Can An Intelligent Woman Be Pro-Life?

I’ve been writing this blog weekly for over a month now, and I’ve yet to explain my Pro-Life stance, specifically on abortion.  I mentioned I would at some point, so I figure now is as good a time as any.  If it wasn’t this, I’d be pounding my keyboard angrily complaining about the loss of 1st Amendment rights in this country.  *sigh*

Just to be unpredictable, I’m NOT going to use theology or religion in my argument.  Yeah, I bet you weren’t expecting that, were you?  I’m full of surprises.

If I look at the (albeit “controversial”), definition of life out on wikipedia, I see 7 basic items:  cellularly structured, requires/uses energy, grows, adapts, responds, reproduces and is able to remain consistent.  This is “controversial” because no one seems to want to put a stake in the ground.  Maybe people are concerned about making mistakes and not classifying things appropriately.  Seems like science worries that it’s defining something using undefinable terms.  Yeah, I had fun reading that abstract (Too cheap to actually buy the report).  People worry about fringe items like viruses and AIs.  Are they alive?  Do they have rights? Yeah, people are asking and waxing philosophic on these questions.

So what does it mean to be alive?  If you look at a fertilized human zygote, embryo or fetus, does it meet any definition of life?  

Does it require energy?  It has to attached itself to the uterine wall for nutrition, so … Check.

Is it cellular in nature?  Check.

Does it grow? Check.

Does it adapt?  Not sure when this starts, but eventually certainly does.

Does it reproduce?  It has cellular reproduction as it grows and changes, if we’re talking sexual reproduction, even out of womb children aren’t capable until a certain age.   So, kinda-Check.

Does it respond to stimuli?  Not sure when this starts, but eventually yes.  So, kinda-Check.

Does it stay cohesive?  Check.

So not a complete home run, certainly, but all of these come online during the gestation.  It’s just a matter of when.

So, why not wait to declare a human person until all items are met?  Let me respond with another question.  Why does the Migratory Boat Treaty and Lacey Acts protect bald eagle eggs?  

It’s “not” a bald eagle. The egg doesn’t fly around pooping on cars.  We don’t have images of eagle eggs painted on the back of redneck trucks.

Sure, bald eagles are an endangered species, but the egg isn’t an eagle yet if we use the definition of when does a human become a human (by pro-choice standards).

So, why can’t I have a bald eagle egg omelet?

Now, I really don’t want a bald eagle omelet.  I barely eat chicken eggs.  But, the point I’m trying to make here is that the fertilized egg, if left alone, will eventually result in an eagle as we visualize them today.  It, for all intents and purposes, is an eagle and is treated and protected as such.

So, why don’t we view zygotes, embryos and fetuses the same way?  Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception, the mere fact that this is a human person in the early stages of development should provide some level of protection.

When discussing this view, I’ve gotten a few interesting challenges.  One of which is: “If I were to put the tissue on a petri dish, it wouldn’t survive”.  Well, if I placed a newborn baby on a lab counter without food and physical protection from the elements, it would die as well.  The only difference is the newborn probably would last a bit longer.  It would also communicate more through crying.  I doubt abortion would be allowable if the embryo or fetus could scream.  

I also feel this way about lobster restaurants.  No one would ever pick one out of the tank if they were cute, fluffy and screamed when placed in the boiling water.  We humans are weird this way.

Now, the other argument I’ve heard is whether the “tissue” is viable outside the mother’s womb.

THIS is what really scares me.  The idea of “viability” coming into play.  I get nervous when I hear it’s ok for someone to make a decision about life based on “viability”.

What is meant by viable?  In this context, it’s a statement of whether the child would survive outside the womb (which starts around week 22ish, I know someone will correct me here).  But, there’s another side.

Amniocentesis is a procedure which can detect chromosomal abnormalities (such as Down’s Syndrome) or other disorders (e.g. spina bifida).  The linked article calls out 200,000 procedures a year (not sure if that is worldwide or just in the US).  The mean abortion rate (across multiple studies) for those found to have Down’s Syndrome is 67%.

Wow.  It makes me sad to think people are aborted just because they have developmental issues.  I'm not trying to judge here, I can only imagine the difficulty with raising and caring for a child with birth defect or condition.  I just can't help but wonder about where the line is.  Who decides whose life is worthwhile?

At what point do we start crossing into aborting due to other birth defects?  When will we hit a line we won’t cross?  We have a VERY bad track record when deciding who has a right to live and who should die.  Eugenics, when taken to it’s farthest extreme, is what leads to Nazi death camps.

My other big fear is what are the next logical steps.  

Most people I speak with will tell me that don’t like or want abortion (even if they support a woman’s right to have one).  If “reproductive rights” advocates succeed, and abortion becomes an acceptable and normalized form of birth control, what does that mean for us 10, 50, 100 years from now?

Oh, and before you start to argue about how abortion will never become normalized, consider the recent case against a Washington florist who refused to make an arrangement for a same-sex couple's wedding.  What did the Washington Supreme Court decision say?  They said laws provide “broader societal purpose”.  Meaning, it isn’t about the explicit nature of the law, but the implicit reasoning behind the law.  Making a law provides (or even forces) societal changes.  Making abortion a “right” effectively uses the law to make a societal change in how abortion is viewed and treated.   Granted, I’m not a lawyer, so feel free to argue with me.

Going back to the longterm view, when will the first man challenge child support in court?  When will “her decision” to have a baby turn into “her responsibility to provide for the child”?  When will the argument of “I offered to pay for the abortion and she refused” become a legitimate defense?

Let’s look at it through a different lens.  When will the mantra of “If you can’t feed’em don’t breed’em” turn into policy?  When will subsidies be capped for households who need help?  Can’t feed them?  Well, I guess you should have thought about that before you had a kid.  Once abortion becomes acceptable in the mainstream, this isn’t an illogical leap to make.

Is this what we want for our future?  I surely don’t.  Which is why I believe we need to redraw the abortion line and act like we never stepped over it in the first place.

This is a veritable Pandora's Box of "we don't want to go there".

Now, before all you upset feminists burn my Vagina Card, let me make a disclaimer.  

I don’t want to see women stuck in situations they don’t know how to recover from.  I don’t want to “force” anyone into anything.  In my opinion, abortion is just an after effect of unprepared women being used, undervalued and thrown away.  

I want women to have choices.  I want them to have GOOD choices.  I want them to understand how NOT to get pregnant.  I want to help women get into positions where they can take care of themselves and handle what life throws at them.  I want to help women understand how not to date total douchebags.  

Instead of pouring tax money into “reproductive rights” policies that provide abortions, let’s spend our money, time and energy on building a society where women have more opportunities and success.  Let’s build a society that doesn’t penalize mothers (side note - want to know what is one factor in the gender pay gap?  Time away from work, which hits mothers hard). 

And, while we are at it, let’s teach men how to truly value women and enable them to be better fathers (paternity leave, anyone?).

Let's eliminate the root causes, not the children.

Identity Management

Nope, not talking strictly software technology here.  I’m talking real personal identity.  I’m talking about who we think we are, who other people think we are, and how we are generally wrong.

For those in the IT or software realm, you understand the importance of identity management.  IdM authenticates and authorizes.  IdM outlines boundaries.

IdM, in very plain terms, labels us and our role in the technological universe.  When those labels and roles don't meet our needs, our lives become an eternity of headaches, frustration and tears (and this only counts the time spent on hold waiting for customer service).

Isn't this similar to our lives?  Or, maybe it's just mine.

If I were to ask how you identify yourself, what would you say?  Would you use words based on your political views or your job?  Would you use words like happy, kind, pretty or funny?  Would you include your familial state (mother, father, sister, son)?

What happens if you lose your job?  What happens if you are faced with a differing political viewpoint that makes logical sense?  What happens when you realize you might not be the Christian you think you are?  What happens when someone prettier/smarter/funnier walks into the party (other than accidentally spilling red wine on her)?  What happens when he leaves you for another woman?  What happens when your core identity doesn't match your reality?

>Identity Crisis in 3...

>2...

>1... 

>null exception

>reboot in 3 seconds...

I came to the realization over the past year that I've built my reality based on who I thought I should be (or who others thought I should be).  Who knows, maybe I actually was who I thought I was at one time.  I grew over time, and didn't realize the difference.  I had forgotten to manage my identity during that process. I never updated my perceived role over time to match my changing role in reality.  I've spent the past few years (well, decades, possibly) on hold listening to gawd-awful metaphorical muzak wondering why things aren't working.  /head slam on desk

When faced with the realization I wasn't who I thought I was, I felt lost.  I had no idea how to be anything else.  How do you figure out how to be something that you never thought you were? How the hell did I end up a Talking Heads song?? 

I'm still in the process of readjusting and realigning my 'role' and identity.  I realize it takes time, and things will continue to change - I will continue to change.  I just have to pay better attention, be more open minded, and view challenge as an opportunity to test and validate who I am.  I have to actively manage my identity moving forward.

If you will excuse me, I think I need to go rm -rf some emotional baggage, and git reset.

Numbers don’t lie, but they don’t always tell you the truth

First off, I’m not a statistician, but I do have a background in engineering mathematics.  What’s the difference between “Math” and “Engineering Math”?  One is theoretical and the other can get you killed.  This is why we engineer folk are typically uptight individuals with the need to be correct all the time.  This is also why people don’t invite us to parties or only call us if  “the internet” is broken.

Yes, it’s a burden, but through my work, I’ve also developed an appreciation for numbers and how they can be used to confuse and manipulate people.  Truth is, numbers are just inert little smudges of graphite, pixels on a screen or bits in a database.  The interpretation of the numbers is what lands them in murky water.

Why care?  

Numbers are used to mislead.  We have politicians, non-profits, and for-profits that fling numbers more than a 2 year old flings boogers.  And, let’s be honest, most people are either afraid of numbers, or have the belief that if there’s a number in the argument, it must be true and go unchallenged.  Unchallenged numbers can lead to bad decisions and bad policies.  Decisions and policies which hurt more than help.

Let me give you an example:

Slavery Today’s website says that we have an estimated 21 million people enslaved in our world today.  What if instead of using “21 million”, I told you that 0.3% of the world’s population was enslaved today? The perceived severity of the issue, I’d argue, is different for both statements.

What if I told you that for every visible star you see in the night sky represents roughly 4200 slaves in the world today?  That’s a pretty powerful statement (well, to me).

Why does this matter?

If someone wanted to convince you that money needs to be redirected to programs to eradicate slavery world wide, they are more than likely going with the 21 million or the 4200/star statement.  If they are trying to get money for another program, and are up against funding anti-slavery programs?  They are going to go with the 0.3% number (assuming their number is a higher percentage).  Same data - different arguments.  People do these math tricks in order to bring validity to their position and/or limit or discredit others.

And wait, there’s more…..

If I asked you what the gender pay gap is, what would you say?  Around 20%?  Around 6%?

What if I told you both answers are correct?

How can that be?  The 20% is just a base number.  Add up the wages, divide and boom, you have your 20%.  The math is correct.  When the data is adjusted to account for education, experience, hours worked, etc (in other words, more of an apples to apples comparison), the gap is closer to the 6% range (Time has a good article explaining the details).  The math is still correct. The gap is still there, but it isn’t as massive.  How would this change our approach to fixing the problem if you approach it as a 6% gap vs a 20%?

Again, my main purpose is to briefly illustrate and give an appreciation that numbers aren’t always what they seem. You can’t take them at face value (pardon the expression).  

So, what happens when someone starts throwing numbers at you?  I have a few suggestions.

• Don’t be afraid to ask questions or look “dumb”.
• Don’t be bullied.  Your money and your vote are valuable “currencies.”  You have a right to ask questions and get real answers before you part with either.
• Look into what numbers the opposing argument is using.
• What is different?
• Are they using different scales?
• Ask how the number was generated and whether it is adjusted.
• Ask what they aren’t telling you.
• Trust your gut.  If it smells wonky, it probably is.
• Ask opinions of others.
• Do your own research on the internet, but use multiple sources.
• Don’t write off numbers because you don’t agree with them.
• Don’t accept numbers because you agree with them.
• Take a deep breath!  Numbers are more scared of you than you are of them.

I hope this helps.

Morality of Mars

An interesting Aeon article popped into my news feed this past week: Is a mission to Mars morally defensible given today's real needs?   Spoiler alert, the article ends up with a “no”.

My initial reaction was pretty much the same.  Why spend money on space exploration to another planet, when aren’t even providing safe drinking water to Flint, MI?  The focus and expense just seems wasted to send some Matt Damon wannabe to plant potatoes.

A few days, alternate facts, and angry social media frenzies later, a thought occurred to me - When’s the last time our nation actually came together behind something bigger than ourselves?  

When is the last time we, collectively, were proud of ourselves as a nation?

All throughout American history, we’ve had some great achievements.  Achievements born out of decades worth of work, dedication, blood and sacrifice.  The American Revolution, Expansion to the West, Winning World Wars, and sending men to walk on the moon are just a few.  I love seeing old reels of Times Square post WWII.  That looked like one hell of a party.  (Keep in mind, I'm not trying to gloss over the atrocities that occurred.  Bad things happened, and we need to learn from our mistakes.)

If I start thinking about the past few decades, I’m not sure I can find much that has the same awing effect as the lunar landing. <Thinks hard again>  Nope, still nothing.  

The 2016 Summer Olympics?  That was nice, until our swimming team ended up vandalizing property, lied about it and ran. Embarrassing.

The more the thought of a manned (or ‘person’ed) mission to Mars rolled around in my brain, the more I liked the idea.  It was something to be excited about.  Something that people only dreamed about or read in Sci-Fi novels.

With all the turmoil, division, and nastiness that’s overwhelming us, I can see how space exploration could be seen as either a selfish pursuit or a devious distraction for what’s going on behind the curtain.

But, I can’t seem to shake the feeling that we need something.  We need something so completely outside of our current concerns.  We need something to dream about.  We need a common purpose born out of hope and not fear.  We need something to lift our spirits as well as our eyes away from the muck of the day to day and actually see that there’s still sunlight overhead.

How awesome would it be to put away our differences, put on our thinking caps and engineer something this world has never seen before? 

How awe-inspiring would it be to be glued to the internet live(ish) feed watching the first person set foot on another planet.

How amazing would it be to stand together, regardless of our differences, grin ear to ear and say “We did that.  We did that together”.