Mississippi's Proposition 26- Some Thoughts

J+M+J

Proposition 26, a ballot initiative in the State of Mississippi that would have amended that State’s Constitution to define the term “person,” was defeated on Tuesday night, and it wasn’t nearly as close as expected. Here is the text of the proposal:

"Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word 'person' or 'persons', as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."

I was very surprised to read analysis today, (like this on CNN) indicating that women “weren’t even sure how far-reaching [the amendment] would be because the language was so ambiguous.” Ambiguous?

We (you, me, Americans in general) have lost the ability to be honest with ourselves. There is nothing ambiguous about the proposed amendment. It is something like a first principle: a thing that is either true or it is not true; something with which you can either agree or disagree. There’s nothing ambiguous about first principles. The State Constitution either should, or should not, define the term “person” to include human beings from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or their functional equivalent.

We are dishonest because it is easier to let ourselves believe that the language is ambiguous, rather than face the fact that we know the truth, and we don’t like it - perhaps because we have violated the principle.

I can understand a person voting no because they do not think that a fertilized egg is a human being; I certainly don’t agree with it, but I understand it. If they really, truly think that, then they are being logical. But I think that a great majority of those that voted no on the proposal think that a fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of fertilization. They lied to themselves.

No, the proposed amendment was not ambiguous; not even the repercussions of the proposal are ambiguous. We can agree, for example, that an adult woman is a person. There is no ambiguity contained in that sentence (she either is or isn’t). Neither is there any ambiguity in the repercussions of that statement: violating (that is, killing, hurting, stealing from) a grown woman is wrong, and society recognizes that by punishing someone who does it. So, if a fertilized egg is a person? The same repercussions follow: that hurting or killing a fertilized egg is wrong and should not be allowed! Of course, there are particulars to every case; if a person is being attacked and defends himself, society recognizes the subjective specifics of the situation, and does not punish the self-defender. (Would a woman who experiences a miscarriage be put on trial? Really?)

I think voters are hiding behind feigned “ambiguity,” simply because they don’t want to address the real question that an honest vote raises: Do my actions reflect my beliefs? We all put blinders on to our wrongdoings; we find ways to trivialize them, justify them… or we ignore them altogether. Modern science - and those who package it and provide it to us - is great at allowing us to focus on exactly what we want to focus on, and to ignore everything else. To be clear: for a woman taking the pill, there is a chance during each cycle that a fertilized egg will be flushed from her body - prevented from implanting by the direct working of the pill she takes to suppress ovulation every day. But she doesn’t see that, she doesn’t feel it. There’s only the possibility of it - she might not even know about it (except for the publicity this amendment has given to this very likely possibility). It’s so much easier to ignore.

So let’s be honest:

Do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person? In your heart of hearts… when no one is looking… what percentage of people can really, honestly say “no” to themselves?

If you believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and you knew that taking a pill could (and over the course of taking the pill for ten years, almost certainly will, more than once) force that person to be flushed from its temporary home, how can you go on taking that pill?

As many as 70% of women of child-bearing age use the pill. I ask you to look inside your heart and ask yourself: do you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, with a soul imbued by God? Do you understand that it is a medical fact that the pill acts by preventing fertilized eggs (humans with souls, unless you really think otherwise) from implanting in the uterus and forces them to be flushed out? Can you really go on doing this to your babies?

We don’t need laws or constitutional amendments to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong; more of us need to stand up and do the right thing, regardless of what society tolerates. What we must do is pray: pray and do what we know in our hearts to be right, and help our friends and family to do the same. If enough of us do that, maybe then we can change the world. Change will not come from the top down; no politician cares enough to change the world. It has to start with us.

Stranger Than Fiction...

J+M+J

Does anyone still read Frankenstein? It appears that few other fictional works resonate so clearly in our modern society, yet one need only scan news headlines to realize this book has either simply been gathering dust, or, as is more likely, has been degraded to the status of a mere fanciful tale, offering no truthful insights to the modern reality. Undoubtedly, Dr. Frankenstein himself would recoil in horror at the atrocities, masquerading as scientific breakthroughs, to which modern man, in all his “wisdom,” has become desensitized. For while Dr. Frankenstein grossly desecrated the bodies of fellow men to satiate his hubris, at least the subjects of his frightful experimentations were already deceased – in our modern scientific culture, we prefer to use living human beings as our guinea pigs.

For decades, men and women have done everything in their power, through a barrage of “birth control” practices ranging from “the pill” to abortion and everything in between, to thwart nature and God's creative plan, all while satisfying their seemingly uncontrollable sexual desires. Years down the road, when such people finally have all their proverbial ducks in a row - that is, when the partying has subsided, the corporate careers are established (or, sometimes, completed), and the house is bought and paid for (often complete with any little luxury considered “necessary” today) -, then, and only then, do they “welcome” children into their lives. And if these men and women have reached a physical point where nature denies them what they themselves had fought for years to avoid, well, you better bet they'll find a way to have their progeny, come Hell or high water.

Hence, we witness the birth of an era. An era in which such “medical miracles” as a 66 year old new mother or “Octo-mom” are becoming increasingly less shocking. An era epitomized by unchecked scientific “advancement” and personal self-indulgence. In a modern day tragedy, children, who should be blissfully unaware of the darker side of human nature and envied for their purity, are all-too-often left to grapple with questions many adults themselves cannot comprehend. More and more innocent children must wonder as to the mysterious absence of their fathers, asking themselves questions, such as, “Which anonymous sperm donor fathered me?” Instead of proudly being able to point to a loving marriage as the source of their existence, many boys and girls must now accept the grim and highly unromantic reality that they are “test tube babies,” created in the cold, unfeeling world of scientific laboratories, rather than the warmth of the marriage bed.

Surely, many must share my horror when they hear bizarre tales of doctors implanting six fertilized eggs in a woman (a single woman and mother of six other children, no less!), or of a senior citizen being impregnated through the so-called marvels of modern science, but I venture to guess that few question the ethics of in vitro fertilization in general. Many must wonder how I could unfeelingly wish to deprive an infertile couple, desperate for children of their own, of the offspring science can help offer them. But “Octo-mom” and company aside, in vitro fertilization poses an inherently evil threat to proper human relationships and the relationship between man and his Creator.

When children can be created in test tubes, fashioned by the random reproductive cells of any two strangers, and crafted by the hands of scientists, what happens to romance, passion, commitment, or devotion? What place do such laudable attributes, so elemental and essential to man, have in such a world? Already, these virtually antiquated words conjure up images of bygone eras and seem grossly out-of-place in our superficial, lack-luster society. It seems certain that, whether we admit it or not, what little importance and sanctity sexuality still holds is placed in unspeakable jeopardy when science becomes the chief arbiter of life. When children are conceived in sterile laboratory rooms, the need for human beings to engage in fruitful, committed, and devoted relationships with one another lessens, and, subsequently, the sanctity of the marriage act diminishes. By engaging in the martial act and viewing it, not merely as a source of immense pleasure, but also as a demonstration of sacrificial love, and by exhibiting a Faith-filled openness to the possibility of children, human beings are permitted to share in - not usurp - the creative power of God. Furthermore, it is this attitude of self-denial for love of spouse, potential children, and God that proves the true readiness of a man or woman to assume one of the most selfless vocations known to man: that of parenthood.

It's funny, when you are in the midst of changing dirty diapers, tackling the seemingly never-ending laundry, chasing rebellious toddlers, or any other of the litany of duties parenting involves, it's difficult to imagine anyone believing parenthood is a self-gratifying job. As a parent of two young children, I myself have had to come to grips with the overwhelming realization that, while you don't surrender your own identity upon becoming a parent, true parenthood requires the complete giving of oneself in service of a greater good: namely, raising the children entrusted to you by God. Today, however, instead of welcoming this distinctive and challenging privilege as a gift, our society has come to view children as commodities, expected to magically vanish at inauspicious times and, likewise, appear on demand when the “time is right.” Ironically, we now have a role reversal where children are subject to the capricious nature of their parents, who, like small children, seem to feel the world revolves around them and their desires.

I assume many will feel a sense of outrage at my criticism of these aforementioned practices. What gives me the right to stand in the way of scientific advancement and personal happiness? Blinded by their own desire for scientific glory or personal fulfillment, proponents of in vitro fertilization impose Machiavellian “ethics” upon procreation, paying little heed to the victims left in the wake of “progress.” For undoubtedly, it will be the “creatures” of these mad scientific experiments, not the “creators,” who will suffer most acutely.

Dr. Frankenstein's creature largely lamented his existence and ultimately despised the man who bestowed life on him in such a cruelly unnatural fashion. One can only hope and pray that the human legacies of such atrocities as in vitro fertilization, sperm banks, and all the other trappings of science-run-amok, may forgive their creators for the cavalier attitude they demonstrate toward the sanctity of human life.

M.K.