Thinking about Guns and Abortion

An unexpected similarity between the prochoice crowd and the right-to-bear-arms crowd struck me the other day when I heard a news story out of Indiana.   A judge ordered that the implementation of a law banning abortions sought due to fetal genetic abnormalities be temporarily delayed.  The state chose not to appeal.  The report also mentioned, “North Dakota is the only other state that prohibits abortions because of genetic abnormalities such as Down syndrome or because of the race, gender or ancestry of a fetus.”

The first thing that struck me as odd about the law was how it could be enforced.  How do you prove that the parents’ actions were based on not wanting a baby in one of these categories rather than just not wanting a baby (or another baby) at this particular time?  The state would have to prove many assumptions about the inner thoughts of those making the decision.  Even if they made the decision after getting news of possible abnormalities, people do change their minds.

The next puzzle arose from the understanding that those who are prochoice are generally in favor of protecting the rights of everyone, with a special emphasis on considerations of race, gender or disability.  They will often circulate petitions, write to legislators, march in protest and vote for candidates based on the need to ensure that no one in these categories faces discrimination.  Yet the right of a woman to discriminate against an unborn child for the same reasons wins out over the right of the disabled unborn.  Is there a contradiction here or at the very least, an inconsistency?  I did a mental double-take and tried to resolve it.

My interpretation of this apparent contradiction comes, believe it or not, from parallel behavior among defenders of the Second Amendment.  When faced with reasonable arguments about automatic weapons and so-called assault rifles, they balk.  These weapons are not used for hunting and seem like unnecessary firepower even for self-defense.  How many rounds per second do you need to fire through the door to neutralize an intruder?  You can’t very well fit one of these into a purse with your concealed-carry permit.  Those who favor increased gun control scratch their heads in wonderment at the intractability of their political opponents.

But the same principle applies in both cases:  give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.  Any compromise moves one step closer to selling out on the basic position.  Whether it be a stance on right to choose or a stance on guns, any compromise weakens your negotiating position in future discussions, arguments, and legal battles.

How many other areas face the same quandary?  We look to Washington to compromise, to reach across the aisle, but in everyday beliefs ordinary Americans refuse to act in that way.  Each party holds fast to its principles.  Then we scratch our heads and ask why nothing gets done.

People may differ philosophically, but their behavior is often surprisingly similar.  Remember only a month ago when a big fear was that a Trump loss would lead to protests in the street?

Apparent Inconsistencies

The thing about these essays most commented about is my tendency to look at things differently enough to get people thinking, whether or not they agree with the conclusions.  Today let’s look at some apparent inconsistencies. 

Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…” Perhaps these are justified on the basis that they are not foolish, but they do seem inconsistent.

First, I wonder how some people can argue that individuals have a right to move from one country to another when conditions in the second country are economically more favorable for them – even if the move is illegal; while at the same time objecting to a company moving from one country to another legally for the very same reason.

Then I ran across this article in a regional magazine.  A naturalist writes that the woodcock and grouse are disappearing from southern Indiana.  The problem is not predators, poor game regulations or farming practices, but “forest succession away from young forests to middle and older stages of forest development…the unintended result of misguided timber management.”  The problem comes from a change in forestry practice due to public pressure from individuals and conservation groups to practice “selective” forest harvest.  For sentimental reasons, they favor older trees and forests to younger ones.  It is a political decision rather than a scientific one, as every planned cutting is met with “protesters trying to shut down all timber harvest on state and federally-controlled property.”  Clear-cutting may be ugly, but so is what nature does with lightning-initiated forest fires.  It’s a shame these protesters, who claim to love the trees and animals, work against nature by not taking the time to learn more about it.

Finally, those favoring legal abortion and insurance coverage of all contraception argue that they are “pro-choice” and favor a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.  If that is the case, and a woman indeed has a right to choose what she does with her body, why don’t the pro-choice folks also adamantly favor both eliminating drug laws and legalizing prostitution.  Drug laws restrict a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.  If she wants to take recreational drugs or use prescriptions in any way she desires, the state forbids her to do so.  Likewise if she decides to use her body as a source of income by selling sexual favors to those who are willing to pay, she must risk arrest to do so.  Sabrina Williams uses her physical abilities to earn a very substantial living, as do other athletes, fashion models and others.  If they are allowed to choose, why is there a restriction against those who want to become prostitutes?  Of course, many consider prostitution immoral, but many consider abortion immoral as well.  This seems like an inconsistency, a selective application of a principle.

Just a few ideas to think about.

Popular Means Good

Is it true that if something is popular it must be good or right?  Cicero didn’t agree when he wrote, “I am of the opinion, that though a thing be not foul in itself, it cannot help to become so when commended by the multitude.”  Wow, strong words, and even a bit snobbish, but our word vulgar is derived from the Latin word vulgaris, pertaining to the general public.

Although ancient Romans may not have had a high opinion of popularity and what is popular, the opposite is true in modern America.  Advertisers try to get us to buy their products, not based on their merits, but on the endorsement of our neighbors and fellow citizens.  This car is the most popular.  That television show is a surprise hit.  This brand is the best-selling toothpaste.  Another video (of cute kittens or puppies or someone dancing as if he’s riding a horse) has gone viral.  Evening network news programs sometimes close with the day’s most popular video for anyone who missed it, as if this were something wonderful and newsworthy.

Popularity is looked on so favorably that popular people are allowed, even expected to express opinions in areas where they have no expertise.  Celebrities take sides in political campaigns and on political issues like gun control and energy policy.  They tell us which animals to save and which diseases should receive more funding.  As a result, the amount spent on major diseases and conditions in the US does not come close to corresponding with the number of deaths or their overall social impact.  Stars represent products that it’s unlikely they have ever tried – do you think Henry Winkler got himself a reverse mortgage?  People who have become famous by being victims of a crime or tragedy are called upon to give their opinions regarding the situation and to recommend remediation.  Parents of kidnap victims or gunshot victims are treated like authorities on preventing kidnapping or on gun control.

Polls on scientific subjects imply that majority opinion is as good as evidence in a search for the truth.  “At least 75 percent of U.S. adults say global warming has been happening…”  A strong argument in favor of global warming was that the majority of scientists agreed that it was real.  On another topic, polls, not science, drive the decision to establish 20 weeks as a cut-off for abortion laws “based on the theory that this is the point at which a fetus can feel pain.”  These are a few of many examples where, as in advertising, authorities and advocates try to substitute popular opinion for evidence.

The way these stories are presented only adds to the confusion.  Science is not a voting matter.  Back when most people, including the Pope, thought that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, that was absolutely not the case.  Voting on a subject may make it the law, but it cannot make it true.  

Movie stars, singers and Facebook friends are no better informed about politics, science or medicine than you or I, especially if we do a little research.  Popular ideas may be right or they may be wrong, but when we start accepting opinions over evidence, the real dangers of social media become clear.  The choice between making a decision based on opinions or based on facts and evidence should be a no-brainer.  It’s OK to go along with the crowd to avoid conflicts or bad feelings about small matters, but on important issues you are more likely to find the truth if you are not persuaded by the popular appeal and think for yourself.