The Courage of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama

He was a little-known Senator of slight experience from Illinois. He won the trust of the American people with his articulate sincerity and his open hand always ready for a firm shake and a direct look in the eye. He came to Washington, D.C. by train. He was a rallying point and a lightning rod, and his name was Abraham Lincoln.

Faced with the terrible prospect of a nation divided against itself, a nation founded on the premise that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a nation which categorically denied these rights to a substantial class of society, choosing instead to subjugate them to the yoke of labor and menial and sexual indignity, to parse families in sale down the river, to use their women for their own bestial purposes, their men as if beasts, faced, I say, with this reality, which was combined with a sympathetic but largely apathetic counterpart in the other half of the nation, this courageous President had the vision to see the forces of economy, necessity and humanity in such conflict as would only allow two alternatives, which alternatives were the "yes" or the "no" to this question which had been suppressed but could no longer be suppressed: slavery. Would he have the courage to extend the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all of the citizens over whom he presided? Would he have the wisdom to perceive the infection which was consuming the humanity of the body politic, and the painful but necessary--indeed the only--procedure which could lance the wound?

To the great benefit and relief of those American people living in the land which called itself the land of freedom but themselves denied the exercise of that freedom--indeed even the exercise of life itself--he did. He was willing to risk all because he perceived that his nation's Constitution was insufficient to protect the freedoms it had been designed to protect. He perceived that to amend that Constitution was an impossibility as long as the United States were divided along the lines of slavery, and that the proponents of slavery--men who claimed that those they enslaved were not "persons"--were willing to fight and die for their peculiar institution, choosing instead to call what they would defend with blood, the sword, and their lives and those of their families, their "way of life". This President of courage perceived that the history of man moves like the history of the rest of the earth: just as the face of the earth changes by massive, slow, imperceptible processes affecting millions of parts at once, and so also the single bolt of lightning can change a mountain to a valley in the moment of a single drop of rain as well as the same is done by countless years and drops of rain.

This man of courage was able to perceive that just as the United States were divided, some day we would be able to say that the United States is whole.

This man of courage was able to perceive that while untold thousands groaned under the yoke of indignity while their wives were raped or sold or murdered before their eyes, their children forcibly exposed to the elements or made sport of by the twisted imagination of the young slaver, the dignity of the human person could be restored by the stroke of the Presidential pen. So the United States was blessed to receive the Emancipation Proclamation, followed by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Friday our little-known Senator, our President with the earnest face, clarity of speech and open palm, the man who traveled by train through Baltimore on his way to Washington stopped with his pen the use of federal funds for the categorical denial in the state of Pennsylvania of the three fundamental rights of the human person which sparked the fuse of 1776 and ended with bombs bursting in air. It was those bombs which illuminated the night sky and told the young patriot who pined in his cell to know that equal rights would be guaranteed to all people.

And today, tomorrow, or some day while we look towards Washington, eager for the news of freedom, our young President may yet sign another Emancipation Proclamation. Barack Obama may yet earn a place alongside Abraham Lincoln, if he has the courage to extend the rights of the Declaration of Independence to all persons in this nation.

If he has the courage, our President can provide the stimulus for a new Constitutional Amendment, one that will guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all persons of this nation from the beginning of life.

Will he have the courage to protect the largest class of our society, which is at once the meekest and most in need of our protection, as his chosen hero and role-model once did?

Will Barack Obama have the courage to issue a new Emancipation, really to be the next Abraham Lincoln?

What Is An Organism? Or, Why The Abortionist Must Be Fundamentalist When It Comes to Biological Science

At the 4:30 mark of this video appears a person protected from summary execution by private individuals without trial, by the United States Constitution. This person is distinguishable from biological and non-biological matter which is not a part of him by the conventions of modern biological science concerning the definition of an organism.

Consensus in modern biological thought concerning the definition of an organism includes especially contiguity (i.e., the systematic relationship of the interior cells of a multi-cellular organism, or the similar relationship of sub-cellular bodies within the wall of a monocellular organism) and homeostasis. These two characteristics imply the other functions we usually associate with the living organism: response to stimuli, inevitable growth (environmental conditions notwithstanding), reproduction (mating conditions notwithstanding, in the case of sexual reproduction), &c.

The human being has these characteristics at the moment of conception. Once the two parent sex cells, the sperm and the egg, are joined, the inevitable process of development begins, whereby the new organism will eventually develop all of the typical characteristics of adults of its species (the earliest ones being, e.g., a beating heart, hiccups, startle responses (all at 7 weeks)), as well as those which individuate it as a unique member of the species (e.g. red hair (determined at once with DNA), weak lungs, or green eyes).

This process is the result of, and testament to, homeostasis and contiguity in the organism from the moment of conception.

Back to the video: at the 4:30 mark we already observed a person that you or I would not presume to kill.

Why, then, are we permitted to kill the one at the 0:50 mark? Why is this organism at one point in its development certainly considered one of the "men" who "are endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," while at another point in its development it is not considered one?

At what point does he become a person?

When he is born?

What about when his toes is still in his mother? Can I kill the baby then? (Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) asked Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) eleven years ago on the Senate floor)

While we're at it, let's review a little bit of that heated conversation on the Senate floor that October 20:

Mrs. BOXER. I don’t believe in kill- ing any human being. That is abso- lutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure.

Mr. SANTORUM. So you would ac- cept the fact that once the baby is sep- arated from the mother, that baby can- not be killed?

Mrs. BOXER. I support the right— and I will repeat this, again, because I saw you ask the same question to an- other Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM. All the Senator has to do is give me a straight answer.

Mrs. BOXER. Define ‘‘separation.’’ You answer that question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Let’s define that. Let’s say the baby is completely sepa- rated; in other words, no part of the baby is inside the mother.

Mrs. BOXER. You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in the mother’s arms? It is a human being? It takes a second, it takes a minute——

Mr. SANTORUM. Say it is in the ob- stetrician’s hands.

Mrs. BOXER. I had two babies, and within seconds of them being born——

Mr. SANTORUM. We had six. Mrs. BOXER. You didn’t have any. Mr. SANTORUM. My wife and I did.

We do things together in my family. Mrs. BOXER. Your wife gave birth. I gave birth. I can tell you, I know when

the baby was born. Mr. SANTORUM. Good. All I am ask-

ing you is, once the baby leaves the mother’s birth canal and is through the vaginal orifice and is in the hands of the obstetrician, you would agree you cannot then abort the baby?

Mrs. BOXER. I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born and would then have every right of every other human being living in this coun- try, and I don’t know why this would even be a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the Senator from Cali- fornia, if the baby was born except for the baby’s foot, if the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed? (-ibid.)

What about when only his head is out? (Disclaimer: this link NOT rated R)

What about before labor begins?

How long before labor begins?

When does this biological organism, homo sapiens or commonly "a human being", receive from the American People the rights attributed to him by their founding documents?

New York Times Obfuscates Findings of Modern Science, Technology, for Pro-Abortion Agenda

Apropos of the New York Times' recent article, the following videos speak for themselves.

These videos feature the people who are being denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These people have committed no crime, and under current American law may be executed without trial by the decisions and actions of private individuals.

Although, as the NYT article quotes one abortionist saying, at this stage it is easier on the nurses' psyches because they are not dealing with discernible body parts, these videos make it clear that one can only hold this position after resolutely turning her back on the clear and present scientific data presented by state-of-the-art fetal monitoring technology.

First Things' Mary Rose Somarriba has commented on the article at length.

Friday Night Lights 7/9/10 (continued)

To show how the show failed, let's look at a positive reaction from a viewer on NBC.com:

I am so grateful to NBC for being brave enough to air this beautiful and thoughtful episode. I look forward to watching this story line unfold further. Thank you!

and simply:

[I]t seems so real.

First of all, What's "beautiful" and "thoughtful" here? The only person who was not allowed to think and deliberate and choose for herself was the person in whom the authority for the decision is vested. The one time we hear what she really wants—to raise the baby, if she had the money—she's in tears. Why? because she feels trapped. Why does she feel trapped? because she's been given one option and ordered to take it. Why is she at the house of a woman she doesn't know, the principal of another school across town, at three o'clock in the morning pleading, "What do you think I should do?" Because her mother already told her what to do and she didn't like it. So what's the problem with keeping the baby, saying, "It's ok, Becky, you can do this, you have that option if you want it"?

Well, Becky's reservations are about "the money". But aside from a very brief passing reference to adoption at their first meeting (in which Tami puts Becky in contact with an abortion clinic after Becky says that's what she wants to do), Tami won't mention that here. She can encourage Becky about choosing the abortion ("I don't think you'll go to hell"), but she can't encourage Becky about choosing to let the baby live.

But this isn't about the legality of abortion. It's about the logically prior problem of choosing an action for whose likely, foreseeable, and even primary(!) consequences one neither desires nor is prepared or willing to accept responsibility. One might say, she is accepting responsibility; she’s making a terrible and enduring decision. To which I ask: terrible and enduring for whom? But I will return to this issue momentarily.

And this is beautiful and thoughtful?

The second problem is with the viewer's comment, "[I]t seems so real," in light of Becky's "I don't want to throw my life away." The solution adopted avoids "throwing one's life away" (in other words, raising a child as a single mother). But how is this done? By throwing away another person's life (and now we're actually talking about doing something permanent, something that precludes all of the possibilities of any kind of life for a person). Try telling a woman who raised or is raising a child by herself as she watches her daughter play her first piano recital, or her son become the first African American President of the United States, that she has "thrown her life away". Real?

Please.

Next you can tell me about how Barack Obama is proof of a life thrown away.

This is why stable societies have strong sex customs. To aid weak-willed individuals (like Becky the teenager who allows two grown-ups to make the decision for her) as well as responsible ones who might make mistakes, not to make those mistakes in the first place. A taboo against premarital sex or one which forces shotgun weddings gives the rational or not-so-rational (or momentarily irrational!) agent the support of his community, instead of leaving him adrift in a moment or a state of inhibited reason, helping him to see the immediacy of the consequences while empowering him (or in this case her) to make a decision for himself. (Incidentally, this is why Luke is able to choose for himself and Becky is not; his freedom is respected and he lives his life in a social context, not as an individual adrift. This is not to impugn Becky for her circumstances, but as a matter of fact she has circumstances and these are among their effects.) It gives him a chance to avoid choosing an action (in this case sex and ultimately abortion), the likely and foreseeable consequences of which he is unable or unwilling to bear.

One might object: what "stable societies"? Abortions have always happened, and always will. They're a part of civilization.

My response: "Your conversation is in free and easy defiance of Murray's Grammar, and is garnished at frequent intervals with various profane expressions, which not even the desire to be graphic in our account shall induce us to describe."

Friday Night Lights, 7/09/10

Tonight my wife and I watched the most recent episode of NBC's Friday Night Lights, a weekly soap opera about the life and times of the people of Dillon, Texas, a town obsessed with football. Centered around the coach and his family, the show has earned high marks for its gritty, real-life look, favoring the bumpy, hand-held cinematography that made a lot of the difference between the realism of a Jason Bourne and the comic-book plasticity of a James Bond. It's a show about a particular kind of life, the life of a small Texas town, building up and executing sympathetic moments of triumph over adversity, of pathos, and of Realpolitik. The characters are sympathetic when the writers want them to be because of their immediacy. This most salient feature of the show is also its most compelling one. [TO SKIP THE SYNOPSIS CLICK HERE]

Tonight they upped the stakes. They set themselves up on a big, big stage...and blew their opportunity about as badly as they possibly could have done. A new character (to the current season), Becky, discovers that she's pregnant after a one night stand (her first time) with an aw-shucks country boy, Luke, who says "Yes sir" and "Yes ma'am" (his too). When she breaks the news to him, it's in the school yard and she tells him not to worry about it, it's her problem, she'll deal with it, but can he help with some money? The story plays out over a few episodes, in which Becky seeks help from Tami, the guidance-counselor-turned-principal (and coach's wife), who advises Becky to tell her mom in a late-night heart-to-heart. Becky's mom, a single mother, reacts to the news with even less aplomb than her 16-year-old daughter.

Meanwhile, Luke's dad corners him in the kitchen one night, concerned about Luke's recent withdrawn attitude, and Luke confesses the problem to his dad, with whom he has a strong, open relationship. Dad tells mom and the parents (good ol' Bible-believin' Christians) reassure Luke after practice one day that, "We'll figure this out; Joseph and Mary thought they were in a tough situation too."

Luke responds, "Becky and I aren't Joseph and Mary."

"Becky," says mom thoughtfully into her coffee mug, "so that's her name."

At the clinic, the doctor is beginning to give the state-mandated information about the stage of development of the fetus when Becky's mom forestalls him, repeatedly raising her voice as the doctor attempts to explain that he's required by law to tell Becky this information and then she can make "her" decision. Mom, after insisting that "we don't need that information; she's not having the baby anyway," vents as they walk back to the car that "this right-winger insulted us" by ramming all that talk down their throats.

In the middle of the night before the abortion, Becky comes back to the Taylor household to talk to Tami, who advises her that she's "in a really tough spot". Becky tearfully relates how "It's really obvious" that mom wants her to have the abortion, and "I was her mistake," and she should have known better and it was her first time and she barely even knows the guy and "I don't want to throw my life away." Tami, all the while, is very quiet, laconic, sympathetic, but says, "You need to think about your life" and "It's a hard thing; it's a hard situation." At this point (for the only time during the whole story) Becky asks herself explicitly "What about what *I* want?" I could have the baby, she opines, and love it, and be there for it... But what if I resent it? What if I spent the rest of my life resenting it?

When Becky finally asks her, "What would you tell your daughter?" Tami says that she'd tell her she's in a really tough spot, and she needs to think about it, and to think about her life, "and I'd support whatever decision she made." With Becky's response the scene ends: "I can't take care of a baby."

----