Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Response to Gordon's Roe v. Wade Response

by Keith Cooper

Gordon,

Just a couple notes in quick response to your last post.

1. You asked at what point my children became living souls worthy of protection.

You know that I have three children who I love very much. I cannot imagine what my life would be without them and I am constantly amazed at their individual personalities and traits. I don't know how one can be a parent without being filled with wonder as their children grow and mature. It is almost impossible to remember a time when my life was not so touched by them.

None of the pregnancies occurred according to our time schedule and though we had tried different forms of birth control we were surprised each time we first saw a positive test result. However, we were always determined to go to full term and greeted these surprises with joy and not trepidation.

That said, if I was reasonably certain that carrying a child to full term would have endangered the life of my wife (the mother of our other children), I would have considered aborting a fetus if it would have effectively avoided a threat to her life. This decision is not one I would make lightly, and in the best of all possible scenarios it would be a decision that Lori and I would make together. We would weigh the factors as best we could and come to a conclusion that we felt was best. This decision would be ours to make, not yours and not the church's.

I'm certain that you would maintain that because that decision has the potential to end a life, it is a black and white decision with only a single right conclusion. In fact, these types of life and death decisions occur all the time in situations more dire. The cop who faces down a desperate fugitive, chooses his life over that of the other and fires makes that decision in a split second. On the battlefield countless life-or-death decisions are made everyday. Twelve people often agonize over a decision that might result in a convicted person being put to death. These are difficult choices that should not be reduced to black and white. These decisions are the responsibility of those involved and should not be passed off for others to make. Just as Jeb Bush should have had no say in Michael Schiavo's decision to allow his wife to pass with dignity, George W. Bush should have no say in my decision to preserve the life of my wife.


2. On the question of the point at which women should be held responsible for their own choices:

We are all held responsible for our choices. Every time someone makes a decision. he or she is subject to the consequences of that decision. Every choice we make is like dropping a stone into a pond, the ripples wash over the surface of our surroundings exerting effects on ourselves and others.

I am curious at how these women are solely responsible for their situations. I always thought that pregnancy required the participation of the man and the woman. What role or responsibility belongs to the man here? Certainly many men abdicate their rights or obligations once the test result shows a blue 'X', but I think your tone in your AIF column and in your response post is symptomatic of the attitude from the pro-life movement blaming the women and excusing the actions of the men who are responsible for the pregnancies to begin with.

More to follow as time permits.

Keith

Response to Keith's Roe v. Wade Column

by Gordon Cooper

Keith,
Hmmm… where do I begin? I guess I’ll start with the first premise and work my way through chronologically.

To begin with, I believe the issue is still a hot button issue with most conservatives and this was recently illustrated in the debates as the Republicans stressed their allegiance to the sanctity of life. And the Democrats recently bragged about their apparent disregard for the unborn and the dangers posed by abortion to the health of women.

I don’t know what you define as a ‘routine form of birth control’ but when over 1.5 million babies are denied life each year, I say that is indeed a form of birth control. The declining numbers are a blessing and I expect the trend to continue as technology catches up with the scriptures and more and more women recognize the truth of Psalm 139 and other passages that indicate that God knows the soul of the embryo from the point of conception.

I will allow Dee to explain her position regarding Rudy but I will defend my belief that the man behind the presidential seal can do little to prevent the expectant mother from killing her unborn child. That decision will be made regardless of whom sits in the oval office. To change that woman’s heart requires a change in hers and the public’s perception. I will re-state here that just as slavery became repulsive as we recognized the humanity of men and women like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, so to will abortion become repulsive when we quit telling ourselves it is only a bunch of cells and recognize the embryo as a unique, newly created person.

As far as referring to Rudy as Pro-War because he stands for a strong defense and then to claim that we conservatives advocate killing women and children in foreign lands is, quite honestly, both wrong and inflammatory. I think even you know that taking the argument down that path is poor logic and does little to advance your case.

Now, the idea that most women who opt for killing their child rather than facing up to the consequence of their poor choices are somehow ‘victims of rape or abuse’ is not supported by the facts. The number of conceptions which are a result of rape or incest is relatively small (less than 3%, by most liberal estimates) and even those conceptions could be carried to term and given up for adoption, rather than adding to the victim’s guilt and shame by exposing her to Post Abortion Syndrome (more on that later). A survey of the women who have abortions show that most ‘who are guilty only of a lapse in judgment’ (your words) do so because they feel a child would be disruptive to their life or ‘mental health’. I see that as a form of birth control, sorry.

Your statement that these women ‘have few options’ concerns me. I happen to believe that we all have options in life, but I also believe that when we make poor choices we limit our options and we must bear the responsibility for the consequences of that choice. Once those women have made the choice to have unprotected sex, they have limited their options to either carry the baby to term and accept the responsibility of raising her or him to adulthood or seeking an adoptive parent to raise the child.

I also take umbrage with your contention that most would opt for those famous ‘back alley’ abortions. This is a feeble and unsupportable claim. I believe that it is a media-driven urban legend and even if factual, it is tantamount to following Holland’s model of legalizing shooting galleries for the heroin addicts, so they would have a safe place to destroy their bodies and souls.

Now, regarding the claim that most would choose suicide rather than carry the baby to term is interesting and I will address this as well as the contention in your next paragraph where you state that ‘this goes beyond freedom of choice to a woman’s emotional, psychological and physical health. I now refer to the aforementioned Post Abortion Syndrome – the very ‘real’ damage done to every woman who chooses abortion compared to the ‘potential’ damage of carrying a baby to full term. Several studies and surveys of women who have opted for abortion reveal a disturbing set of facts. Over 70% of women who completed the survey admitted a strong sense of remorse and guilt. Almost all experience severe depression and a majority turn to substance abuse and suicide. There is also an increased risk of breast cancer and the very real risk of permanent damage to the uterine wall and/or infection following an abortion.

I submit the following quote from Dr.Julius Fogel who admitted to performing over 20,000 abortions:

“Abortion is an impassioned subject.... Every woman--whatever her age, background or sexuality--has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy. A level of humanness is touched. This is a part of her own life. She destroys a pregnancy, she is destroying herself. There is no way it can be innocuous. One is dealing with the life force. It is totally beside the point whether or not you think a life is there. You cannot deny that something is being created and that this creation is physically happening.... Often the trauma may sink into the unconscious and never surface in the woman's lifetime. But it is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the pro-abortion crowd insist. A psychological price is paid. It may be alienation; it may be a pushing away from human warmth, perhaps a hardening of the maternal instinct. Something happens on the deeper levels of a woman's consciousness when she destroys a pregnancy.”

Now, I do not think that carrying a baby to full term is an easy proposition, nor do I believe that it does not carry its own set of traumatic possibilities, however, I do believe that most pro-abortion adherents are reluctant to tell women the whole truth about this ‘easy’ way out.

Although most intelligent people who read your column would recognize your last two paragraphs as typical hate-speech against Bush and conservatives and should be able to overlook your misrepresentations and outright lies, I feel as though I should defend him and myself on a couple points. First of all, it is only EMBRYONIC stem cells that Bush is prohibiting from FEDERALLY FINANCED experimentation and a careful reading of the scientific evidence would show that adult stem cells are much more effective and less likely to be abused by over-zealous pro-abortionists. Also, the claim that conservatives who believe in capital punishment are somehow inconsistent in our beliefs about the sanctity of life can be explained away when you remember that the price paid by the perpetrator of the crime should reflect the value of the object he/she stole or destroyed. Hence, the value we place upon the victim of pre-meditated murder or the assassination of a police officer should be reflected in the sentence we impose upon the criminal. To do otherwise is to diminish the value of the former and to artificially raise the value of the latter.

While I admit that my response has been longer than your initial column and you may have trouble responding to all of my claims and facts, I would appreciate it if you would just honestly answer the two following questions:

1.) At what point did your children become living souls worthy of protection?
2.) At what point should a woman be held responsible for her personal choices?

I await your response.

Gordon

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade Offers Opportunity for Analysis

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, January 25, 2008

The 35-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade occurs this month during a hotly contested presidential primary season. As of this writing, the field on both Democratic and Republican sides is open with no clear leader for each party’s nomination. The conditions seem ripe for issues to define candidates and one issue that has historically played a role in discussion is abortion. This year, however, the issue has yet to reach hot-button status. Perhaps, with the economy failing, a healthcare crisis looming and a broken foreign policy tarnishing our international standing, there are more important matters for American citizens to consider when choosing a leader. Or, perhaps, it is only because abortion isn’t the widespread birth control practice most conservatives would have us believe it is. In fact, statistics show that the abortion rate has steadily declined since 1981.

The fact is that even pro-life advocates are losing interest in the issue. Conservative blogger Dee Vantuyl is an ardent pro-life voice and champion of the cause. Though she waves the anti-abortion banner almost daily on her blog and on her weekly internet radio show, Vantuyl has somehow set aside her convictions during this election year. Her pick for the Republican Party’s man is pro-choice former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Her justification for voting against her conscience is Rudy’s strong pro-war stance. Apparently, for some conservatives, the willingness to kill women and children in foreign lands trumps the protection of fetuses at home.

I celebrate the 1973 Supreme Court decision and the protection it has afforded women since. I don’t believe that abortion has ever been practiced as a routine form of birth control. Desperate women, often the victims of rape or abuse, or guilty only of a lapse in judgement, find themselves with few options other than the emotionally traumatic operation to deal with a seemingly hopeless situation. In the absence of a safe and legal abortion, these women would be likely to attempt to abort the fetus themselves, turn to unsafe black-market abortions, or pursue more tragic measures, like suicide.

While I despise the term pro-abortion in the way that anyone should dislike being called pro-war, I don’t embrace the term pro-choice any more readily. I might agree with my wife when she asserts that abortion wouldn’t even be an issue if it took place in a man’s body. Certainly, patriarchal attitudes have had some influence on the debate with women often portrayed as callously putting to death unborn children. But abortion goes much deeper than a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body or her control over her reproductive system. Roe v. Wade empowered women to rise above the imprisonment of victimization. A rape victim can take back the power stolen from her by her attacker. A victim of sexual abuse can minimize the shame and anguish inflicted by a predatory family member. These matters go beyond freedom of choice to a woman’s emotional, psychological and physical health.

I have often been bothered by the apparent inconsistencies within the anti-abortion movement. The same conservatives who uphold the sanctity of all life when it is in its fetal stages seem to disdain its sacredness beginning at the moment of birth. The publicly pro-life George W. Bush found it easy to say “no” to life-preserving children’s healthcare funding when it was recently proposed by Congress. His hard line position against stem cell research has shown a disregard for medical research that would have a chance to prolong life and combat disease. His administration chose to send thousands of our soldiers to their deaths in its war of choice in Iraq, not to mention the many thousands of that nation’s men, women and children whose lives this unjust action has claimed. Conservatives often support the death penalty with a passion that contradicts a purported value on life. And, in the case of our discussion of abortion, provisions in the law that allow abortions to preserve the life of the women have long been under attack by the pro-life movement. Is a pregnant woman’s life so much less sacred than that of her fetus?

In the years before Roe v. Wade, women who had fallen prey to misfortune had few options. In desperation, they imperiled themselves and sought drastic measures, which only worsened their plight. The January 22, 1973 ruling placed a value on the lives of those women and allowed them to make a difficult yet important decision. As a man and an outsider, I can only begin to appreciate the magnitude of the provisions of Roe v. Wade. However, as this historic case nears a milestone, I feel it is vital that we continue to protect women and preserve their rights.

Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade Offers Opportunity for Analysis

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, January 25, 2008

January 22, 2008 represents the 35th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. This decision, handed down on January 22, 1973 did as much to separate our nation as the Missouri Compromise did in March of 1820.

Just as the Missouri Compromise established the line of demarcation between the free and slave states (AKA the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes), Roe established a gestational Mason-Dixon Line. The same type of irrational thinking that would not recognize a person as a living soul until his feet crossed the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania was used by Justice Blackmun when he categorically determined a human was not human until she or he survived the first trimester. We can only hope that wiser minds will soon prevail as they eventually did in those former days when our society suffered under a similar misconception.

Perhaps those saner days are closer than we think. A recent article investigated the current trend in Hollywood to accentuate the decision of many women to carry their baby to birth rather than follow the ‘easy’ way out (Knocked Up, Bella, Noelle, and Juno in film, and a recent episode of House on TV). While these films and TV shows fall short of condemning the poor choices made by the women that resulted in their untimely and unplanned pregnancies, they did however reaffirm that the babies were indeed babies.

According to this article, written by Lynn Vincent, the new technology that allows us to witness videos taken of a 24-day-old baby with a beating heart and recognizable body parts is changing hearts and minds of potential mothers. No longer can we deny the humanity of these young individuals. Just as the work of escaped and freed slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman forced their fellow citizens to recognize their worth and humanity, the ultrasound images on refrigerators and emailed throughout our nation force us to realize that life begins at conception.

For us to use DNA evidence as proof of an individual’s individuality, we have to ask ourselves at what point that DNA becomes a part of our universe. The only conclusion we can reach is that the point of conception is that point. From that moment on the embryo is no longer a part of the woman, but is, in fact her/his own person. To state otherwise would be similar to Justice Taney’s statement in his ridiculous decision of the Dred Scott case in which he said while referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ." And that “the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

It can be said that until every individual within a society is allowed to reach her/his full potential, the society itself will not reach its full potential. Next month we will once again be reminded of the contributions of our African-American citizens when we recognize Black History Month. It should cause us all to feel some remorse when we think of those others who perished before they had a chance to contribute as well. It should also be a time for us to consider what other possible contributions we have denied our nation by aborting so many of our fellow citizens.

While many may say that we who espouse the Pro-Life position are insensitive to the expectant mother who lacks the means or the desire to raise the child in her womb, I would humbly say that my wife and I have put our home and hearts where our mouths are. As some may already know, our house is filled with the lives of three future adults whom we adopted from a mother who lacked the means and mental acuity to raise them. Three individuals who, if Corning native and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger had her way, would have never been born. Consider the following quote from her handbook “What Every Boy and Girl Should Know” published in 1915:
“It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.”

This is the legacy that hangs over this organization today, even though they may try to distance themselves from it, the horrors of eugenics still linger in every closet of every clinic.

So, as we observe this solemn anniversary, let us all examine our positions and determine which side of the line we should be on.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Iowa Caucus results show Democracy in action

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, January 11, 2008

Last week’s Iowa caucus marked the formal beginning of the 2008 presidential election season. Amid a considerable amount of media fanfare, Iowans gave the nation its first official reporting of contest results. Perhaps this display of the democratic process should be lauded as an example of the strength of our political process. Certainly, there was ample opportunity for Iowa’s voters to confront the candidates on issues of importance during the lead up to the caucuses. And, if those issues were sufficiently covered by the media, one may have had a better idea where each candidate stood on matters of value. Unfortunately, coverage of this political discussion was all but nonexistent in mainstream. Instead, newspapers and television chose to report the caucus results in the typical horserace context, focusing on the impact to electability, and numbers of dollars spent or ads run by the campaigns.

In past presidential election years, I’ve paid little attention to the Iowa caucus or the early state primaries. I have always preferred to watch the debates in their entirety or listen to a candidate’s own words, instead of trusting the pundits and media sound bytes as speeches or debates are deconstructed or skewed to a certain bias. Likewise, I try to ignore the results of the caucuses and primaries out of concern that they will influence my own voting practices as one candidate or another appears to emerge as the most likely pick of the party. I reject the idea that a vote is wasted on a particular candidate. It paints the process with a futility that, I believe, discourages many voters from even participating.

It is not that I don’t believe in the results of early votes or caucuses as an indicator of public opinion. I think there is a definite value to polling a sample of the citizenry to gauge where national discussion is headed. However, I know that polls can often be misleading in the way they are crafted to lead respondents toward a certain message. This is evident in the way the exit polls of the Iowa caucus were analyzed to present Democratic leader Barack Obama as the candidate of change and Republican winner Mike Huckabee as the darling of the evangelical Christian. These polls may have validity and the numbers of participants in the process tell an optimistic story of Iowans turning out and embracing their democratic responsibility as citizens. It is debatable whether Iowa represents a cross-section of America, but I think there is legitimacy in factoring in the Iowa showing into the primary picture as it develops.

The hyperbole over the Iowa surprises may not be overblown. I think Huckabee’s strong showing despite the millions of dollars by which Mitt Romney outspent his campaign signals a change in the campaign dynamic. The negative tone of Romney’s Iowa ad blitz also seems to have put off participants. One can only hope the public’s distaste for mudslinging will have ripple effects throughout the remainder of the election season. On the Democratic side, the nod to Obama bodes well for the progressive climate that would uphold an African American as a party’s front-runner for the presidency. Senator Obama’s message of change seems to have inspired early voters as well, which indicates a feeling of dissatisfaction with the current direction of the nation’s leadership. Results also show a dramatic disparity between the large turnout of Democratic participants and that of Republican caucus goers.

The fact remains, however, that these sensational stories overshadow issues that matter to Americans. The Iraq war rages on, with daily casualties and no end in sight under foreseeable foreign policy. Unrest in the Middle East is complicated by U.S. military presence in the region, and continued saber rattling foreshadows a war in Iran and increased peril to our nation’s security. At home, gas prices continue to rise, strangling the working class and illustrating our destructive dependency on foreign oil. The wealth gap in America is ever-growing and the nation’s poverty rate is disgraceful in light of the U.S. reputation as the wealthiest nation on the planet, a subject of which only Democrat John Edwards gives more than passing mention. The healthcare crisis, which is undeniable nationwide, receives little play in the mainstream media amid the clatter over who’s ahead and who has fallen behind.

As the primary season goes forward, we should applaud the democratic process. We should shine a light on Iowa and New Hampshire and encourage our fellow citizens to take part in democracy. That said, we must not lose sight of the problems we face as a nation. We must focus on the solutions proffered by our prospective leaders. We must hold each candidate responsible to his or her promises, and next January we must hold the next president’s feet to the fire in order to preserve the integrity of our republic.

Iowa Caucus results show Democracy in action

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, January 11, 2008

And so it begins! Another presidential election cycle has commenced with the Iowa caucuses and now that the dust has settled, and the news crews have moved on to New Hampshire, perhaps it would be wise to analyze what took place last Thursday.

While the many pundits, pollsters and amateur prognosticators made their predictions and prophecies, the actual voters made the impact.

Many observations came to me as I watched the coverage and read the analyses throughout Thursday and Friday.

First of all, it was noteworthy to me that it was taken for granted that there were no car bombs or assassination attempts during the voting. There were no reports of threatening behavior from extremist groups and no claims of disenfranchised voters. The fact that this was so ‘un-noteworthy’ to the media proves my point that for all our differences and diversities, we remain one of the most civilized societies, and the rule of law and the common Judeo-Christian ethos has once again served us well. It does not require a very ambitious look at some other cultures to realize what a great blessing it is to live here in this nation.

The next item of interest to me was the victory of former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee. Exit polls seem to indicate that Mr. Huckabee owes his overwhelming victory to the efforts of the Evangelical Christian voters of Iowa. According to some reports, as many as 60% of the Republican Caucus-goers claimed to be born-again or Evangelical Christians. Huckabee’s clever use of his ‘Baptist Pastor’ persona and his ‘not-so-subtle’ Christmas-Card message resonated with many voters who were looking for a reason to believe the Republicans still valued the ‘Values Voter’.

This rising tide of the resurgent Christian Conservative voting block surprised many who had hoped (and some who feared) the extreme-right-wing base of the Republican party would follow in lock-step with some of their noisier leaders, such as Dr. James Dobson, who had earlier flirted with the idea of supporting a third party candidate. While many may still rely upon others to read the signs and guide them step-by-step through each decision, I believe the current generation of voters is more likely to read the signs and make decisions for themselves. Therefore I believe this election could see the Evangelical vote as well the African-American vote become less of a monolith and more of a multi-layered and varied group of individuals.

This new ‘Information Age’ has spawned a new type of voter who will see herself and himself just as capable of reading between the promises as their former leaders. The ambitious voter will no longer wait for a talking head on TV or a mantled leader to pre-digest the nutrients for them, instead, she or he will go directly to the candidate’s website or visit a variety of blogs and get the juicy morsels firsthand.

I was also struck by the poor showing of the ‘Inevitable Nominee’, namely Mrs. Clinton. For all the hype and confidence she carried with her, one has to be surprised when she limps away with a third-place showing. The spinning began even before the final results came in with Clinton spokespersons claiming that Iowa was not really that important and New Hampshire is really what matters. Ok, and where can I buy that bridge?

What could or should be taken from this result? Well, first of all, we should recognize that nothing is certain or inevitable. All things are subject to surprise, and fate is as fickle in politics as it is in nature. Secondly, we should note that the Liberal voter might be maturing as much as the right-wing voter. Perhaps they too, resist the categorization and stereotyping that goes on in most campaigns. The designation of individuals into certain focus groups has been exposed and the tendency of a candidate trying to be ‘all things to all people’ may have run its course. In other words, the day may have arrived when voters become known as individual voters and the candidates would do well to see them as such. Rather than talking down to groups or taking certain blocks of voters for granted, the successful candidate will see the value in being true to themselves and letting the voters accept them or reject them for who they really are, rather than trying to ‘fool all of the people all of the time’.