Archive for the ‘Pro-Life’ Category

African American Legislative Caucuses Commit Slow Suicide by Supporting Abortion

Friday, September 23rd, 2016

Despite the African American total fertility rate in the US shrinking to less than the replacement rate for the African American population, African American legislative caucuses continue to commit slow suicide by supporting abortion. With each redistricting to come, whether in civic, state, or congressional elections, the number of predominantly African American legislative districts will continue to shrink, despite activist politics at redistricting time and more and more ludicrous gerrymandering.

There is no fighting demography in the long run. As the African American population shrinks in the US due in no small part to abortion politics, so will shrink the hard-fought political gains of African Americans. African American legislative caucuses are beginning to die by their own hand. After 2030, if present abortion trends continue in the African American community, it is possible that African American legislative districts at all levels could shrink by 40% to even 50%.

This self-inflicted blow was first struck by now elderly legislators of the Civil Rights era who bought into supporting abortion in order to gain and retain power. These foolish elders have dealt their own legacy a death blow, but given the human life span, they will likely not survive long enough to witness the bitter fruits of their own stupidity.

© Copyright 2016, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

The views posted at sanityandsocialjustice.net are those of Albert J. Schorsch, III, alone, and not those of any of his employers, past or present.

Share

Medical Error: Third Leading Cause of Death in the US

Sunday, July 10th, 2016

According to a Johns Hopkins study by Martin A. Makary and Michael Daniel, medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US, with approximately 251,000 deaths annually due to this cause. Here’s the reference:

Makary, M. A. and M. Daniel (2016). “Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US.” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 353: i2139.

Deaths by medical error thus far exceed death by gun (34,000), by motor vehicles (34,000) – and therefore to a great extent by alcohol, by suicide (41,000), and by Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease COPD (149,000), and are second only to death by heart disease (611,000) and to cancer (585,000). It is also likely that medical error disproportionately harms the poor.

We should therefore have a walk / run for the cure, ribbons, etc. to reduce medical error!

If our government were aligned to truly better the human condition, we would systematically address medical error, and diseases like sickle cell, which itself confers a likely death sentence on 100,000 US citizens and on 5 million Nigerians! Yet activists by and large ignore sickle cell disease, perhaps because gun violence draws more media and political attention. Anti-gun activism reinforces media viewing and drives political action. But it potentially saves far fewer lives than an effective campaign against medical error, or against smoking.

US Hispanics, who face similar poverty among their ranks, tend to outlive African Americans by six years – probably due to lower smoking rates among Hispanics, according to a 2013 report from the Population Reference Bureau. Anti-smoking activists are still waiting for President Obama, a former(?) smoker, to speak out loudly on this critical public health issue.

Politics, not public health concerns, therefore drives our public health priorities. If our priority was human life, the medical error and other larger public health challenges would be addressed.

Addressing societal ineffectiveness and inefficiency is therefore indeed a social justice issue. This is one point almost universally missed by political and by religious leaders especially. Every time Pope Francis speaks out against modern society’s drive for efficiency, I cringe, thinking of the annual 251,000 US deaths due to medical error, and of the untold number of such unnecessary deaths worldwide.

Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care, 2012, Bloombury Press, by Marty Makary MD, ISBN 978-1-60819-838-2, has some good suggestions on reducing medical error.

© Copyright 2016, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

The views posted at sanityandsocialjustice.net are those of Albert J. Schorsch, III, alone, and not those of any of his employers, past or present.

Share

Empathy, Intuition, and the Abortion or Life Decision

Saturday, January 30th, 2016

St. Edith Stein’s (1891-1942) 1916 dissertation, Zum Problem der Einfühlung, On the Problem of Empathy, written after she spent much of 1915 as a wartime Red Cross nurse, qualified her as only the second German woman to earn a doctorate in philosophy. Stein’s dissertation is said to be one among “Ten Neglected Philosophical Classics” in a forthcoming chapter by Kris McDaniel in an Oxford University Press volume edited by Eric Schliesser.

Although commonly associated with therapeutic communication, “empathy” is a recently made-up word, introduced into German as “Einfühlung,” or “in-feeling” by Johann Gottfried von Herder in aesthetics in 1774, in the late 1800s into German medicine and psychiatry by Theodor Lipps, and into English by American psychologist Edward Bradford Titchener as “empathy” just prior to WWI.

The English word “empathy” is so new that we can actually date its first recorded public use by then Cornell U. Professor Titchener to a presentation he gave at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign circa 1908-1909 (Titchener, E. B. (1909). Introspection and empathy. Lectures on the experimental psychology of the thought-processes. New York, The MacMillan Company).

In her 1916 analysis, Stein sorted through several of our common psychological conceptions of empathy that have since come down to us through the sciences and popular culture, and narrowed in on those aspects of empathy that would be philosophical useful, using the phenomenological method she learned from her teacher Edmund Husserl, to address the question of how one mind knows another. This problem was essential for understanding how human persons are “constituted,” a philosophical term roughly meaning composed to the extent that they can be known:

“‘Constitution’ is a term that Stein inherits from Husserl, who uses it systematically to mean the way things appear as one (for me, for us).” Lebech, M. (2015). “Lebech, M. (2015). The philosophy of Edith Stein : from phenomenology to metaphysics. Oxford, Peter Lang. Pg. xi”

Stein focused in her reduction to a knowledge of another that is close to intuition:

“Empathy is a kind of act of perceiving [eine Art erfahrender Akte] sui generis. . . . Empathy, as we have examined and sought to describe, is the experience of foreign consciousness in general, irrespective of the kind of the experiencing subject or of the subject whose consciouness is experienced.” Stein, E. (1989). On the problem of empathy. Washington DC, ICS Publications, Pg. 11

“Two-sidedness to the essence of empathic acts – the experience of our own announcing another one.” Ibid., Pg. 19

R.W. Meneses and M. Larkin (2012) summarized Stein’s approach to empathy to three levels, the first level of which is pertinent to this discussion:

“In short, the first level, direct perception, is about the direct, non-mediated (e.g. by expressive behaviour or aprioristic knowledge) co-givenness of another person’s present embodied, embedded, minded experience.
Here, one immediately ‘sees’ the foreign experience.” Meneses, R. W. and M. Larkin (2012). “Edith Stein and the Contemporary Psychological Study of Empathy.” Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 43(2): 151-184. Pg. 175.

In an earlier page, Meneses and Larkin focused on the intuitive aspect of Stein’s early stage of empathy:

“Here, for the first time, that which was directly intuitively given about the other’s experience (during direct perception and/or experiential projection) is represented, in awareness, as a mental object. That is, the content of the intuition is mentalized, becoming, in awareness, an intellectual idea about the foreign experience. This is most transparent when Stein states that, at this level, empathy can be seen as an intuitive idea about another’s experience. Before this level, empathy is not an idea, or a representation, but intuition only (p. 20).” Meneses and Larkin (2012, pg. 173).

Intuiting the existence of another person may be the first step in the constitution of a person. The philosophical problem of the constitution of the human person thus can be directly related to the morality of the abortion decision: Is the fetus or baby a human being or human person? How do we know this?

The earliest stage of “Steinian” empathy, involving intuition, leads us to a new perspective on the abortion decision: When does the parent first intuit–prior to physically sensing or intellectually knowing–the existence of another, of a child growing in the womb? This is a different question from enumerating the stages of growth of the baby within the womb.

While the mind of a fetus or baby in the womb cannot be readily empathically experienced by another, his or her existence can be empathically intuited, a first step in the constitution of the newly-developing human being.

This initial intuition of the life of another may therefore ground the abortion decision: if one intuits the existence of another within the mother, this one who values human life will immediately take precautions to preserve this human life.

An important first question in the abortion-or-life decision thus becomes: When did I first intuit the child’s existence?

As I have written earlier, the abortion and euthanasia decisions are those in which doubt about the existence of life now lead not to caution, but to deadly force. But in almost every other human endeavor, even modern warfare, doubt about the danger to life leads to prudent caution for life-preservation instead.

Abortion ideology, in order to radically refute Freud’s dictum that “Biology is destiny,” chooses immediate deadly force instead of prudent, non-violent problem-solving and compassionate continuing commitment.

For more on St. Edith Stein’s concept of empathy and the constitution of self, please see this lecture by Oxford scholar Nikolas Prassas —

© Copyright 2016, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

The views posted at sanityandsocialjustice.net are those of Albert J. Schorsch, III, alone, and not those of any of his employers, past or present.

Share

Refuting Abortion Ideology’s Core Idea

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

Those who oppose abortion on grounds that are –

1) moral (abortion as the unjustified killing, ergo, murder of the innocent and defenseless) and

2) demographic (abortion in worldwide practice disproportionately eliminates females through sex selection, thus causing population imbalance leading to male immaturity/lack of commitment and thereby to pornography addiction, rape, human trafficking, and sex slavery, causing therefore even more oppression of women)

– sometimes omit going to the philosophical heart of the matter by refuting abortion ideology’s Core Idea: that abortion is the ultimate answer to Freud’s famous dictum that “Biology is Destiny.”

The Core Idea of Abortion Ideology can also be restated: In order for a woman to be truly free of biological destiny, that is, her role as a mother, the baby must die as subject to the woman’s will to power. Woman’s right to choose becomes woman’s right to kill, a moral equivalent of a war of independence for woman. Killing the baby, in the minds of the abortion ideologists, as ugly as it is, definitively counters the destiny of biology.

The Core Idea that “Biology is Not Destiny” unites Abortion Ideology and Gender Ideology, and will lead ineluctably to what I have called the “Reduction of Motherhood.”

Abortion Ideology represents only yet another instance in history that the oppressed kill not their oppressor, but another totally dependent on the oppressed, yet redefine this killing of the dependent one as an act of freedom, despite all the while not altering their own predicament of oppression. Abortion Ideology, like all ideologies, is thus subject to Gödel’s proof of eventual logical self-contradiction.

Freedom is not gained by destroying someone dependent on you, no matter how one may dress up the killing – unless you define freedom as being alone with your oppressor, keeping in mind that sometimes, your oppressor becomes yourself – the very definition of Hell.

The definitive answer to Abortion Ideology, and thereby Gender Ideology, flows from the continual rediscovery of motherhood, and of fatherhood in relation to motherhood. As a practical matter, unless human reproduction is moved to Brave New World laboratories exclusively, women and men will continue to discover the meaning of motherhood and fatherhood through their loving relationships.

This loving force cannot be stopped, except by a police state beyond any known to human civilization that would be needed to limit reproduction to laboratories. It is not likely that gender ideology will choose or succeed in establishing such a police state, although such a police state would be their own “Ultimate Solution” against natural motherhood. Gender ideology will therefore attempt to place laboratory reproduction on the same legal, moral, and social par with natural reproduction, and continue to reduce the status of natural motherhood, as I wrote earlier, to the status of the hoarding of pets.

The alternative to such a grim future is the transformation of human society into a loving community, in which no woman is forced to be a mother, but motherhood and its great goods are freely chosen, without resorting to abortion. This transformation can grow – one loving couple, one man and one woman – at a time.

Gender Ideology will therefore ultimately fail, because it lacks the means to destroy embodied reproducing gender itself. Gender Ideology is the societal metastasis of higher education political correctness, an unsustainable canon of self-contradiction: therapy to change gender attraction is very wrong but sex-reassignment surgery is very right. Gender theory is the antithesis of embodied gender in fact.

Embodied gender complementarity of females and males continually reinvigorates the human race, and continually reinvents loving intimacy. It just takes one fertile woman and one fertile man to restart human society and culture, despite all the efforts of Abortion and Gender Ideologues bent on dystopian sterility and eugenic fantasy, the latter being the centuries’ old panacea of the super-rich.

Abortion remains, and should always be seen as, a tragic act of desperation and weakness: powerless to eliminate her oppressor or to free herself from a terrible constraint, a mother kills her child. A whole culture of art, literature, religion, statecraft and philosophical special pleading has grown up trying to decorate and sanctify this tragic act, but the fact remains, abortion is the tragic killing of the innocent and defenseless. Abortion ideologues sometimes attempt to reduce abortion to a banal act, like blowing one’s nose, but few take such exaggeration seriously. Abortion is a killing.

The “Commonweal Catholic” has never forgiven St. John Paul II for coining the phrase “the Culture of Death.” Despite the hostility of Abortion Ideology to Catholicism, there are some Catholics who still would like to embrace the culture Abortion Ideology produces rather than step away from it.

For the sake of those wishing to embrace the culture, I offer another tack: One can choose the destiny of Creation, instead of simply negating the destiny of biology. When motherhood and fatherhood are gifts freely accepted, the need for Abortion Ideology recedes.

Many Catholic thinkers smugly dismiss the thought of St. Edith Stein without doing a fraction of the work necessary to probe its challenging difficulty. They do so at their peril, because her thought has the capacity to make their thought irrelevant. The essays of St. Edith Stein on woman, like the Theology of the Body of St. John Paul II, not only undermine Abortion and Gender Ideology, but show another – much more happy – way of living and loving.

© Copyright 2016, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

The views posted at sanityandsocialjustice.net are those of Albert J. Schorsch, III, alone, and not those of any of his employers, past or present.

Share

Aphorism XCI

Sunday, September 20th, 2015

Catholic social justice without a pro-life commitment–a commitment that includes the protection of the human person from conception to natural death–is a lie.

© Copyright 2015, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

The views posted at sanityandsocialjustice.net are those of Albert J. Schorsch, III, alone, and not those of any of his employers, past or present.

Share

The Radiance Foundation’s TooManyAborted.com “We’ve Been Guttmacher’d” Video

Friday, July 24th, 2015

TooManyAborted.com is a creative pro-life project of the Radiance Foundation, which was co-founded by Ryan Bomberger. Here is an example of their work, a short video entitled, “We’ve Been Guttmacher’d” —

© Copyright 2015, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

The views posted at sanityandsocialjustice.net are those of Albert J. Schorsch, III, alone, and not those of any of his employers, past or present.

Share

Dan Savage’s 30-Year Mandatory Abortion Fantasy

Thursday, November 7th, 2013

Speaking on a recent Australian television show, and stating that “There are too many goddamned people on the planet,” “America’s most popular sex advice columnist” Dan Savage suggested that “Abortion should be mandatory for about 30 years” —

I wonder who is going to run the police state required to implement Mr. Savage’s fantasy.

© Copyright 2013, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

Share

Beyond Mixing Blanks With Bullets to Gain Moral Plausibility

Saturday, October 5th, 2013

The strategy of using doubt, misdirection, or confusion to make an unpleasant or immoral act plausible or palatable has a long history.

This strategy has been institutionalized in the practice of mixing blanks and bullets to arm the guns of members of a firing squad. No one firing their gun will therefore have moral certainty that they took another’s life. Each shooter has “deniability.”

A number of muddle-headed moralists have found acceptable a similar scheme that hides which third party insurance company actually pays for abortions. Participants in the insurance plans would not have moral certainty as to whether their dollars actually would pay for abortions, and this uncertainty would theoretically free insurance payers of direct responsibility for abortion.

Either of the above schemes breaks down morally when one considers that, in the case of an innocent person being brought to execution, each entire scheme is immoral from start to finish.

In the case of direct abortion, the one being executed is, prima facie, always innocent. Therefore, no mix of blanks and bullets among the insurance providers suffices to make such a system of hidden participation a morally acceptable system.

When faced with immanent execution of the innocent, the command from Leviticus holds:

Nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake
(Leviticus 19:15).

But those who violate the right to life of others will not be content until they have reduced society to a state of complete moral compromise, perhaps because this is the only environment in which they feel their own views will be safe.

It is in this environment that some media gatekeepers guard against moral clarity and continue to sow confusion, lest virtue break out uncontrollably.

A devil better tempts us only after a devil confuses us.

© Copyright 2013, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

Share

A Lesson from Lincoln’s 1860 Cooper Union Speech

Saturday, August 24th, 2013

From a speech given by Abraham Lincoln on February 27, 1860, at the Cooper Institute (alternatively called Cooper Union) in New York:

“These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them [pro-slavery advocates]?

This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words.

Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them.

Senator Douglas’ new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure.

We must pull down our Free State constitutions.

The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.”

From http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm, accessed 8/24/13.

Lincoln aptly described the absolute attitude of advocates of slavery in 1860, and this absolute stance is mirrored by advocates of abortion and of same-sex marriage today. From the point of view of advocates for these modern positions, no one, in the end, must be allowed to stand against them. These advocates will never be satisfied until all stand with them, and until all laws, curricula, and social practices reflect their advocacy for abortion and for same-sex marriage.

Perhaps, then, readers might ponder the rest of Lincoln’s Cooper Union Speech.

© Copyright 2013, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

Share