I sat in my Senior English class in high school. Our classroom opens into the hallway; movable panels separate our classroom from the next. This particular classroom sits on the end of our hallway. I spent a fair number of my afternoon hours in this room that year. One afternoon, I got into a discussion with a classmate, he was popular and the class president, if memory serves. During this discussion he calls me a ‘sumo wrestler’. I am both Chinese (not Japanese) and overweight.
It was a derogatory reference to both my race and my weight. Having dealt with interactions like this often, I understood that while I need not escalate, I did need to respond. In my mind, I searched for a proportional response. I called him a ‘spook’; yes, he was black. I knew it was derogatory and racist, and I still did it.
At that moment, my teacher turns her head in my direction with a distinct scowl and barks, “Hey!” That was the extent of her intervention. The conversation between that classmate and I did not escalate any further that day. Later that year, this episode did repeat itself verbatim. I was never punished more severely than those two scowls of warning and recognition.
The subtle point to this story is not the racist term I was called, nor my response to it. It wasn’t even the fact that I was barely reprimanded. The subtle point is that I was twice called out for using a racist term, but my classmate was not. It’s about my English teacher failing to stick to her principles consistently; either we both get reprimanded or neither of us do.
Can we compel women to give birth?
On an earlier post, I pondered if we may define the legal definition of life as the point where we can deliver the pregnancy without the mother. Let’s entertain the notion that we adopt that idea and we do legally define the start of life that way; yes, I understand that it’s a stretch, but it’s a hypothetical. Surely if we amend the law, then at the point where we legally define the start life, it’s the same point where we can legally compel the expecting mother to give birth.
No, we should not. “What?!” I could give my reasons but really, Pete Buttigieg articulated it perfectly on a Town Hall with Chris Wallace on Fox News. Watch at least those two minutes. A pregnancy is not like an overdue library book that you forget; there are constant reminders with changes to your body. If a woman decides to abort the pregnancy late, there’s a compelling reason. The only point that I’d like to elaborate upon is that, understanding that vast majority of women are not going to frivolously and lackadaisically get a late term abortion, it’s simply not something that we need to legislate and define the inevitable loopholes.
Allow me to frame it this way, should it be illegal to walk onto a commercial aircraft and fly it away? Obviously. So why don’t we pass new laws that explicitly make this illegal? Aside from this activity breaking an array of other laws, how often is this occurring that requires us to explicitly define new laws about this particular situation?
We value human life
This is what some will claim; the very term is pro-life. I don’t mind that term as long as it’s expressed honestly. To me it means that you value life itself, it is the epitome of existence. Furthermore, it speaks to compassion and empathy and wanting to minimize suffering, both which are noble. However, if you use the term pro-life, but demonstrate that you don’t really value life consistently… If instead use it as an emotional hook about this particular issue, then I’ll call you on it.
The first and most obvious is what happens after the above pregnancy is delivered as a child. If the mother keeps it and is short on resources, you naturally won’t object helping in the form of welfare. You value that child’s life and are deeply vested in its wellbeing. If the mother chooses not to keep it, then you’ll naturally adopt or foster that child. Failing that, you’ll contribute generously into the foster care system. Perhaps to keep you honest, if you should happen to vote for a pro-life candidate or bill, we should simply garnish your wages to support welfare and the foster care system, because as we know… all human life is sacred.
Here’s a hypothetical; let’s imagine someone breaks into your parents’ home. He kills your dad, who suffered greatly. He then sexually assaults your mom and then kills her in similar fashion. Their neighbor hears an altercation and calls the police, and they subsequently arrest him. This man, the killer of your parents, is human. His life, much like that child’s, is sacred. Isn’t capital punishment inconsistent with pro-life? So we won’t be seeking the death penalty, right?
“Whoa, that’s an exception”
Is it? I mean if they’re convicted to life without the possibility of parole, then they’re not going to harm you, so ultimately why the need to push over that last edge and snuff out their life? You could make the rationalization that since this person has demonstrated that they don’t value human life themselves, they don’t get that same courtesy. Well, that’s a really thin counterargument, but sure let’s run with it. For the sake of argument, let’s filter out the criminal outliers. Their lives aren’t really sacred; everyone else is fair game.
What if we could save thousands of innocent lives each year? I mean this isn’t even a hypothetical; it’s very feasible. It requires no new medical technology. Many people die while waiting for organ transplants; we can certainly fix that. Here’s the plan. First, let’s build an organ donor registry for every citizen in the United States from the moment that you’re born. Second, we’ll match anyone who needs an organ with our newly greatly expanded database. Third, if it’s an organ you don’t need to survive, you are legally required to donate it to save this person’s life. You can safely donate a kidney or half of your liver, for instance. It’s your civic duty, like jury duty, so stop whining. I mean certainly two people alive, each with one kidney, is better than one person with two kidneys and a corpse.
“I won’t want to give up my lung”
It’s saving a life; how selfish can you be? Is this too extreme? How about making organ donation upon your death mandatory? I mean, you’re dead; you’re not using them anymore. By definition this doesn’t impact your life. Makes sense? Great done deal. I mean ‘all life is sacred’, right? It’s currently just a check box on your driver’s license. It won’t be any different than it already is, except that going forward it’ll no longer be optional. Think about all the lives we’ll save. Furthermore, I’m not convinced that you have any rights… once you’re dead.
Does giving up an organ seem excessive? You may need that second lung or kidney, should your last one fail. You can however donate half your liver and it’ll grow back to full size. Still, you’re squeamish about donating an organ, even if it does save an implicitly sacred life, even if that donation occurs postmortem. How about a different life-saving contribution? Blood banks frequently run short on supply; we can fix that. Let’s make blood donation mandatory; it’s minimally invasive. We simply tie the blood bank database to the direct deposit for your paycheck. If they’re short on your blood type, you’ll need to make a deposit before your funds are released. Done deal!
Ready to save sacred human lives?
There you have it, three suggestions that will, without a doubt, save sacred human lives. If you’re really pro-life then there are no objections? Oh, wait… You think that these policies impinge too far into our personal freedoms? I’m sure you can make a case for that mandatory organ donation while you’re still living to be excessive, since it puts your own life at risk (even if minimally). Can you articulate how mandatory organ donation post-mortem impacts your life? Or mandatory blood donation? No?
Is what happens to your organs after your death really that much of an impingement upon your rights that you’re unwilling to save a sacred life? Are you really unwilling to sit in a chair every few months for an hour while they siphon blood from you to save a sacred life? Though naturally mandating a woman to bring a pregnancy to completion, holding her body hostage for months, is not an impingement upon her rights and freedoms.
If your stance is truly that you value life above all else, then by all means, pass legislation that preserving life is valued higher than our own personal rights and freedoms. I suspect that you won’t; I suspect the ‘all life is sacred’ rationalization is a thinly veiled, emotional hook in order to mandate what women can do with their bodies. Put your money where your mouth is.