Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Interlude With Eternity

I rarely publish fiction here. In fact, I never have before. But I figured a fictional dialogue would be a better way to say some of the things I've been thinking about. Enjoy it.

* * *

Interlude With Eternity
Brad Blair

Author’s Note:
You don’t get very far in writing a story like this one without acknowledging the debts you owe. So, if you like this story, go find the collected works of C.S. Lewis. Read them all, but start with The Chronicles of Narnia. Then read Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain. Most central to this story, however, is The Great Divorce, a charming little novella that makes for interesting reading. My other rather sizable debt is to an author still living and who may end up reading this. I’m talking, of course, about Randy Alcorn. To understand why my heaven looks like it does, read his book Heaven. The image of the library started out as a hall of books in Deadline. I’ve modified the image heavily. Also, I need to mention that the term ‘shadow lands’ is also not mine. While Randy uses it extensively, it dates back, as far as I know, to Lewis’s final Narnia Chronicle, The Last Battle. Lastly, I believe the things my characters say here are biblically true, or at least, there is a great deal of truth in here. If you disagree, that’s fine. I’m not claiming infallibility. But I would ask that your disagreement, should you have any, fulfill two qualifications. It should be polite, and for Christian readers, it should be biblical. Meanwhile, enjoy.
BB



I saw. That's the first thing. I was seeing. Moreover, I understood what I saw. There shouldn't be any doubt of that. On Earth, if you went from lifelong blindness to total sight in a moment, you'd be overwhelmed. You wouldn't know what you were looking at, quite literally, because, well, you'd never have seen. And that's to say nothing about processing the new sensory information. That's a whole other discussion. Then again, aren't people on earth, in the shadow lands, blind as a rule? Another discussion again, I'm afraid. But suffice it to say I saw and I understood.
I stood at, well, call it a portal or a gateway. I was on one side; what I witnessed was through it. Beyond it? On the far side of it if you follow me. I saw what I took for the Earth. What is more, I recognized my home town. I saw people driving, walking, talking, playing, working, sleeping, waking, and so on. I saw at a glance people doing everything that most people in most towns do. But in the air above them I saw something else. It looked like the bloodiest battle of the bloodiest war ever known to men, that times infinity. And the fighters, the soldiers, the warriors, they weren't human. No, that's for sure. They were anything but human. For a moment I wondered why they walked on the air, hovering around and above the humans and why the humans didn't seem to notice the Armageddon raging around them. Then, once more, I understood. And as I understood I began distinguishing the two sides of the battle. One side was composed of companies of warriors, disciplined, determined, their expressions consisting of equal parts sadness and hope. The other side seemed to be composed of beings of the same kind as the first combatants, but they seemed shrunken somehow. Or maybe it was only that they seemed to lack the hopeful determination of the first side. Still, I sensed even from where I stood that these other combatants were malevolent. Maybe it was their expressions. Somehow twisted and gleeful and furious, the way Hitler might have looked when the reports of the first gassings of Jews reached him, I suppose. They fought one another, each side against the other.
Then I watched more carefully and began to realize what was going on. The humans below were influencing the battle. I saw some of the people attacked, struck down, injured, and protected from injury. Yet even as I watched, I could not figure out how the humans below could possibly be influencing the deadly combat above. Just the same, they were. I knew they did.
            "Don't they have any idea what's going on," I asked the silence on my side of the gateway? "And if they do know, can they really be said to have any bearing on the outcome? Or are they like pawns in a chess game."
"Both, actually," said a cultured voice from behind my left shoulder.
            “What do you mean,” I asked, turning? He was human. Not like the combatants I saw through the gateway. No, this was a fully human man. He looked both middle aged and somehow youthful. Yet, his youth, a product of being in this place I decided, didn’t disguise his authority. I sensed that too. This was someone people had listened to on Earth. Or at least, I amended to myself, if they had not, they should have listened. He took my arm and began walking away from the gateway. We sat under an oak tree, its branches and leaves shading us. Yet, the sun in that place wasn’t the type you wanted to get away from. Still, both shade and sun were equally pleasant. I don’t know how to explain that to you, because on Earth, shade is a refuge from the sun. There, it didn’t need to be a refuge. The man settled on the ground and patted a place next to him. I sat. He seemed to be considering how best to answer my question.
            “There are those in the shadow lands who know they are in the midst of battle, to be sure. And there are those who are ignorant of the combat you saw.”
            “But how do those who know … actually know?”
            “How do you suppose, son? They have taken the trouble of searching out the information.” When I looked puzzled at this, he went on. “Tell me, when a student hands in a composition, how do you decide what sort of mark it deserves?”
            Taken aback, I thought.
            “Clarity, style, structure. It has to be well-written, of course. Relevant to the topic.”
            He nodded, smiling.
            “And did you never have to mark a composition or paper that was, shall we say, well-written yet riddled with inaccuracies? Have you seen a paper of that sort?”
            “Well, sure.”
            “And what mark did you give it?”
            “Well, usually a C. That is—“ “I understand. But why a C? Wasn’t it well-written. Was the language not appropriate? The paragraphs quite in order?”
            I nodded.
            “Yet, you marked it down. Why?”
            “Well, often it was because the person did sloppy research. They didn’t check their facts or they’d say things about the material that made it clear they hadn’t read.”
            “Just so. No matter how well the words were arranged, if they were falsehoods, you marked them as such.”
            I nodded again. He sat there peering off towards the gateway, now some distance from us.
            “Now you have your answer.”
            “You mean, Sir, that those who are ignorant of that battle are ignorant because they haven’t done their homework?”
            His lips turned up in a half smile.
            “Partly,” he said.
            “What’s the rest?”
            He didn’t answer. He just looked at me, one eyebrow raised as though inviting me to think it through.
            “Then,” I tried, “then even the ones, the humans out there, the ones who seem most with it. Best informed, they’re as wrong about that as, well, as the lowest graded paper writer I ever saw. Only we’re not really talking about grades, are we?"
            He didn't answer. I guess he knew a rhetorical question when he heard one. Finally, remembering what my mother had taught me about manners, I turned to him. "I'm sorry, Sir. I didn't introduce myself. My name is--" "Oh that's quite alright," He said, using my name, "I know who you are. Possibly nearly as well as you do."
I sat there, my mouth agape.
"As for me, you can call me Jack. All my friends do."
"Was that your name on Earth?"
He laughed, a delightful sound. I was beginning to wonder if he could.
"Well, as I said, it's what my friends called me. Joy did too. I do, of course, have a special name here, as you will have. A name known only to me and to one other." Seeing my expression, and possibly taking pity on my utter bewilderment, he went on. "My name upon my birth into the shadow lands was Clive. Clive Staples Lewis, actually."
"Good Lord," I exclaimed!
"In our lexicon," Lewis chided gently, "Lord is a noun, a proper noun, not an interjection."
I flushed with embarrassment.
"Right, sorry about that."
"I am not the one to whom you ought to apologize," he said gently. When I went to answer, though, he waved one hand as though dismissing the matter, as though his point had been made.
"So, you're C.S. Lewis," I asked as though needing confirmation?
"In so far as anyone can be their initials, I may as well have been C.S.L. Still, that would have been an enigma to a publishing house, I suppose."
"But this is wonderful," I said. "You're just the person I've been wanting to talk to. Needing to talk to, even."
Then, figuring he didn't know what I was talking about, I tried to explain myself. I told him how I'd first come across his Narnia Chronicles as a child, and only a few of those at that. I told him how another writer's novels had led me to his Screwtape Letters and then onwards to his other books. I told him of my struggles and how I'd read The Problem of Pain, how it had helped me change my thinking. I tried to tell him this and so much more, but he laid a firm, almost paternal hand on my shoulder. I fell silent.
"Young man, your affections are of the utmost value to me. As is all love. But we'll get on more quickly if I stop you here and tell you that I am already quite aware of all of it."
"Oh."
"In fact, I am aware of more. More, perhaps, than even you recall presently."
I didn't know what to say to this. He smiled, sensing my turmoil.
"We were talking a moment ago of something much more germane to the both of us."
I turned back to the gateway and watched the battle for several long moments. My teacher sat there, content to let me think. Finally, Lewis quoted softly, "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm."
"I'd heard that. I always thought Paul was being metaphorical."
"You know better than that," Lewis admonished. "Those images aren't written as metaphors. And even if they had been, would that make them untrue? Still, now you understand that he spoke most directly and accurately."
So I did. I saw the cosmic powers, the forces of evil, and they were no metaphor. No inhumanity of man towards his fellow man, as it were. I saw swords, breastplates, helmets, shields, blood, torn flesh, and as though with enhanced ears, I heard shouts, screams, exhortations and commands. Finally, I turned to Lewis and asked, “when I asked if they could affect things, the humans, or if they were just pawns, you said the answer was both. What did you mean? Shouldn’t they be one or the other?”
            Lewis thought. When he spoke again, his voice had taken on the cadences of the learned professor he had once been.
            “It’s not a question of what they should be. Though, what they ought to be plays into it. It’s a question of what they are presently. Those who know the Lord are not pawns, per se. Some are bishops, some knights, some castles. And they are under the kingship of Christ. Those who, to continue the chess metaphor, are not playing white, they are all pawns. The difference is, they are pawns who think themselves kings and queens, and they will be removed from the game when the Lord wins the match.”
            “The ultimate checkmate,” I said, smiling.
            “Not only the ultimate checkmate, but the only checkmate. There has never been another game, nor will there ever be.”
            More silence past. Though it wasn’t a strained silence. Finally, I turned to my teacher once again. His expression was equal parts patient and expectant. He knew, I thought, knew I would ask something else.
            “Sir, not to just change the subject but … about the bible.” He waited. “Not, not the texts themselves. I mean the canon. I know basically how it was assembled. I accept that the men who were included were supposed to be, that they were inspired. But I wonder, do we have it all?”
            Lewis looked thoughtful.
            “When you say ‘all,’ do you mean to ask whether the terrestrial bible recounts every event of history?”
            “No, I know it doesn’t do that. I meant,” and I went on, mentioning counsels and lost gospels and books that had been taken out of the bible and books that had been fought over. Finally, smiling, he stopped me.
            “I understand your question. You have wrestled with it and your faith. Not a common question. Very much a scholar’s question. Would you care to accompany me?”
            Standing, he gestured that I should walk with him. We traveled away from the gateway and across meadows, through woodlands, across streams and even, I’m sure of it, across a desert. But even the desert wasn’t like deserts on earth. I didn’t feel parched as I would have in the Mohave or the Sahara. I saw red-gold sands mounded into elegant dunes. We covered distances that must have been equivalent to hundreds, possibly thousands of miles. Yet the time we took wasn’t long at all. It could be that my perception of time was altered there or that our movement was somehow enhanced. I know we did not sleep. There was no loss of consciousness. Yet, we rested. As we traveled, we talked about lighter matters. My teacher refused to come back to my question, or indeed, to allow me to go on to other deeper matters until he’d dealt with my question. And he would only deal with it when we arrived at our destination. He was gentle but quite clear on that point.
            As we walked, we talked about his writings. I told him my favorite parts of each of the Narnia Chronicles. I quoted the dialog as I was wont to do on Earth. Thinking he might find this odd, I told him that memorizing dialog was something I’d done as a child.
            “I know it was,” he said, and went on to correct my quotations at a couple minor points. Then, as though he were as delighted with this as I was, Lewis laughed and told me that my errors in memory were understandable, given the numerous printings of his books and the mistakes made by editors when issuing the various editions.
            “Still,” he went on as we neared our destination. “I hope you like my new writings as much.”
            “You mean your latest stuff? I do. I—“ “o no, my friend. You misunderstand. No matter, we’ll soon be there and you shall see.”
            “That reminds me, if you won’t tell me where we’re going, at least tell me when we’ll get there.”
            He smiled.
            “I’d say,” he said, pointing off into the middle distance, “we shall be there quite directly.””
            It was a library. How could it be anything else? Yet it was greater by far than any earthly library. It held more volumes than any university library, than the Library of Congress or the British Museum or anywhere else on Earth. And yet, I knew without my teacher telling me that it differed in two distinctive ways from any and every library in the shadow lands. Firstly, I had free access to it. There was no volume here I could not read. If you don’t understand, consider that in any given physical library, I was limited to only those materials on cassette or CD. Even electronic libraries like Audible or the E-book repositories I used contained a mere fraction, a vanishingly small percentage of Earth’s written material. The other difference was simply this. There was nothing here that I should not read. No sex magazines, trashy romance novels, no books oozing with blood and gore, no books that challenged or denied God. In short, everything here, every last page in the hundreds of millions of tomes I saw before me, had been deemed by the Lord to be of such value as to be preserved in Heaven. Lewis, obviously intimately familiar with this whole building, directed me to one particular area.
And I saw … bibles. I saw some complete bibles in a form you or I would know them on Earth. Whole books, that is. I also saw scrolls. Picking one up, I saw it was in Hebrew. Yet I understood it. It was a copy of what I knew as the Old Testament. Lewis pointed me silently down the shelf. I saw letters written on a variety of parchments. Picking one up, I saw handwriting. My mind processed it as being Greek. Looking down the parchment, I saw no  verse numbers or chapters. Well, of course not, I thought to myself. Then I saw familiar words in Greek that ran:  “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
“Wow,” I exclaimed softly. “A copy of Paul’s actual letter to the Ephesians.”
“Not at all,” Lewis corrected. “There are no copies here. Only authentic things.” He added with a wry smile, “We know nothing here of the documentary hypothesis, a masterful bit of fiction. Only the documents are here, all of them.”
“Then this is—“ “Exactly so. You hold in your hand the very letter Paul dispatched to the Ephesian church. And there is more besides.”
I looked at the shelf and sure enough, I saw other letters. Some by Paul, I recognized. Yet, others I didn’t recognize. I picked one up.
“He wrote this one too. It looks like another letter to Corinth.”
“He wrote often to Corinth, young man. Did you suppose he only ever wrote two letters to that church in all his ministry? Did you further suppose,” he continued, “that no one else wrote to that troubled and sinful congregation?”
I stood there in stunned silence. That was exactly what I’d supposed for years. Lewis nodded as though confirming to himself what he already knew of my thoughts. He went on, now instructing. “Corinth was a church in need of admonishment and encouragement. It took a number of missives and several visits by various apostles before they began following the Lord. You’ll find a letter from Barnabus and too, from Timothy among the Corinthian correspondence. Now, your question was about the completeness of scripture.”
I nodded. So far, Lewis had seemed to confirm what I’d asked. There were plenty of letters that should’ve been in the bible but weren’t.
“Tell me,” he said, “what did John write concerning the miracles of Jesus at the end of his gospel?”
“Well, he said …” I faltered. Then, noticing John’s writings on a higher shelf, I took down his gospel and turned to the end. Soon enough, I found what Lewis meant me to find in the narrative’s last line, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
“Now,” my teacher instructed, “let us make the applications. If all the books necessary to contain Jesus’ miracles could not have been contained within the limits of the Earth, then where must they belong?”
            “Here.”
He nodded and fell silent.
“I guess I never thought. Well, I never imagined there would be books in Heaven.”
“But God tells you there will be. Examine this passage.”
He handed me a short scroll. I saw it contained the words of the prophet Malachi. Lewis pointed me to one line of the text, “A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name.”
“The scroll,” Lewis went on, “is referred to as being written in the presence of God. And Heaven is the place where God dwells. So my question to you is, how can you have expected there not to be writings in Heaven, or those that would read them?”
In the shadow lands this question would have felt accusatory. I might have felt guilty for thinking such a thing. Here, I simply absorbed the truth my teacher was imparting to me. “So then. At the back of your question about the completeness of the Word of God was an assumption that you had all of it or, lacking that, that you had to have it all and that you were being short changed if you didn’t have it all. Now, what do you say in answer to your question?”
I thought, and as I thought, I browsed the shelves near me. The browsing was a sort of reflection. As I did, I saw letters from James, Thomas, Titus, Matthias, and Mark. I saw more gospels too. One lengthy one caught my eye. Taking it up, I saw that it bore the name Paul. Another bore the name of the disciple Andrew. Finally, I answered Lewis.
            “The answer to my question is that, those in the shadow lands have as much of the bible as they need. Then, the extra books of bibles like the Catholic Apocrypha are not necessary to come to know the Lord. But … they’re not wrong either. They don’t fall into what Jesus meant in Revelation about altering the text.”
Lewis nodded. “He was talking about the words of that prophecy in particular. Think also on this. You live in an age when the bible is freely available. Your question, as I said before, is a scholar’s question. Not that that diminishes your question or your need in any way. But consider carefully, in the middle ages, a period I concerned myself with as a scholar, few could read, fewer had bibles, and almost no one asked the questions you do. Yet there are sanctified ones from that time. Ones who, only upon their entry into God’s realm, finally had access to what you or I thought of as the bible.”
My teacher and I spent a great deal of time there in that library. I can’t say how much time. I read diaries in languages I never knew on Earth. I read the written prayer of a Syrian woman in the time of Jonah who’d come to the Lord as a result of his preaching at Nineveh and who, I learned, had been killed for her belief. Lewis showed me the writings of Hosea, a prophet who’d written much more than the one book bearing his name in the bible. I read the diary of a Roman soldier who had participated in the crucifixion of Christ and who had come to faith because of the events of those few days. I eagerly read the writings of Isaiah, and Jeremiah’s poems of Lamentation, poetry that far exceeded the amount contained in the Book of Lamentations. I read psalms and hymns of David that no one on Earth had ever seen.
Yet, there were more modern writings as well. I read through a collection of sermons left by a chaplain in the Union army, a man from Vermont as it happened. Interestingly, right beside it was a prayer jotted down hastily by a Confederate soldier from Tennessee. I came across the journal of a Michigan farmer who’d lived during the Great Depression. He wrote it like any other journal, except that each entry in this one began, “Dear God.” Reaching my own time, I read a transcript of someone’s prayer blog. I read the journal of a teenager from India who’d nearly committed suicide before turning to Christ. I read the final appeal of a Sudanese man executed for preaching the gospel, a man no one on Earth had heard of, but whose writings were preserved here, and I read a girl’s fourth-grade essay, “Why Jesus is Real.”. It was possibly the most moving thing I read there. Somehow, I wasn’t surprised to find Lewis’s own works there. And I saw things that bore his name which I’d never heard of. As I examined them, I saw they were things he had written here for the benefit of Heaven’s inhabitants. I looked forward to reading them. Finally, Lewis and I sat ourselves down in the library’s courtyard and resumed our talk. I had countless questions for him. Now, I broached my most difficult question.
            “Sir, it’s about Hell.”
            He said nothing, listening.
            “You said in one of your books, ‘In the end there will be only two kinds of people, those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘Thy will be done.’”
            “Well quoted,” he complimented me. “Yes I believe that was it.”
            “Sir, what about those who die without having any opportunity to know God? Babies, aborted fetuses. People of the past who died centuries before the gospels reached them. Say, a fifth-century Apache. I mean, when I asked this question in the shadow lands, I got everything from ‘of course, they’re in hell’ to, ‘we don’t know.’ I could never bring myself to accept not knowing. I felt it was a big part of God’s justice, and how do you dare tell someone who’s just lost their child that their child’s in Hell anyway? It’s just—“ He put his hand on my shoulder, stopping me. In his eyes, I saw a look of compassion and understanding such as I’d never known in the shadow lands when asking this question.
            “Now that is an extremely difficult question. Let us dissect it one element at a time. Let us start with those adults who never hear the word because of lack of geographical opportunity, your fifth-century Apache, for instance. Yet, I think we may find some answers together. Yu are, of course, familiar with what Paul says in Romans 1 about this?”
I recited dejectedly, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
            “Why do you seem so despondent at those words?”
            “Because don’t they mean, I mean, they seem to mean that people should figure God out based on the world and that there’s no help for them if they don’t.” Lewis waited. Finally I exclaimed in frustration, “But how can they know, Jack! How is someone ten thousand miles away from the Gospel going to hear it? I mean, we’re not talking about the modern age in my question. And as for babies, how can they respond to it! They can’t perceive God or much of anything else!”
            “Son,” Lewis said, and his voice was having a calming effect on me. “One element at a time, as I said. There are three answers to your question. Let us consider them one by one. What do you infer from the text of Paul you just recited to me?”
            I slowed down, kicking my scholar’s brain into gear. “Well, that verse explains why every culture throughout history has had a notion of God, no matter how much it deviated from the truth.”
            “Correct,” he said. “There are no atheistic cultures. And the Communist experiments of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries don’t qualify. Their atheism was imposed, not an outgrowth of their cultural development. So, take it as given, every culture has sought God. Each has asked the questions of life. Who are we? Where do we come from? Why are we here? They’ve all posed the question, quite apart from any answers they arrived at.” I nodded. “Now then, remind me of what our Lord says of himself in John 14 and verse 6.”
            “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
            “Our Lord,” Lewis explained, “is stating a fact about himself. He is not telling us here, ‘if you do this and that, you will come in.’ He is declaring his nature to Thomas, much as you would be if you said, ‘I am a man.’ It is an immutable fact. However, Jesus does not tell Thomas that only those who hear the words of the missionaries are savable. Does he?”
            I shook my head.
            “Don’t mistake me. I am not saying that anyone may come to God by doing as he wishes, so long as he’s never heard the gospel. That is most deadly fallacy.”
            “Oh,” I smiled. “I was afraid that was where you were going.”
            “Never think it. Rather, we come to the second part of your answer. The God you and  I worship combines justice, love and mercy perfectly. He combines them in equal measure and in ways the most compassionate and fair-minded jurist could not. More to the point,  his bible, as we’ve seen, does not contain every jot and tittle of his plans. Can we agree on that?”
            I nodded. My questions, after all, had arisen precisely because we didn’t have every jot and tittle.
            “Yet,” Lewis went on, “We know that most people will not be redeemed. We know that many more will. We do not know all of God’s criteria for redemption. Is it wholly inconceivable to you, for example, that God, being a God who, remember, combines justice and mercy in equal and exquisite measure, has not already contrived some manner of dealing with those obscure cases like the Apache of which you spoke? Are his grace and his justice so limited that they cannot take a full and perfect account of every Apache, every primitive Britain, every ancient Chinese, and reward them with the punishments or the paradise that they deserve? That they truly deserve?”
            I thought. I thought for a long time. As with any other discussion of time, I can’t say how long we sat there. Unbidden, Aslan’s words to the Calormene soldier, Emeth, replayed themselves in my mind:  “I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For he and I are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn though he know it not. And it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash, his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, child?” Yes, I thought. I’m beginning to.
It might have been ten minutes or ten days that we sat there. It made no difference to my teacher. Like the best teacher I’d ever had in the shadow lands, he was not willing to hand me every answer. But rather, that I come as far as I could in my own thinking before confirming or correcting my thoughts. Finally, almost as though he knew I was ready for more, Lewis went on. “Now, children. Many western Protestant doctrines have arrived at the notion of an age of accountability. The idea that only when a child is old enough can they be held liable for their sins. And yet, as you are aware, the bible is clear that we are born in sin. You even see it in a baby who will scream and scream if mummy puts him down when he’d rather be held. Is this baby sinning in such a case?” He went on, forestalling my answer, not that I had much of one. “On the other hand, there are our Lord’s many discourses about children. You yourself have told people that you reject the notion of children automatically going to hell before their age of accountability because, as you say, Jesus loves children and said often that one must be ready to enter the kingdom as a child. I believe your favorite illustration of our Lord’s attitude towards children is found in the nineteenth chapter of Matthew’s gospel.”
            I nodded.
            “Recite it then,” Lewis invited.
I smiled and quoted, “Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
“What do you learn of our Lord from this incident,” Lewis asked?
“He loved children. Especially the children. If he could have a favorite group of people, it would be the children.”
“Very true. Yet, he does not call them sinless children, does he?” I shook my head. “You see, I think you will find that those on both sides of the question are, to an extent, correct. Children are born in sin and need their savior quite as much as you or I do. Nevertheless, He, God, being fully merciful and fully just, is also fully capable of cleansing the young child or the baby of his or her sinful nature quite of his own accord. Look over there, if you would.”
I followed Lewis’s pointing finger and, wandering down an isle filled with colorful books and scrolls, I saw children. Dozens, hundreds, maybe. They appeared to be of every age. Yet, even the youngest of them had a mind that far exceeded the most brilliant prodigy’s capacity to learn in the shadow lands. Lewis smiled broadly as a couple of them--they looked to be about six and eight--spotted us and ran over. They shouted his name as they ran, and I found it endearing that they called him Uncle Jack. Wordlessly, Lewis stood and caught them both in his arms.
"Are you coming to the play tonight, Uncle? Do say you'll come," the boy enthused.
"But naturally."
"I'm going to be Aslan," the boy gushed happily.
"And can you roar like a lion, then?"
Surprisingly, the boy could. I jumped with shock and found myself clapping my hands out of sheer joy.
"You really can," I said, smiling. For some reason the children ignored me.
"And who will you be," my teacher asked the girl?
"Jill Pole, of course," she answered brightly.
"Of course," he agreed affectionately. "But who else would you be. Now, be getting along. Your Uncle Jack has a few things to tend to before tonight."
The boy looked up at Lewis and asked somberly, "Will Jesus be there tonight?"
"Isn't he always?"
"Well, yeah, but you know what I mean." Lewis nodded. I'm glad Lewis knew what he meant, because I wasn't sure I did. "Will you pray to him about it?"
"Of course. But you should too. You never know. He might surprise you."
I waved at the children as they ran off, but again, they didn't take notice. Somehow, I wasn't offended though. Turning back to me, Lewis continued speaking as though there hadn't been any interruption.
“Some of those children died in accidents, some of disease, some were murdered. Yet they are all here. Their destiny, to grow up in Heavenly realms with a heavenly father. Do you begin to understand?”
At long last, I nodded slowly. Lewis went on. “Well enough. We come now to the third and most important portion of the answer to the question you’ve asked.” Standing, he disappeared momentarily into the stacks and returned with a scroll in his hands. As Lewis handed it to me I saw it was the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Opening the parchment roll, Lewis directed my attention to a certain portion of text and told me to read it aloud. And I read:  “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
            “Now, if you will, tell me, What to you infer concerning God based on this statement, and what application has it to our conversation?”
            I spoke slowly, martialing my thoughts.
            “It means that our concept of justice is limited by our natures as humans. Our perspective is narrower than God’s.”
            “It certainly does mean that,” Lewis confirmed. “But I think you may not be grasping its full implications. Your perspective and my perspective too for that matter differ from God’s perspective not only in scope but in kind.” Seeing that I did not fully understand, he clarified. “You and I are created beings. Only God creates. The difference is not between child and adult or between young and old as regards knowledge and perspective. Rather, we differ in kind from God. Children are of the same kind as their parents, being biological offspring. Yet, we are not of the same kind of thing as God, for God creates all things and is, himself, uncreated. From everlasting to everlasting, as it were.” I nodded, now beginning to see where Lewis was going but wanting him to finish getting there. And he did. “It’s not God being condescending, as some like to think of it, when he says his ways are so much higher above our ways. You hear that sometimes when an arrogant man says, ‘well, that’s rather a stretch for God to presume I simply can’t understand what he’s about. I understand it right enough, thank you.’ Rather, like Jesus’s statement about being the only way to the father, God’s statement here in Isaiah is also mere fact. We cannot grasp the nature of God’s thoughts and ways because we are simply not God. It’s not only more knowledge that the Lord has, but different knowledge. Different in both degree and in type or kind, than from what we can attain either in the shadow lands or here.”
            “And that’s where trust and faith come into it,” I said. Lewis raised an eyebrow as though inviting me to go on exploring this idea. “The third part of my answer is that I’m not meant to know, and can’t know, all of God’s plan. But that I should trust in his ability to balance justice and mercy perfectly.”
            “Excellent,” Lewis said, smiling. “I know that answer can come across as patronizing at worst or as a fancy ‘I don’t know’ at best. But now you’ve grasped the differences involved here between what we know and what God knows, I think you’ve better understood why that answer is often times the best one, the only one, even. And remember,” he went on a bit more sternly, “the fact that you don’t know how God will account for some person of the past who never had the message doesn’t let you off evangelism today. Your duty on that point is quite clear.”
            Seeing his point, I nodded.

            The snow was pristine. It piled in fluffy hummocks and massive drifts. The air was sharp and cold. Yet, I didn’t feel the urgency to be indoors that that sort of cold creates on Earth. We had left the library some time ago and traveled into the mountains. I had asked about the climates here, having taken note of everything from the greenbelt to the desert that we’d seen in our travels. I’d supposed that since most people hated the snow, there must not be any here. Lewis just laughed in that way he had and set out to correct my thinking. Now, we talked as we traveled. We traveled up hills taller than anything the Rockies or the Alps can boast of. We crossed flat plains of purest white and ran down slopes I would’ve been deathly afraid of on Earth. And we talked. At one point, somewhere high, high up in the mountain range, I found myself telling him of my student days. I complained of how useless philosophy had become, what with ethical and moral relativism, nihilism and the rejection of the physical universe taking center stage. I lamented that university students and professors these days were so hard to reach because so many of them were convinced of their own intellects.
            “Well it certainly isn’t anything new,” he pointed out. We rested on a high peak overlooking a network of valleys far below.
            “What do you mean?”
            “Well, some of the shadow lands’ most influential writers. Kant, Hegel, Russell, Sartre, Camus, that lot.” I nodded. I knew who they were, of course. I’d even read a good deal of their writings. “They’re not here,” Lewis finished simply.
            “Not—“ I stopped, realizing what he was telling me. “You mean they’re in hell.”
            “That surprises you? After all you’ve seen here?”
            “No, it’s …” I thought for a moment. “They’re such giants on Earth. I guess I’d never given it much thought.”
            “Well, you said it. They were giants on Earth. Often in their own eyes. Now, I’m not saying they didn’t have some grand ideas or that their writings were subpar. But as to the most important questions, they were quite mistaken. Woefully so.” I nodded. Lewis sat for a long moment in silence. Finally, he drew in a breath and continued. “At the back of the objections of moral relativists—oh yes, they existed in my time in the shadow lands too. They’re merely a bit more prominent now. Still, at the back of their objections is the desire to be their own gods, as it were.”
            “Well, it’s popular to ask how we can judge other cultures or other people.”
            “By their actions, of course. Still, recall for me, if you would, what the bible says in the twenty-first chapter of Proverbs and the second verse.”
            I thought. Finally, I shook my head.
            “It’s not coming to me.”
            “And now,” he said, looking somehow both admonishing and amused, “you know which book you ought to be studying more of. Nevertheless, it states, ‘Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart.’ Now, what do you gather from that?”
            “Well, the most obvious thing is that when people don’t acknowledge God, their morality will be one of their own invention. They’ll make it up as they go.”
            “Yes, that is, as you say, the most obvious conclusion. There is a further conclusion, however.”
“That it’s what’s in your heart that matters,” I asked?
            “Not precisely. Well,” Lewis interrupted himself. “That does matter. But no one should take this text to mean that their good intent will be their salvation. Many have, as you know. You hear it all the time. ‘Well,’ a chap says, ‘I’ve lived fairly right, done the best I could and I never took what wasn’t mine. So where does God get off saying I don’t deserve to go to heaven?’” I smiled. I’d heard that argument many times. Lewis nodded at my look of recognition and went on. “But as to this business of the heart, what you should take away from this is that God sees the hearts of people who make that claim about themselves. And what is in their hearts, whether they acknowledge it or not, is pride. It’s a desire to be quite their own boss, to do as they like and decide for themselves that they deserve Heaven.”
            “I see your point,” I said. “You see it all the time when someone gets upset and yells, ‘my god wouldn’t send anyone to hell,’ that sort of thing.”
            “Well, in a sense they’re quite right about that.”
            “What do you mean,” I asked.
            “People who say that sort of thing often times aren’t thinking of our Lord. They’ve got in mind a construct of him. God made Man in his image, and so Man feels free to do likewise to God.” At my raised eyebrow, he went on, “I don’t mean that they do it maliciously. Often times they’ve simply got some picture of God and they never bother exchanging it for the real thing. Because their own notion of God is comforting to them in their earthly life. Not afterwards, I’m afraid.”
            “But how do you convince them of that?”
            He smiled sadly. “Strictly speaking, you don’t. God does. That’s not to say you ought not to try. It means that God will do it. He may simply use your efforts as his gateway. SO you see, once again, once more, you don’t get off sharing the gospel.”
            “But if it’s something God does, then are you saying it’s all a matter of predestination? God’s got it all planned out, and no one really gets a choice?”
            “That,” he said, “is a most unfortunate oversimplification. But it’s held on for centuries. To answer it …” Lewis looked at me, one eyebrow raised. “Remind me what Screwtape wrote to Wormwood concerning the future.”
            I thought for several long moments.
            “He told Wormwood that the present moment for us is as close as we get to understanding God’s perspective on eternity.”
            “Quite so. Remember, God is fundamentally different from us. He is atemporal, quite outside of time. He exists as much in what you call the past and the future as he does in what you and I know as the present. Think of it this way,” he added. “If time is a line, and we progress along that line from birth to death, think of God as seeing not just the single line the time line. Rather, think of God as seeing the whole solid in all of its dimensions.”
            “Then,” I said, struggling to process the geometrical metaphor, “you’re saying that to God, there is no past and no future. There is merely what is, and it’s all present to him.”
            “It’s quite difficult to imagine,” Lewis conceded. “Don’t vex yourself with it over much. Remember only this. That sin that you committed two decades ago and those that you will commit two decades from now are all the same in God’s economy of time and sin. The fact that you were only eight years old when you told that lie or that you will be seventy-five when you do some other thing, well, it makes no odds to God. They both need repenting. Time does not shield you from the need to come about and ask forgiveness. Does that make it clearer?”
            It did. And I understood, finally, about the pre-destination business. God knew our choices before we made them, it seemed. That didn’t mean he forced us to make those choices. Yet in the same token, we couldn’t have made our choices without God. Or rather, those who decided in favor of God did so because of their experience of him. In this place, I understood. Lewis was watching my face, and somehow, I knew that he knew the run of my thoughts, and he smiled as I came to this recognition. Then, some of what he said recurred to me, and he raised an eyebrow at my troubled expression.
            “Jack,”
            “Yes?”
            “What did you mean, the sins I will commit? How can I if I’m here, unless … unless I’m not … if I haven’t.”
            He put his hand on my shoulder and smiled sadly.
            “Died,” he finished the sentence. “No, I’m afraid you still must die. No one escapes the first death. We all owe a death, and there aren’t any exceptions, I fear.”
            “Then, I’m not really here,” I said. A great sadness had settled upon me like a sodden blanket. Now I understood why the children in the library had ignored me. I wasn’t really here at all. “This has all been in my own mind. Unreal.”
            “Well, of course it has been inside your own mind, son,” he said. And as he spoke, I saw darkness descending on the land. I saw a swirling montage of demons and angels. And yet as I looked, my vision was fading. The demons and the mountains and the snow and Lewis grew faint and disappeared from my sight as my vision faded. Yet, he continued speaking. And his voice echoed strangely now, growing more distant. “But, if I may quote another novel writer you are quite fond of reading, ‘Why on Earth should that mean that it is not real?”

            I opened my eyes. I could see  nothing once again. I heard beeping, soft-soled shoes moving rapidly down a tile floor, the soft murmur of voices. I shifted on whatever kind of bed I lay upon and felt IV tubes that ran into my arms. I tried to speak, but I couldn’t. My mouth was too dry. A voice I didn’t recognize told someone, “He’s awake. You may see him now for a moment. But he needs his rest. One minute, Mam.”
            Softer footsteps. A hand that found mine, and the next voice, hers, I did recognize. It was shaky, as though it’s owner had spent endless hours crying. I found out later that this wasn’t far from the truth.
            “Dear,” she said, “You’re going to be ok. They say you’ll make a full recovery.”
            I laughed. This seemed to take her aback. As though contradicting herself, she asked in a panicky voice. “Dear? Is something wrong?”
            I squeezed her hand.
            “I’m just fine, Dear,” I told her. “I have a lot to tell you.”
            “What do you mean?”
            Slowly, haltingly, I began to tell her my story. And she listened, as she always does.

THE END

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

A Leap Year and a Leap of Faith

            Hi Everyone. I hope your February 29 is going splendidly. After all, it only comes around once every four years, right? If today’s your birthday, just think, you only have to worry about aging once every four years! If you happen to find the idea of February 29 inconvenient because you want it to be March 1, be glad you’re neither Chinese nor Jewish. Both the Hebrew and Chinese traditional calendars are lunisolar calendars, and so, every so often they add an extra month, not an extra day, to their calendar years. I can’t imagine having to reckon with a thirteenth month. Wouldn’t that be a pain? An extra day in February is ok with me. Here’s one more bit of leap year trivia. Because of the formulae that calculate leap years, there aren’t always leap years at the ends of centuries, even though that century mark falls at the four-year interval. So, 1600 and 2000 were leap years, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 weren’t. Similarly, 2100 won’t be a leap year. There won’t be another end of century leap year until the year 2400. Incidentally, there’s debate right now among those who care as to whether the year 4000 should be considered a leap year or not. I hope they figure it out. They’ve got plenty of … time.
            So, why this title, “A Leap Year and a Leap of Faith?” I wanted to post something special on this leap day, a topic I’ve been resisting because when most people do it, it comes across as corny and insipid. I was just thinking, I make no secret about being a Christian. Yet, until recently I never considered the connection between my blindness and my faith. At any rate, now I have considered it. Correction, I’m still considering it. Here are a few observations based on my experiences as a blind person in today’s world and as a thinking, reasoning, believing being.

Trusting Your Senses
            Being a graduate student and a true academic at heart, I live and breathe the western university culture. There’s a great deal for someone like me to appreciate. Theorizing, discussing, analyzing, reading, teaching and most importantly, learning. Yet, it also tends to be a very skeptical culture. It’s a culture that demands proofs and takes very little as given. Some within that culture live by the motto ‘de omnibus dubitandum,’ doubt everything. On a college campus everything is questioned, every value scrutinized and, more often than not, rejected. Ok, that is the culture in which I operate. How did I end up being different? Because, you see, I am different. I don’t believe that skepticism is the best, or even a viable, philosophy for living. I hold to absolute truths and believe in a God who made the universe, who performs miracles and who has expectations for us born out of love for us. I have quite literally been laughed at because of the preceding sentence.
            “Oh come on, Brad,” one person said to me not too long ago, “how can you, an intelligent, thinking being, possibly believe in a great Santa Clause in the sky who will give you presents if you’re good and cast you into a fiery furnace if you’re not?”
            Well, there are all sorts of answers to that, but this posting relates to my blindness. So, I’ll limit myself to that set of answers. So many people believe only in what they can see and hear and taste and touch and smell or in what they can extrapolate based on the physical world. DNA, colors, aroma therapy, yoga, the speeches of JFK, the Andromeda Galaxy, and a slice of chocolate cake are all perceptible by the senses.
            The first thing to remember is that I have one less sense. Using my list above, if I operated with this brand of skepticism, I could choose to disbelieve in colors, DNA and the Andromeda Galaxy. After all, even if you took me to a biology lab and set a DNA molecule under a microscope for me or even if you let me look through the Hubble telescope, what good would it do me? I wouldn’t see them. Yes, I know you could argue for my belief or disbelief on purely logical grounds, but we’re talking about the physical senses here. So, the first thing to notice is that certain modes of proof, the sacred P-word on campus, are closed to me. You cannot prove that colors exist to me by demonstration or by appeal to physical objects. It’s not possible. Yet, I believe that colors exist. Why? As we do with many things, I believe in what I’m told exists. Who told me? Authorities I consider trustworthy and credible, of course. It’s just that you don’t need to be told that colors exist. You know they do. You don’t need or want proof of that. But consider this:  if everyone in the world were struck blind tomorrow, would colors no longer exist? Would the Andromeda Galaxy no longer be out there? Would Rembrandt’s imagery still exist? Of course those things would still exist. Your ability to see colors or to see the stars or to see a picture doesn’t make those things, the color, the stars, the painting, exist or not exist. They are what they are.
            That idea of belief has always been very fundamental to me in my day to day environment. I believe that the sidewalk is clear ahead of me. Not because I can see down the length of the sidewalk and know that there aren’t any trashcans, bicycles or people on it. Rather, I believe that the sidewalk is clear because I walked it yesterday and it was clear then. I infer that it will be clear today. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes the sidewalk even disappears altogether! That happens to me in construction areas. What I believe about the sidewalk is a form of inductive reasoning. The sidewalk’s been clear for the last fifty days; so, it’ll be clear today. If so, great. If not, oh well. It happens.
            When I teach, I must operate on a certain amount of faith that my students are paying attention. If someone’s sneaky about it, I may not catch someone checking Facebook, reading a newspaper or sleeping in the back. I have, of course, developed my own strategies for managing my classroom and staying on top of things, but that’s not the point. Any sighted instructor would spot those things pretty quickly. I do not. Up to a point, I have to trust my students’ own willingness to learn and their sense of right conduct in class. Similarly, faith enters into my dissertation. When I’m with test subjects, I can’t actually see them at their computers. I don’t know for sure that they’re not opening an internet browser or goofing around while they’re supposed to be testing for me. Again, if I could see, this wouldn’t be an issue. But I cannot. So, I have to trust in an area where a sighted researcher would have no need for trust or belief or faith, as we’re calling it here.
            Given this inductive reasoning I’ve talked about, the question isn’t, why should I believe in God, but just the opposite. Why shouldn’t I believe in God? Despite Richard Dawkins assertions, God remains beyond the ken of science. He’s not a falsifiable hypothesis,. He can’t be seen by a telescope or contained in or dispelled by a logical proof. So, whenever people argue that God can’t be seen or investigated scientifically, I shrug. There’s a ton that I can’t see or investigate even in the way the rest of you can. So that line of argument against God holds little weight for me. It’s not at all compelling as it is for so many scientifically minded people.

Blindness and the Bible
            There are two points I want to make here. Since they’re related, I suppose it doesn’t matter which one I start with. I don’t know how many churches I’ve been to or individual Christians I’ve met who want to pray for my healing and the restoration of my sight. Firstly, restoration is a bit misleading; I never had sight and so it can’t be restored. More to the point, I want to start by saying I understand where this tendency comes from. People like this are thinking of Jesus healing multiple blind people in the New Testament. For example, see the stories in Matthew 9 and Matthew 12. Unfortunately for me, that’s all they’re thinking of. Yes, blindness in first-century Judea was a tough thing to bear. In twenty-first-century America, it still isn’t that easy. That being said, it makes perfect sense to me that those blind men sought healing from Jesus and got it. I can’t say that if Jesus weren’t here today that I wouldn’t ask him to give me sight. Maybe I would. Yet, I don’t pray for physical sight. Jesus performing a miracle is one thing. Miracles by their nature are exceptional divine interventions in the world. If God wants to perform one, far be it for me to stop him, but I’m not going to ask. There are other things I ask for each and every day.
            Still, there’s one thing about this whole blind healing bible discussion that those well-meaning people either forget or don’t realize. That is, God is in control. True, blindness is not the norm. Yet, if I were meant to see, I would. The fact that I am blind because of what happened to me at birth, because of incubators and optical nerve scarring, is not a negation of God’s power. God is, of course, bigger than incubators and optical nerve damage. I am, I repeat, as I was intended to be. That being said, I point these sorts of Christians to two passages. Consider God’s words to Moses in Exodus 4. Moses is pleading with God, pleading that he’s a poor speaker and won’t represent God well to the people and to the Egyptian ruler. God’s response is telling, “The LORD said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” (Exodus 4:11). So, yes, God is greater than damaged retinas or scarred optical nerves or glaucoma or whatever the cause of the blindness. I am content with the condition because it is what I am meant to be. The follow-up question occurs, “ok, Brad, why were you intended to be blind?” Why does God do anything? He didn’t consult me about it. I am who I am.
            Yet it doesn’t disturb me. One other verse comes to mind. I don’t intend to quote a ton of them in this part of the discussion. Still, I said I was content. In the forty-second chapter of Isaiah, I find reason to be, “I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them” (Isaiah 42:16). Both of those passages are God’s own words as recorded in the biblical record. So, what am I to take from that? I am as I was meant to be, as I’ve said. And it’s going to be alright. That’s the second thing. That’s not to say that my life is, was or will be easy. Just the opposite, actually. Rather, it’s a promise that things are going to work out. God is there and will lead me where I need to go, just as a human being does when I take their elbow so that they can lead me someplace. If I would trust a human guide, why not a divine one? Again, it seems to make sense.

Concluding Thoughts, The Blind Atheist
            I wouldn’t have you take away the idea from reading what I’ve said that all or most blind people are believers in God let alone in the God of the Christian bible. Belief in God isn’t found in greater proportion amongst the blind than anyone else. I have met a number of blind people who are atheists or agnostics who lean toward the non-existence of God. Naturally, I disagree with them. Their disbelief isn’t grounded primarily in their blindness, not, at least, any more than my belief has its main roots in my blindness. Though, I have met those blind who contend that God, if he existed and was who and what he claimed to be, wouldn’t have made them blind either from birth or from some cause later in life. Yet I contend that it is precisely because God is who he is that they are blind. Exodus 4:11 again. They are fashioned as God meant them to be.
            The final thing I would have you avoid is thinking, either consciously or subconsciously, that faith is acceptable for me because I’m blind. “Well, that’s alright for him,” I’ve heard it said. “Let him have his faith, but as for me, I can see the world around me. I don’t need faith in God.” I’ve had people say this, and undoubtedly, many who don’t say it do think it. It’s not mean-spirited of people to think or say this, though it is mistaken. Just because you don’t see or smell radon gas leaking into your home doesn’t mean you don’t have a gas leak. Your detector unit may not be working properly, and that gas leak that you don’t see may still kill you. Alternatively, just because you don’t see the sun shining outdoors without a window, it doesn’t follow that the sun’s not shining. And so, we might fairly reason, just because God is a being you cannot see or touch or smell or taste or hear or prove by logic or disprove by science, by no means does it follow that no God exists. I submit to you that only people who are too sure of their own intellect and rely far too much on their limited senses will conclude, “that business about God is all bunk.”
            I realize that there are a great many arguments for and against the existence of God. I’ve made many of them and been on the receiving end of many more. I close by saying only that my purpose here has been to connect my blindness and my faith. If you have found what I said informative or even persuasive, then I am pleased. If you disagree with me, that too is alright. Alright in the sense that I won’t get upset. In truth, I hope that you will change your mind and heart and do so quickly while you still have time. In other words, I encourage you to make the leap of faith mentioned in my title, and what better day to do it on than, well, leap day! Meanwhile, have a good one.


Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Language of Abortion, Part II

            Hello again. Looking back over my blog, I see I began it just about a year ago. A year ago this past Sunday, in fact. It’s done well, and my desire to continue with it is as strong as it was last February. I thought about coming up with some anniversary entry, but since I missed the anniversary, I’ll let it pass.

            Meanwhile, I want to continue thinking about the language of abortion. Some people ask me, “Brad, why do people like you always fixate on abortion when we’ve got issues like poverty, drugs and the sex trade to deal with?” A good question. It’s not that those issues aren’t important. Indeed, they are. But abortion, by its very nature, presents us with one of the most pressing ethical problems of our generation. So, after my last post on this subject, I surfed the net, looking up abortion clinics in my area. I also read articles, blogs, columns, and so on. I wanted to see how abortion was advertised, talked about, advocated, described and sold. Again, the language strikes me as interesting. I submit that God intended language to reveal. But where this subject is concerned, I contend that those in favor of abortion always use language to conceal. That’s quite a statement, I know. Last time, I talked about words like ‘right,’ ‘choice,’ and so on. Well, here are some more words and phrases that strike me as worthy of discussion, words that shape the abortion debate in such a way that to oppose them is dangerous and difficult. Here we go.

Equality:
            Bear with me. This word takes thinking about. ‘Equality’ has long been a buzzword in American society. It’s found in one form or another in the opening of our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence. You might say Americans have always valued it. It’s one of those things that you just take for granted as desirable. Everybody should be ‘equal,’ right? Who’s ever going to say we should have less equality? It is true that various women’s movement organizations such as NOW have made great strides in closing the gender gap. Education, jobs, salaries, politics, all of these arenas are ones in which women’s participation has been increasing. I saw a study recently that demonstrated that the salary gap is narrower than it’s ever been. Not to mention that I have, during my ten plus years of higher education, had far more female professors than male ones.
But what does this word ‘equality’ mean with reference to the abortion issue? Equal, I ask, in what sense? Who is equal to whom? In my attempts to figure out what the meaning of ‘equality’ is in relation to abortion, I came across this 2006 column by Brian Frederking, a political science professor at McKendree University, a small Methodist school in Lebanon Illinois. http://faculty.mckendree.edu/brian_frederking/columns/gender_equality.htm. I’ve edited it down a bit, but here he is:

… The problem is we have forgotten that abortion rights are intricately connected to the larger women’s movement. The goal of this movement is to break down patriarchal assumptions that men belong in the public sphere and women belong in the private sphere. The women’s movement is about creating both equal gender opportunity in the public sphere (school, jobs, voting, etc.) and equal gender responsibilities in the private sphere (parenting, doing the dishes, etc.). … If we really want to pursue the social goal of gender equality, then we must be willing to put up with a morally ambiguous medical procedure. Gender equality requires abortion rights. It is a package deal.
All we have to do is look around the world to confirm this. The World Economic Forum recently ranked gender equality in 58 countries around the world. It used five criteria to create the rankings: economic participation, economic opportunity, political empowerment, educational attainment, and health/well-being. Abortion was not explicitly a part of the rankings.
            The top ten countries were Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia. (The United States was 17th.) All of them have legally protected abortion rights. The bottom ten countries were Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, India, Venezuela, and Chile. All have either outlawed or heavily restricted access to abortion.
            Abortion rights are about the status of women in society. There are two kinds of countries in the world: those who accept modern gender roles and protect abortion rights, and those who prefer traditional gender roles and restrict abortion rights.
            I always stun my students when I say that they do not understand their positions on abortion. The pro-choice students think that it is about the individual bodies of women. But I tell them that they have forgotten the history of the women’s movement. I suggest to them that slogans of “my body, my choice” make them sound like spoiled children.
            The pro-life students are convinced that their position is about saving the lives of the unborn. But I tell them that their position is really a backlash against the women’s movement. It is about keeping women at home and men in power.
            I am not sure that I fully believe this. But my job is to challenge my students. I want them to think about these things. We all should.

            All due respect to the good Dr. Frederking, but I say with a smile that this is the sort of logic I was taught to avoid in my own papers and which I require students to revise in their essays for me. Frederking immediately connects abortion, a single issue, with universal issues of access, equality and suffrage, setting up a chain of reasoning that goes something like this:
Women’s rights = universal access to all spheres of influence, economic, educational, political;
“Abortion = a fundamental component of women’s rights;
Therefore, to oppose abortion is to oppose women’s rights. QED.
            If I may slip into logic speak for a moment, it does not necessarily follow that if I oppose abortion, that I want women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. It is also false for people like the professor to suggest that being an advocate of abortion is a necessary condition, let alone what we call a necessary and sufficient condition, of supporting women’s rights generally. This sort of slipshod reasoning irritates me because it claims to be logical and is riddled with fallacies, errors in reasoning, if you will.
His logic, as a favorite character of mine would no doubt point out, is flawed. As a footnote, I don’t know what to make of his statement at the end of his column about not knowing whether he believed what he was saying, but that it was his duty to challenge his students. O …k. I thought it was his duty to teach and instruct? But what do I know. I only have five years of college teaching experience. Maybe when I equal his ten, I’ll know what he meant.
            More important than his logic, however, is this writer’s grasp of history as demonstrated in this column, “The pro-choice students think that it is about the individual bodies of women. But I tell them that they have forgotten the history of the women’s movement.” Actually, some of us may know a bit more about that history than he does. The juncture that ties abortion to the broader platform of women’s rights is frequently suggested to be history. Women, people like this professor claim, have historically sought their rights, and this issue has been a historical part of the struggle. Not true. I wonder how people like Frederking would react if they knew (or were reminded) that the early pioneers of women’s rights vehemently opposed abortion.
            Go back to the writings of the nineteenth century and read Susan B Anthony. Anthony was a women’s rights crusader at a time when they had next to none. No voting, no political status, and salary equality? Non-existent. Remember, women didn’t even get the right to vote in this country until 1920. Anthony lived and worked in the mid to late 1800’s, dying in 1906. While abortion was not one of her main causes, she did write this in 1869, "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." For all the differences between abortions then and now and for all the differences in thought between then and now, I find it hard to believe that, were she resurrected today, Susan B. Anthony would be on the front lines of NOW at a state assembly battling for pro-abortion legislation. I just don’t think so. Finally, some pro-choice scholars and political activists I’ve read point out that she never talked explicitly about fetal rights, state mandates about abortion, and so on. One writer for Women’s ENews, Allison Stevens, even went so far as to say that those who cite Susan B. Anthony in support of pro-life arguments are exactly the sorts of people the nineteenth-century activist would’ve opposed. Quite a statement. So then, I reasonably ask myself, just what did Anthony and her contemporaries say about this topic? Here are a few things they said:
"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" Susan B Anthony, 1868.

"Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned...Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?...Perhaps there will come a time when...an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood...and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with." Victoria Woodhull, 1870.

"The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief...So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies." Emma Goldman, 1911.

            Clearly, these were women who saw abortion as being a deep societal ill, one caused by the plight of women during their time. They hoped, if these quotations are representative of their writings, that in time, women’s education, empowerment and inclusion in the mainstream of American life would lead to a lessening, not an increase, in abortion. They seem to have anticipated a day when abortion would be a thing of the past, not a day when it is legalized and sold like any other elective procedure. Today, women in America enjoy freedoms and rights of enfranchisement beyond these pioneers’ wildest hopes; yet, more babies are aborted in this country every day than ever before. I submit to you that they’d weep bitter tears if they knew it.
Still, let’s leave Anthony for the more recent past, shall we? “So what,” some writers might argue, “abortion became an issue of equality in the middle of the last century and is now unquestionably linked to equality, access and suffrage.” That professor’s column above certainly supports that idea. Incorrect … again. Anyone ever heard of Feminists for Life of America (FFL)? My guess is that most haven’t. They’re a women’s rights organization, as you might have guessed. They were founded in Ohio in 1972 by two women from OSU. Interestingly, one of them, Cathy Callaghan, was a tenured linguistics professor at the time. The other founder, Pat Goltz, was expelled from the Columbus chapter of NOW in 1974 for arguing that abortion violates feminist principles. They fight against domestic violence, against sex trafficking, against pregnancy discrimination, against discrimination in the workplace, and against abortion. That last one is where they differ from the big names. They are avid supporters and promoters of women, but these women argue passionately that abortion is wrong and that it’s unnecessary. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s their page:
            So, many people would like to muddy the waters surrounding abortion by tying it to the broader women’s rights movement. They get away with it, because nobody really opposes most things the women’s rights movements of today stand for. The rhetorical trick, therefore, is to convince people that abortion equals the rights of women and to oppose it is to oppose the progress, the equality, of women in today’s America. However, this sleight of hand is both misleading and historically inaccurate. It succeeds because most people lack the historical background and the knowledge of women’s advocacy needed to see through it. The earliest women’s rights advocates regarded abortion as nothing less than child murder and longed for a day when the society as a whole would have advanced beyond the point where women felt they had to abort their children. Logically, it is an error in reasoning to argue that a person who is against abortion is also against the rights of women generally or in our society as a whole. So let’s leave ‘equality’ behind and look at some more language. Like Callaghan, I do linguistics, after all.

Pregnancy as Euphemism
            Women’s Health Practice, just up the street from me, has a very comprehensive web site and offers abortions by various methods up through twenty-four weeks or six months of pregnancy. What’s interesting here is just how they use the word ‘pregnancy.’ This may seem obvious. We all know what pregnancy is, right? Well, yes. But they use the word ‘pregnancy’ to mean something more than just the state of being with child. Consider this quote, which is found in their section on medication-based abortion. They describe the effects of methotrexate this way,  “It stops embryonic or fetal cells from dividing. Once these cells can no longer divide, the pregnancy stops growing.”
            A pregnancy does not grow. It is not animate and it doesn’t describe an object, animate or otherwise. It is a biological condition, a process. So, what is it that “stops growing,” exactly? The pregnancy process ends because the baby, not the pregnancy, stops growing. But imagine this same description if they actually said what they meant. Here it is, “It stops embryonic or fetal cells from dividing. Once these cells can no longer divide, the baby stops growing.”
            One other thing about this clinic’s abortion page. I couldn’t find the words ‘baby’ or ‘child’ anywhere. Look for yourself:  http://www.womenshealthpractice.com/abortion.htm. If you find it, let me know. I’ll tell you what I did see, however.

Code Words for ‘Baby’ and ‘Child’
            Regardless of your stance on abortion, it’s interesting to note how strenuously the industry avoids words that would connect the baby to the rest of the human race. You won’t find them talking about a ‘baby’ even for a late-term abortion. Never do it. And nobody uses the word ‘child.’ Wonder why? Is it perhaps because they know collectively what they do and cannot call babies what they are for fear of admitting it? Maybe. It’s also bad business. Telling a scared girl or woman that, “terminating your pregnancy at this point in the fetus’s development is a safe and low-risk solution to your needs,” sounds comforting and brings in money. Telling that same scared girl or woman, “Ending your baby’s life at this point in your pregnancy is a safe and low-risk solution to your needs,” however, is likely to trigger a fall in revenue. We’re not done.
            To end with this web page, I found two instances where biological terms are substituted for baby. A bit more dangerous, since the word ‘tissue’ bespeaks a living (or once living) organism. Try these excerpts from the clinic’s surgical abortion page,  “Your tissue will be sent for analysis to a pathologist. … As a woman progresses farther into pregnancy, there is more tissue to evacuate. … patients can arrange for tissue burial, although they need to be aware that these services must be arranged well in advance and may be costly.”
            Tissue? Makes it sound highbrow and medical, like something I’d read in a biology textbook. It’s also semantically inaccurate. ‘Fetal tissue’ is only an accurate term up to a certain point. By twenty-four weeks, though, what you’ve got is a very recognizable baby, arms, legs, head, internal organs. Many types of tissue there. I should know. I was born at twenty-six weeks. And “tissue burial?” Who are we kidding here? They almost, almost admit what they’re doing. Replace ‘tissue’ with ‘baby’ or ’child’ in the last excerpt and reread it.

This will probably be my last posting on abortion for a while. I’m not an activist per se, I’m not a specialist in medicine and I don’t work for a pro-life organization. I’ve never claimed any particular expertise, and this blog isn’t just about this issue. Still, if I leave the topic here, let it not be because I don’t have strong feelings based on well-informed opinions. There are other issues out there, but this one deserves every word of attention I’ve given it and more. I look forward to any reasoned comments anyone wants to leave.


Sunday, February 5, 2012

The Language of Abortion

            I have been reluctant to touch the issue of abortion in my blog, not because I lack for a  stance about it, but mostly because I don’t want my thoughts dismissed as “radical right-wing garbage.” In our current climate, it is very dangerous to oppose abortion. The moment you do, you become fair game for those who are ready to label you a misogynist (or woman hater) or for those who are ready to paint you as dictatorial, narrow-minded, intolerant, in short, to describe you with the language many use to describe Christians. Now, I should point out that not all people who are “pro-life” are Christian, and it is also true, sadly, that not all Christians are “pro-life.” Still, the last reason I haven’t touched the issue is lack of a specific current event. My blog entries that touch on issues like unions, outsourcing and the like stem from particular items in the news, and now, abortion has come up for discussion thanks to the recent controversy surrounding the Susan G. Komen Foundation. But since the subject’s come up, I want to engage in calm, reasonable, rational, caring and truthful discussions here, emphasis on ‘caring’ and ‘truthful.’ So, to quote God from Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let us reason together.”

            I was fifteen when I learned just how abortions are performed. Two of my friends were going back and forth on the subject, and I was listening with only half an ear. I’d heard it all before, it seemed, and the debate simply didn’t interest me. Finally I chimed in with, “you know, how are abortions even done anyway?” My two friends fell silent, and one turned to me and offered to let the others sitting around us leave the room. No one did. She then explained in graphic and accurate detail how the most common procedures were done. She told me about suction abortions, saline abortions and partial birth abortions. I sat there in horror. I had a vivid imagination, you see, and once I had the how-to information in hand, imagining the actual process didn’t take much. A question came out of my mouth without my planning it.
“Amy,” I asked, “Why would anyone even think about doing that?”

Well, almost as many years have passed since that conversation. I’m twenty-nine now. Since that conversation, I’ve sat in philosophy classes beyond count, contemporary issues classes, biomedical ethics classes; I’ve been to three universities as a student and I’ve read feminist writers, post-modern writers, women’s rights advocates, sociology texts, and on and on and on. I’ve met a number of women who’ve had abortions. And still, I want to ask that question. Today, I am a linguist. I live by words and I thrive on knowing what people mean when they use words. So, my own contribution to the abortion debate (probably one of today’s most controversial issues) is to look at the words people use and figure out what’s going on. Let’s look at some language.
Rights and Choice
My first question:  which rights and what choice are we talking about? Reading the literature of NOW and Planned Parenthood and the like, certain answers keep coming up. These organizations talk about a woman’s choices in terms of her “reproductive rights.” The basic idea boils down to something like, “my body, my rights.” But again, rights to do what? A choice to do what?
The first problem with the, “it’s my body and I’ll decide what to do with it,” line of reasoning is that its inherently false. My arm is part of my body because it shares my DNA. The cells of my arm, my liver and my femur share my own unique genetic pattern. Yet, a baby, whether he or she is a zygote (the first cell formed after fertilization) or a fetus or a newborn on the verge of delivery, doesn’t fit this basic criterion for being called part of, “my body.” Their DNA is not identical to the woman’s, because that DNA includes the father’s contributions too. To take a more extreme example, even a cancer cell has more in common with the woman’s DNA than this baby does, because a cancer cell is a mutated cell of her own genetic code. A baby, by definition, has a genetic code that is unique to him or herself, and not entirely part of either her mother’s or her father’s genes. So, “my body?” That is incorrect. It’s not part of her body. It is a resident of her body, true. The baby is fully dependent on her mother’s body for life, true. But that doesn’t make the baby part and parcel of her body the way the mother’s arm or leg is. So, to this line of reasoning I would reply, “if most people wouldn’t kill a baby while it’s suckling at the breast, by what logic do we justify doing so a few months before it gets to come out and do that?” Let’s move on.
Let’s talk about the words ‘right’ and ‘privacy.’ They seem to be very important in this discussion. Many women’s rights advocates see abortion as being a matter of a woman’s right to privacy and personal choice. Many will argue vehemently that that right to privacy and that right to choice are sacrosanct, and that anti-abortion people are impinging upon those rights. This is a powerful argument to some, but I find its reasoning flawed.
First, our rights are already limited. I do not have the right to walk across the hall and shoot my neighbor. According to my lease, I do not have the right to play my music as loud as I want to even in the ‘privacy’ of my own home. If I’m arrested, I lose my right to privacy. I cannot abuse my children even in the ‘privacy’ of my own home, because I don’t have the right. In every one of the examples I just used, the notion of ‘privacy,’ held sacred by pro-abortion advocates, is superseded by other rights or circumstances or laws. So, apparently, we as a society do indeed hold some things as being able to transcend my right to privacy. Why, I ask in puzzlement, is killing a baby before it is born considered a matter of ‘privacy,’ but killing one the day after he or she is born isn’t a matter of ‘privacy?’
Now, let’s talk about the other word, ‘choice.’ In all the examples above, two things came into play, right and choice. I don’t necessarily have the right to do any of the things listed in that paragraph. That doesn’t mean, however, that I can’t choose to do them. I could walk over and shoot my neighbor. It’s a matter of choice, right? I could smack my kids around to my heart’s content. It’s a matter of choice, right? Well, ok, yes, I can choose to do those things. I have free will and a body that mostly obeys my commands. But you might reasonably point out that choices have consequences including legal ones, and because of these consequences,  I might refrain from shooting my neighbor or beating up my kids. Fair enough.
So, does abortion have consequences? Whose consequences? Well, since every biology textbook I’ve ever picked up defines the beginning of life as being at conception, the first answer is the baby’s consequences. A good number of abortions happen somewhere in the first trimester. By the end of that time, the baby displays facial expressions, has a heartbeat, generates a brain wave pattern unique to himself, kicks and makes fists, and the nerves are developing. Consider this from Dr. Robert Shearan, a surgeon who, we presume, knows his stuff:
As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain.... First, the unborn child's mouth, at eight weeks, then her hands at ten weeks, then her face, arms, and legs at eleven weeks become sensitive to touch. By thirteen-and-a-half weeks, she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain.
That last point is important, because abortion hurts like hell for the babies themselves. Yes, they feel pain, lots of it.
Other consequences to this ‘choice?’ I’ve met women who’ve had abortions, and I’ve read of countless more, and almost to a woman, they’ve talked about the emotional scarring, the regret and pain, that followed their abortion. Maybe not immediately, but at some point it came. Try this one:
Doctors shouldn't say it is easy for people to have an abortion. Because it's not an easy thing. People like my friends get pregnant, get an abortion, get pregnant, get an abortion, get pregnant, get an abortion. You know what I mean? All my friends that I've called say, Oh, it's a piece of cake.' For me, it wasn't a piece of cake.
The woman who said that was quoted in the Journal of the American Medical Association, folks. So, apparently, there are consequences to the women involved.
Are there any consequences to the fathers? Well, consider this:
She did it for me. I feel like I murdered somebody. I wish I could do it over again, if I could just go back in time and relive those years. If she'd had the child, even if we'd got married and everything, it wouldn't have been that bad. I've seen other people do it. Reality's such a bitch sometimes, you know?
That was spoken by a father who didn’t become a father, not that time anyway. One more, and this may surprise you. Abortion, that ‘choice,’ often has lasting consequences for many of the clinic workers who do them. Imagine being a nurse or tech whose job, eight hours a day, is to take babies in the womb and end their existences. Think I’m exaggerating? Let me spend a little time on this point, because it’s often overlooked. I have two longer quotations here which should shed some light on the issue. Consider this first,  most of the time, possibly all the time, the patient i.e. the mother, does not get to view the fetal remains. Who would want to, you ask? She is protected from seeing the end results. Not so for the technicians performing the abortion. They see the consequences up close and personally, and they see them right away in full color and HD. This first quote comes from a report presented to the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians by a veteran abortionist of twenty-three years’ experience and his assistant some years ago. They interviewed twenty-three current and former staffers at their clinic about their responses to viewing some of the procedures, and this, from the report, is a summary of what they found:
Many subjects reported serious emotional reactions which produced physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances, effects on personal relationships, and moral anguish.... Reactions to viewing the fetus ranged from "I haven't looked" to shock, dismay, amazement, disgust, fear and sadness.... Two felt that it must eventually damage [the doctor] psychologically… Two respondents described dreams which they had had related to the procedure. Both described dreams of vomiting fetuses along with a sense of horror. Other dreams revolved around a need to protect others from viewing fetal parts, dreaming that she herself was pregnant and needed an abortion or was having a baby.... The more direct the physical and visual involvement [i.e. nurses, doctors], the more stress experienced.
That’s pretty straight forward, isn’t it? Have you ever seen a suction machine? I haven’t. Well, ok, that’s not a blindness pun. I really never have been to an abortion clinic or handled the machinery responsible. I can’t say I want to, though I’d probably go if I had the chance and a reason. Here’s a description written by a woman researcher who was pro-choice at the time. This is graphic, I warn you:
I am drawn to the unit, irresistibly, by my reactions of disbelief, sorrow, horror, compassion, guilt. The place depresses me, yet I hang around after working hours. When I leave, I behave outside with the expansiveness of one who has just escaped a disaster. I have bad dreams. My sense of complicity in something nameless grows and festers. I consider giving up the research....
I remove with one hand the lid of a bucket.... I look inside the bucket in front of me. There is a small naked person there floating in a bloody liquid--plainly the tragic victim of a drowning accident. But then perhaps this was no accident, because the body is purple with bruises and the face has the agonized tautness of one forced to die too soon. Death overtakes me in a rush of madness. [the same woman goes on to talk about her experiences from the surgeon's end of the table.] During an abortion] The doctor pulls out something, which he slaps on the instrument table. "There," he says. "A leg."... I turn to Mr. Smith. "What did he say?" "He pulled a leg off," Mr. Smith says. "Right here." He points to the instrument table, where there is a perfectly formed, slightly bent leg, about three inches long. It consists of a ripped thigh, a knee, a lower leg, a foot, and five toes. I start to shake very badly, but otherwise, I feel nothing. Total shock is passionless....
"There, I've got the head out now"... There lies a head. It is the smallest human head I have ever seen, but it is unmistakably part of a person. My vision and my hearing though disengaged, continue, I note, to function with exceptional clarity. The rest of me is mercifully gone.

            Ok, under our laws it is a choice. Even when it was illegal, it was still a choice. No one disputes a woman’s ability to choose and that this is one possible choice. But is it a choice she should make? The consequences are far-reaching. They go beyond one woman and one baby. They impact lives in a widening circle that draws in fathers, family members, even the people paid to perform the abortion. I didn’t make these quotes up and they’re not the only ones I’ve found. The tone and content are remarkably similar. So again I ask, even if it is a choice, is it a right one?

Abortion vs. Murder
            I’m not trying to be flip here. When Christians call abortion ‘murder,’ they’re dismissed. When the laws of the land call it the same, most nod approvingly. What am I talking about? In an increasing number of U.S. states, a man who murders a pregnant woman is charged with two counts of murder, two. The woman’s and the unborn baby’s. The murder charge involving the unborn baby is pursued with all the seriousness as the charge concerning the woman. What does this tell me? It tells me (and remember I’m not even speaking morally) that there is a disconnect in the language and intent of our laws. Answer me this:  how is it murder if someone kills the woman and baby, yet if the woman pays to have the baby killed, it’s a medical procedure? Some might answer me, pointing out that in the first example, the woman dies too. Point taken, but the murder charge brought against the killer for the baby is the same murder charge that he would face if he’d killed, say, a mother and her newborn. No difference under the law that I’m aware of. So, my question remains a good one. And there is no answer. Well, there is one. Our laws concerning the unborn are inconsistent.
            In medicine, we call it ‘termination of a pregnancy.’ Yet if a doctor performed the same saline procedure or something similar once the baby was outside the womb, we would call it ‘murder’ and hang the doctor from the highest tree. The arguable exception to this was the partial-birth abortion. For those not in the know, the partial-birth abortion, put briefly, involves delivering the baby alive, just as you would normally, and then making an incision at the base of the baby’s skull and sucking her brains out with a vacuum pump. After that, the baby’s body is delivered the rest of the way. Fortunately, and isn’t it about time we had some good news, this type of abortion, which was made legal by President Clinton in 1997, was made illegal by legislation signed into law by George W. Bush in 2003. A 2007 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, upheld the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. I add that many clinics have found ways to circumvent the wording of the law. Not surprising.

            I have not been trying to sensationalize the issue. I’ve just been talking about words we all use, ‘rights,’ ‘choice,’ ‘abortion’ and so on, trying to figure out just what we mean, regardless of what we think is meant, when we use this language in the abortion debate. This is not a comprehensive discussion of the issue. I have not, for example, mentioned the fact that the earliest women’s rights advocates, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who were ardent supporters of women’s rights at a time when they had next to none, both vehemently opposed abortion, calling it a crime and labeling it murder. Hmmm, interesting. On that same subject, I have also not discussed the fact that many feminist groups oppose abortion, though you never hear about them. One is the Feminists For Life (FFL) which is passionately pro-women’s rights and is ardently anti-abortion. One member called the attempt to make abortion a women’s rights issue “terrorist feminism,” because women are deceived into believing they have to be willing to kill (babies, of course) to support the platform of women’s rights. I could go on and on. But this is a blog, not a book. I suppose, in closing, I’d have to say that what amazes me is not that some people oppose abortion, but that so many approve of it unreservedly. Feel free to respond reasonably.