Don't Ban Or Force Abortion

Today's Boulder Weekly published my new article, "Don't ban or force abortions."

It begins:

The debate over abortion seems more contentious than ever in America today. Some want to ban all abortions from the moment of conception. Others want to forcibly sterilize people and compel women to get abortions.

But are those two groups really that different? They share fundamentally similar goals. Both would sacrifice the individual to some alleged greater good. Both would use the force of government to squash the rights of individuals. The moral alternative is to consistently uphold the rights of individuals to determine the course of their own lives.

Comments by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and by President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, have raised concerns about politically promoted or required abortions. ...

Following are links to three articles I consulted.

"The ghoulish spirit of Margaret Sanger lives," by Michelle Malkin

"The Place of Women on the Court," by Emily Bazelon (New York Times)

"Science fiction czar," by David Harsanyi (Denver Post)

Moon

If you like science fiction driven by ideas and characters' psychology, go see Moon. Don't watch the preview first, don't read any reviews, don't even read the rest of this post following this paragraph. Just go see it. You may not like all the ideas in the movie, but then at least there's something to positively dislike, a big step up from today's typical, mindless "action" film. I'll be stunned if Sam Rockwell doesn't get major awards for his fine acting. I only wish I hadn't watched the preview first, as it gives away the central story arch. My comments that follow, then, are mainly directed at those who have already seen the movie and want to evaluate it more deeply.

There's nothing truly original with the story. In its premise it reminds me a lot of Blade Runner (which already gives the game away to those who have seen that film). Isolation in space, cloning -- these are the staples of science fiction. So what I like about the movie is the skill in which these traditional motifs are carried off.

This is a film that, despite its dark and morally troubling subject matter, keeps a bright spirit, at least ultimately. I feared it would descend to psychosis and to the character's detachment from reality.

What I don't like about the film is its anti-industrial bias. Indeed, the entire premise of the story is ridiculous.

So here it goes (again, you shouldn't be reading this if you haven't seen the movie and may wish to do so). The background for the story is that a large corporation that produces energy on the moon clones a guy to service the station. The clone lives for around three years and then is incinerated, at which time a new clone takes his place, oblivious to what's going on.

The back story is just stupid. Here we have a company responsible for generating 70 percent of the Earth's energy, yet it can't afford to send a regular crew up to man the station? Moreover, we're supposed to believe that an intricate system of cloning is less costly to create and maintain than just sending up regular people for reasonable stints, presumably in pairs or teams? As the movie reveals, rocket technology has advanced considerably and must be regularly used to transport physical goods. Beyond that, as the movie makes clear, the cloning system can break down, so the company must also pay a regular crew to visit the station to solve related problems. That's supposed to save costs?

But of course that is only the minor issue. The main issue is that the company creates new people and then systematically violates their rights. They are essentially slaves. The company's behavior is wrong, and it is contrary to the principles of individual rights on which capitalism is based. So the government's legitimate responsibility would be to stop the rights violations.

And we're supposed to believe that a company could keep such a thing hidden for many years? Wouldn't anyone ask any questions about how all that energy is produced? In the end the company is exposed. In the real world, if any remnant of justice remained, everybody involved in the criminal side of the operation would then go to jail for a very long time. While obviously people like Madoff demonstrate that some people engage in criminal behavior for short-term financial gain, such behavior is severely self-destructive and unsustainable.

(A related economic issue is that no company would likely maintain such a large market share over time without political privilege. With property rights protected for homesteaders, and given diseconomies of scale, I'd expect to see a number of production companies. We do not know the political nature of the energy production in the film.)

The irony of the movie is that the new Evil Corporation is the "greenest" corporation ever to exist. It has accomplished what many environmentalists claim to desire. The entire premise driving enviro-socialism is the old Marxist canard that profit-seeking business people are inherently corrupt. As the movie illustrates, this prejudice does not dissipate merely because the business produces politically-correct goods. (Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see cost-effective, off-world energy production within my lifetime, though I don't see that as a feasible alternative to Earth-bound energy into the indefinite future.)

But many writers in their laziness pull out the Marx card any time they need to generate some malignant force. Blame it on the evil businessman. Why let the resulting artistic idiocy get in the way?

Harry Potter Radio

On Friday evening I joined Bob Glass on the radio to talk about Harry Potter.

I start in about two-thirds through the first hour.

We also spent the entire second hour continuing our discussion (though with an occasional diversion).

Bob is a Potter virgin, so I summarized the major story arch for him and for listeners unfamiliar with the stories. We talked a lot about the anti-totalitarian political themes of the series. We also talked about the Christian criticisms of the books as well as the religious themes within them. (I also briefly summarized my view that the religious themes of the books are not very strong or pronounced.)

I had a lot of fun discussing the Potter books and movies with Bob. In general, Bob's show is shaping up with good analysis of current events. You can check him out at BobGlassRadio.com. (He said he'd start updating his page more frequently and even start looking into Twitter.) The online feed works very well, so you can listen to his show 9-11 p.m. (mountain) anywhere in the world where internet is available.

Of course, if you're interested in more of what I have to say about Harry Potter, check out my book and additional essays at ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.

Half-Blood Prince Review

Jennifer and I decided last-minute to see the midnight showing of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I figured I was already way off my schedule, so I might as well write a review as well. I published it this morning around 5:30. My review is targeted to those already familiar with the story. I'll be interested to see if I notice anything new -- or change my mind about anything -- on a second viewing.

Feel free to let me know if you have a different take on the film.

Read my review, "Movie Does Justice to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince."

Update: David Yates discusses leaving out the Minister and adding in a couple of of scenes not from the book. I liked the bridge scene, but the waitress scene seemed out of place. I wish he had dumped it and put the Minister back in!

Twelve Bovine Livers

My grandfather farmed peaches in Palisade. I spent many an hour shoveling cow manure, planting and watering trees, and so on. I guess I still have a bit of farmer in me.

Jennifer and I figure we've dried nearly 100 pounds of fruit so far this summer. We got 67 cent per pound apricots, $1.34 per pound cherries, mangos at Costco, and strawberries for 88 cents to a dollar per pound. Now we have outstanding dried fruit to eat through the winter. We're still looking forward to peaches and tomatoes.

This evening we ate the first tomato from our garden. It was small, but very sweet.

And I cooked twelve grass-fed cow livers, chopped them up, and froze them in portions to add to dishes. I thought it would make a fun song:

In the middle of summer,
my true love made for me
Twelve bovine livers
Eleven pounds of berries
Ten trays of mangos...
Five red cherries...
And a tomato from the back yard.

With the liver, I was inspired by Jessica Seinfeld's book on pureeing vegetables and adding them to various dishes. I've taken to pureeing broccoli, spinach, cauliflower, and so on, then freezing portions in baggies. Then I just dump a bag or two of puree into any random dish. I decided to try this with liver as well, as It turns out that Jennifer is no fan of liver and onions.

I bought this liver based on two dietary theories. The first is that grass-fed cows offer more nutrients than junk-fed cows. The second is that organ meats contain higher amounts of certain vitamins such as K2. (Besides, grass-fed cow liver is pretty cheap, so at worst I'm getting a modest-cost dish add-in. By the way, NutritionData.com shows that cow liver has low Vitamin K but high amounts of other vitamins like A and B12. I'd get grass-fed cow milk if it weren't so danged expensive.)

It seems funny to me now that I used to stock my freezer with junk frozen dinners and burritos. Now it's stocked with grass-fed beef, assorted frozen fruits, sale meats, and shredded cheese -- the joys of abundance.

'Personhood' Returns for 2010

Last year, the religious right ran Amendment 48 in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person, with full legal rights on par with born infants. The "personhood" measure would have paved the way to banning abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, health risks, and fetal deformity, perhaps excepting extreme risk to the woman's life. If enforced, it would have led to bans on certain forms of birth control and severe restrictions on fertility treatments. It would have prompted criminal prosecution of abortions and criminal investigations of suspect miscarriages.

Voters crushed the measure 73 to 27 percent. So, after such a resounding defeat, the measure's backers learned their lesson, right? Of course not. They're back with a new -- and even worse -- proposal for 2010.

Mark Barna reports for the June 29 Gazette, "Two anti-abortion groups, Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, will submit a new 'personhood' initiative to the Colorado Legislative Council on Thursday in hopes of getting a measure on the 2010 state ballot." Gualberto Garcia Jones of Personhood Colorado promises a "smarter," better-funded campaign with better spokespersons.

But there will be an important change. Barna writes:

Rather than defining a person as "any human being from the moment of fertilization," the new initiative will establish personhood in "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

"The change," Garcia [Jones] said, "doesn't leave any loopholes to artificial forms of reproduction such as cloning."

See also coverage in the Denver Daily News (in which we learn that Garcia Jones is Catholic -- big surprise there) and the Denver Post.

Tim Hoover of the Post doesn't mention the cloning issue. Instead, he writes:

"When we use 'fertilized egg,' it's a pejorative," said Keith Mason, director of Personhood USA, an Arvada-based organization supporting the measure and similar proposals across the country. ...

The amendment would say that "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

So what is "the beginning of the biological development of that human being"? That would be up to courts to decide, said Gualberto Garcia Jones of Personhood Colorado.

How is calling a "fertilized egg" a "fertilized egg" a pejorative? Mason's claim is ridiculous. So I'll offer a different explanation. I think that the main reason supporters of the measure dumped the language about "fertilization" is that it draws to voters' attention all too clearly the goals of the organization: to ban all abortion and any other action that might harm a fertilized egg, on the faith-based fantasy that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul.

By substituting "human being" for "fertilized egg," supporters of the measure hope to cloud the issue in sufficient ambiguity to trip up more voters.

Of course, the ultimate goal of the measure's supporters -- as they loudly proclaim -- is to eventually elect the "right" politicians, who will appoint the "right" judges," who will interpret the measure so as to declare a fertilized egg a "human being," with all the legal ramifications that that entails.

Note the shift in Garcia Jones's tone from the Gazette article to the one in the Post. He told the Gazette that the purpose of the new language was to make it even more restrictive: to extend it beyond fertilization to cloning. But by the time he spoke with Hoover, he said the courts will decide. One might get the feeling that Garcia Jones rethought his strategy of informing voters that he intends the new measure to apply to all fertilized eggs.

So what are we to make of this new language about a "human being?" As Diana Hsieh and I wrote in our paper on Amendment 48:

In fact, the advocates of Amendment 48 depend on an equivocation on "human being" to make their case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA. It is also a “being,” in the sense that it is an entity. That’s also true of a gallbladder: it is human and it is an entity. Yet that doesn’t make your gallbladder a human person with the right to life. Similarly, the fact that an embryo is biologically a human entity is not grounds for claiming that it's a human person with a right to life. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is word-play intended to obscure the vast biological differences between a fertilized egg traveling down a woman's fallopian tube and a born infant sleeping in a crib. It is intended to obscure the fact that anti-abortion crusaders base their views on scripture and authority, not science.

Of course, a fertilized egg, unlike a gallbladder, has the capacity, in the right environment, to develop into a born infant, a person. But a potential person is not an actual person, a distinction consistently dodged by advocates of abortion bans.

The problem with the new measure's language is that it relies on voters to decide for themselves what is a "human being." Is it a fertilized egg, a "viable" fetus, or a born infant? It's for the courts to decide, we are told. Then why do the measure's advocates leave the language intentionally ambiguous?

Obviously, if we take "human being" as synonymous with "person," then the measure is merely tautological. But clearly the goal of the measure's supporters is to define a fertilized egg -- and now a cloned zygote -- as a "person." The strategy is to make a rhetorical leap without bothering to show that a fertilized egg is, in fact, a person. Maybe that's because there is no argument demonstrating that a fertilized egg is a person, because it isn't.

Notably, not a single advocate of Amendment 48 even attempted to seriously address the arguments in the paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg is Not a Person." Thus, I do not need to recapitulate those arguments here, when readers can peruse the original for themselves.

For the advocates of abortion bans, this is not about proving that a fertilized egg is a person. This is about trying to obscure the issue and impose non-objective law in order to enforce the beliefs of sectarian faith.

Love in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

When I first read J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, it struck me as a "bridge" book -- a crossover between the fantastic fifth book and the finale of the series. I enjoyed it, but it was by no means my favorite. But, once I started digging a little deeper into it, I discovered that the sixth novel offers the riches of human relationships. Of course it also reveals the tragic background of Voldemort's family (without making that an excuse for Voldermort's horrific actions).

I spent much of Wednesday looking through my notes of the novel and writing an essay about its central theme, which is, simply and profoundly, love. Here is the opening paragraph:

J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, soon to be released as a blockbuster movie, is often a grim and frightening book, filled with episodes of murder and mayhem. From Dumbledore, Harry learns the secrets of Lord Voldemort's dark past. And yet, despite all the suffering and the rise of evil, the strongest theme of the book is love. Love for family and friends. Romantic love. It is in contrast with Voldemort's loveless and despicable life that the value of love shines through the story.

Read the entire new essay on love in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince over at ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.