I just wish to clarify something here. I did not say that abortion should be looked upon as a cost saving device. But the whores who own health care in the country would. It is only logical. It is wrong, but it is economically logical.

And that goes hand in hand with the issue of euthanasia.

Really, this is why private health insurance is ridiculous in this day and age. I mean jughead on mornin joke says that if we had universal health care everyone would be getting MRIs all the time. Of course that pig could get an MRI whenever he wishes.

The private pigs that own the system now certainly do not give all insureds mris.
We are letting the dollar decide moral issues and it is wrong.

We sometimes like to think that we are a very dynamic society where our thinking changes more rapidly than in previous societies, sometimes even matching the modern pace of growth in scientific and technical knowledge. In fact I find that the “thinking” in this society is slow to progress and even retrograde compared to both contemporary societies in Europe and Asia and in historical societies like those in the Middle Ages or ancient Rome. My conclusion is that I consider myself to be living in a profoundly illiberal setting. I approach this topic you have raised with that in mind as I submit my observations here.

The whole argument over “when life begins” isn’t carried out in some laboratory setting at the CDC or the NIH. Nor has it benefited much from the exercise of practical reasoning like Law or Philosophy. This argument can be reduced to two very old notions. The first is Aristotle’s test for the presence of life – immanent activity. Simply understood he meant that a living creature is a thing that moves itself as opposed, for example, a rock which only moves when acted upon from outside. Aristotle would have a hard time with “life begins at conception” since sperm and ova are already alive. In fact the carrot or the sausage that I ate and metabolized into a sperm was alive. So when does life begin? Given a modern setting, Aristotle’s consideration of this question might actually be helpful, even progressive.

The other old notion is the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. His rather unsophisticated application of Aristotle to Christian Theology forces us to discuss matters like “when life begins” with Aristotelian Thomistic principles which, while amazing historical artifacts, are fundamentally flawed and inadequate. But make no mistake about it. We carry on this debate as if it were the 13th century and the world was just now witnessing the birth of Humanism with its considerations of things like the inherent rights of the individual. I think it is important to recognize that we live in a world much like the Medieval Spain of Fernando de Rojas (“La Celestina”) or Maria de Zayas where the very humanity of women is still in open dispute.

On the more practical level, one could be forgiven for thinking that this is a very dynamic time for debates about women’s place in society. If you were to read a book* on, say, the first four centuries of the modern era (Anno Domini) in Rome, you would find that the pace and productivity of their debates in Law and social morality regarding the place of women outstrips anything we have recently witnessed. In truth this debate in my three score years has barely moved from the question of whether or not a woman has an inherent moral autonomy equal to the one that I, as a male, both covet and would never relinquish. It is hardly even an open question. Rather it is a brutish argument of “yea” or “nay.” The psychologists, the moralists, the poets and the spiritual leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. must await some long in the future invitation to the conversation.

I present all of this droll commentary to set the stage for expressing my view on this subject. I cannot wait upon the current, anachronistic discourse on the subject of a woman’s autonomy. For me women are equals. If they have a difficult life choice to make, I am there to support them and, if possible, be helpful to them. “Everything that is serious is difficult and everything is serious.” (Rilke) That’s about all I know. I trust a woman brings to “everything” at least as much as I do. So I listen to them and let them tell me what I can do for them. I like Aristotle but I like a living woman more.

* Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood by Ju Evans Grubbs

Actually, I tend to think that for the rank and file fundamentalist Christians it isn't about control. They truly believe that abortion is murder and that it is against God. While I don't agree, I can understand their thinking and how they reached their position. I wish that they would be less rabid and more tolerant of the fact that there are many views in the world and whether or not they are confident in theirs, they cannot run roughshod over others.

The thing that really pisses me off (on their behalf even) is that republican leaders can gain no benefit from, and therefore have no interest in, the criminalization of abortion. Think about it. Six years under a republican president, republican congress, and republican Supreme Court. If it was going to happen, it would have happened. But for the republican party, better to have legal abortion as a stick with which to beat the left and a fundraising tool with which to incite their base.

Disingenuous emm effers.