speaking in euphemism. Maybe the ancient Hebrew language in the cultural context of the nomads calls for a gentle explanation. Or maybe “bringing forth” is perfect to cover both the case of miscarriage and premature birth which leads to death of the child.
Or maybe translating ancient Hebrew to English is a difficult task that requires looking at variations in culture, predispositions of translators, technical questions in semiotics, nuances in exegesis, etc. Maybe we can't with any certainty hang a lot of meaning on "yatsa" except by stepping back and looking at the issues faced by a hardbitten tribe of herders.
So, I’m not entering the linguistic debate. This isn’t my field of expertise. But there is strong pragmatic evidence that miscarriage, including loss of embryo or nonviable fetus, would have been on the minds of the Israelites when a shepherd’s crook rammed into the belly of a woman.
A Thousand Years Plus
The view that the preborn does not have full status was common and widespread throughout Christianity and Judaism for well over a thousand years. In the 16th century, a young scientist using a primitive microscope claimed to see a small fully developed human in a sperm cell. Based on that sketchy evidence, the Catholic Church changed its view to the current dogma: the soul is present from conception.
Before this ridiculous maneuver, the view of St. Augustine reigned supreme: that abortion was acceptable well into pregnancy, because the soul was not present until the preborn could “feel.” Interestingly, this accords with the scientific observation that the brain’s ‘neural circuitry’ develops later in the pregnancy. At six months the basic system is in place:
“The cerebral hemispheres now cover the whole top and sides of the brain including the cerebellum. Cerebellar development begins from this moment, but will not be complete until two years after birth. Six distinct layers are now differentiated within the cerebral cortex, and almost all of the neurons within the central nervous system are present by the end of this sixth month of life and neural 'circuitry' continues to develop.”
(http://www.learningdiscoveries.com.au/StagesofBrainDevelopment.htm#TheFoetalStageofDevelopment)
The New Testament
Although the books referenced above, Leviticus and Exodus, are Old Testament, the New Testament provides no extra insight on abortion. Jesus condemns many things, including looking at your neighbor’s wife with lust; but he doesn’t feel it necessary to bring up the fate of the preborn. Apparently it wasn’t as pressing to him as members of Operation Rescue.
However, one passage gets frequent use by the anti-choice crew, Luke 1: 41-44:
“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy.”
The child may have indeed kicked in Elizabeth’s stomach, quite possibly in response to the her excitement. This happens all the time in the third trimester of pregnancy. Many people, including me, think abortion in the third trimester should only occur in special circumstances; for example, to save the mother’s life. The Justices in Roe vs. Wade did not extend the mother’s right to choose to the third trimester, except in special circumstances.
If Elizabeth’s child leapt for joy in the third trimester, it is a moot occurrence.
On the other hand, if the child’s leap was miraculous, prompted by the appearance of the Mother of God, we are left to wonder about ordinary circumstances, when the Divine Mary is not immediately present.
Miracles change things. In a miraculous context, anything can happen. Trees can raise up their limbs to exalt. Rocks and stones can sing hallelujah. Still, no one is rushing to claim that trees and rocks deserve a right to life.
Conclusion
There is no basis in the Bible for the totalitarian mentality of the anti-choice extremists. While they claim they are serving God’s Will, they are doing just the opposite, at least in terms of Yahweh.
I haven’t covered all the relevant excerpts and arguments by any means. For truly in-depth coverage, try these urls:
http://rabbimichaelsamuel.com/2009/10/more-reflections-on-abortion/
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm
Let me supply a quote from the last url, which sums up the general situation nicely:
“The Bible does not comment directly on abortion, even though abortion was practiced even then. All Biblical arguments on abortion are indirect and open to interpretation, and debate continues even among the world's most respected theologians. Even so, the Bible seems to suggest in several places that the unborn are not endowed with the qualities or rights of personhood. In fact, the Jews, who are famous for their preservation of tradition, have never considered abortion to be a sin.”
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Decline of the US Empire
The decline of the US Empire started decades ago, when the business elite began the transfer of wealth away from the people and into the hands of the richest 1%. This initiated a disease of moral degeneration and corruption that would come to infect the whole.
Now, bled by two stupid wars, a greed-induced recession, and the continuing sickness of fat cat banks and bickering pols, the great Empire is moribund and tottering, almost slain.
Add to the grievous wounds that the US owes a lot of money to China, a police state that does not believe in freedom or equality. Beijing is our boss.
Why do we owe money to China, you ask? Places like Wal-Mart, in which almost everything on the rack is “Made in China.” To save a few dollars, each drooling customer participates in the degradation of democracy and the advance of Communist supremacy.
On Obama’s current visit to Beijing, the New York Times reports:
“Also noteworthy was the range of issues on which the United States was asking China’s help, something that might have been unthinkable before the United States became embroiled in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and before its economy was hobbled by the global financial crisis that began on its shores. China, meanwhile, has so far weathered the financial crisis in relatively good form.
“Before the financial crisis, the U.S. was in a world leader position,” said Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at the People’s University of China in Beijing. “Now, with China and the United States, maybe we see that the U.S. depends on the China for more issues than China depends on the U.S.”
(“Obama Trip Shows Gaps On Issues As Role Of China Grows,” Nov. 17 )
Yes, the US Empire is virtually dead, brought down by a blind triad of avarice, aggression, and incompetence. And still the citizens don’t realize it, infected with the ethical decay that blights their land. They would rather bicker among themselves, castrate intellectuals, and shout out for more foreign blood, than face their own debauchery.
The typical person of average schooling thinks the blame lies with someone else--preferably of another religion and/or race.
In short, we are an ailing country of neurotics in denial, and we let billionaires and fire-eaters abscond not only our with material satisfaction but also the decency in our hearts. Now our angry and confused hardscrabblers turn to a proto-fascist, Sarah Palin, to vent their misplaced anger.
Now, bled by two stupid wars, a greed-induced recession, and the continuing sickness of fat cat banks and bickering pols, the great Empire is moribund and tottering, almost slain.
Add to the grievous wounds that the US owes a lot of money to China, a police state that does not believe in freedom or equality. Beijing is our boss.
Why do we owe money to China, you ask? Places like Wal-Mart, in which almost everything on the rack is “Made in China.” To save a few dollars, each drooling customer participates in the degradation of democracy and the advance of Communist supremacy.
On Obama’s current visit to Beijing, the New York Times reports:
“Also noteworthy was the range of issues on which the United States was asking China’s help, something that might have been unthinkable before the United States became embroiled in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and before its economy was hobbled by the global financial crisis that began on its shores. China, meanwhile, has so far weathered the financial crisis in relatively good form.
“Before the financial crisis, the U.S. was in a world leader position,” said Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at the People’s University of China in Beijing. “Now, with China and the United States, maybe we see that the U.S. depends on the China for more issues than China depends on the U.S.”
(“Obama Trip Shows Gaps On Issues As Role Of China Grows,” Nov. 17 )
Yes, the US Empire is virtually dead, brought down by a blind triad of avarice, aggression, and incompetence. And still the citizens don’t realize it, infected with the ethical decay that blights their land. They would rather bicker among themselves, castrate intellectuals, and shout out for more foreign blood, than face their own debauchery.
The typical person of average schooling thinks the blame lies with someone else--preferably of another religion and/or race.
In short, we are an ailing country of neurotics in denial, and we let billionaires and fire-eaters abscond not only our with material satisfaction but also the decency in our hearts. Now our angry and confused hardscrabblers turn to a proto-fascist, Sarah Palin, to vent their misplaced anger.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Protest targets Goldman-Sachs' billions
Al Jazeera English - Americas - Protest targets Goldman's billions
Goldman Sachs continues to get hammered around the world, even though the mainstream US media is now largely silent.
The last excellent indictment I saw from a big US paper was Maureen Dowd's Oped, "Virtuous Bankers? Really!?!" (November 11)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11dowd.html?_r=1
Goldman Sachs continues to get hammered around the world, even though the mainstream US media is now largely silent.
The last excellent indictment I saw from a big US paper was Maureen Dowd's Oped, "Virtuous Bankers? Really!?!" (November 11)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11dowd.html?_r=1
Defending Abortion: Part I, The Embryo Photo
There are many reasons why abortion is a morally acceptable practice in certain situations. Applied ethics is a difficult field and in coming to a reasonable judgement it is important to look at the specific context at hand. Nothing I’m about to say is the final word on any particular case. However, my arguments will show that extremist groups like Operation Rescue have no sound philosophical basis for their view that abortion is always wrong.
The Embryo Pitch
Today I want to look at what I call the Embryo Pitch. A pro-lifer displays a photo or a video of an embryo and says there’s a heartbeat or some other physical quality meant to summon tears to your eyes.
The power of this argument is that life is a miracle, even it its most minute forms. There is nothing wrong with being sad when a young life has ended. Scientists who take a cold clinic response and claim that the embryo is “just a lump of tissue” are not only wrong but also play right into the pro-lifer’s hands.
But imagine this scenario: the pro-lifer, after showing this picture of very young life, reveals suddenly that it is not human at all, but a dog embryo. Then she reveals that she is not a pro-lifer at all, but rather a philosopher making a point.
Funny how there was a huge push to save that embryo from death--until it is learned that it was not human. There is no way to tell just from the heartbeat, or even the general shape of the tiny being.
Here’s a video of a dog embryo that shows its wonder and beauty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD3bmHyVEyo
Yes, the dog embryo is a miracle, but it doesn’t warrant a right to life. The audience wanders away, some of them embarrassed that they were so adamant on saving it. Some of them were even thinking about violence.
It is sad to kill this small unborn being, many of us feel, including me; but again, no outcry of murder or heinous wrong is forthcoming, except perhaps by the most fanatic elements of PETA.
Suppose someone says, “I can visually tell the different between that dog embryo and a human embryo!”
That’s all there is to rely on, isn’t it, the slight difference in shape, if there is one. But how accurate is this, and how early in development can you rely on it? Are the shapes characteristically different, or do they overlap? Suppose you make a mistake, suppose you can’t be certain.
And really, is shape what you want to hang your argument on? Is shape the special property that endows human beings with a right to life?
The problem with claiming that the human embryo is a miracle is not that it isn’t true. The preborn is indeed magical and special. All life is. A dog, a jellyfish, even a blade of grass or a microscopic organism, these are divine manifestations.
But saying that a certain life form is a miracle is not enough to grant it a right to life. If it were, we could not eat lettuce. Each and every one of us destroys many miracles of life each day just to survive. The meat we eat, or the plants. The bacteria in our mouths slain by mouthwash. The ants we spray with pesticide. And so on.
In conclusion, don’t be fooled by the Embryo Pitch. You could respond to it this way:
“Yes, the embryo is a miracle, but so is all life. The heartbeat in an embryo could be a dog’s heartbeat, or a raven’s or an elephant’s. That twitching limb could be a cat using its paw for the first time. Yes, it is beautiful and it is sacred. But we take the lives of beautiful things all the time. To eat, for example. We do it for good reasons, ones that are accepted in sacred texts as well as secular arguments. You’ll have to do more than point out the obvious grace in all living creatures to make your point.
The Embryo Pitch
Today I want to look at what I call the Embryo Pitch. A pro-lifer displays a photo or a video of an embryo and says there’s a heartbeat or some other physical quality meant to summon tears to your eyes.
The power of this argument is that life is a miracle, even it its most minute forms. There is nothing wrong with being sad when a young life has ended. Scientists who take a cold clinic response and claim that the embryo is “just a lump of tissue” are not only wrong but also play right into the pro-lifer’s hands.
But imagine this scenario: the pro-lifer, after showing this picture of very young life, reveals suddenly that it is not human at all, but a dog embryo. Then she reveals that she is not a pro-lifer at all, but rather a philosopher making a point.
Funny how there was a huge push to save that embryo from death--until it is learned that it was not human. There is no way to tell just from the heartbeat, or even the general shape of the tiny being.
Here’s a video of a dog embryo that shows its wonder and beauty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD3bmHyVEyo
Yes, the dog embryo is a miracle, but it doesn’t warrant a right to life. The audience wanders away, some of them embarrassed that they were so adamant on saving it. Some of them were even thinking about violence.
It is sad to kill this small unborn being, many of us feel, including me; but again, no outcry of murder or heinous wrong is forthcoming, except perhaps by the most fanatic elements of PETA.
Suppose someone says, “I can visually tell the different between that dog embryo and a human embryo!”
That’s all there is to rely on, isn’t it, the slight difference in shape, if there is one. But how accurate is this, and how early in development can you rely on it? Are the shapes characteristically different, or do they overlap? Suppose you make a mistake, suppose you can’t be certain.
And really, is shape what you want to hang your argument on? Is shape the special property that endows human beings with a right to life?
The problem with claiming that the human embryo is a miracle is not that it isn’t true. The preborn is indeed magical and special. All life is. A dog, a jellyfish, even a blade of grass or a microscopic organism, these are divine manifestations.
But saying that a certain life form is a miracle is not enough to grant it a right to life. If it were, we could not eat lettuce. Each and every one of us destroys many miracles of life each day just to survive. The meat we eat, or the plants. The bacteria in our mouths slain by mouthwash. The ants we spray with pesticide. And so on.
In conclusion, don’t be fooled by the Embryo Pitch. You could respond to it this way:
“Yes, the embryo is a miracle, but so is all life. The heartbeat in an embryo could be a dog’s heartbeat, or a raven’s or an elephant’s. That twitching limb could be a cat using its paw for the first time. Yes, it is beautiful and it is sacred. But we take the lives of beautiful things all the time. To eat, for example. We do it for good reasons, ones that are accepted in sacred texts as well as secular arguments. You’ll have to do more than point out the obvious grace in all living creatures to make your point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
