7 Quick Takes Friday Part V

1. My favorite genealogy tidbit I've come across so far is from the 1910 Census, when my great-great-grandmother and my great-great-grandfather, who were married to each other, answered the question "number of years in current marriage" with two different numbers. Two people in the same marriage could not possibly have been in that marriage for 16 and 17 years, respectively, right?

2. Karma is lying to your professor - because you had really sweet tickets to a Georgetown basketball game, even if the Hoyas did play like crap - and saying you were sick so you could skip class, and then waking up the very next morning with a sore throat, stuffy nose, and nagging cough. I'm not complaining. I deserved it. I know.

3. Overheard in DC:
Man on his cell phone, presumably with his wife: "I love you like Barack loves Michelle."

4. There was a girl in my class this morning, a girl from Florida, who said that today was the first time she'd ever seen real snow. I didn't know people like that still existed.

5. Just before the basketball game last Thursday - the one that took precedence over my History class - we went to a Happy Hour with some friends. One friend said, "I'm going to New York tomorrow. Want to come?" I said, "Yes." She turned to Rhett. "Want to come to New York with me and Scarlett?" He said, "Yes." We all packed that night, and left for New York the next day after work. I love being spontaneous.

6. In case anyone's wondering, Grover Cleveland the Betta fish is doing most wonderfully after his near brush with hypothermia a few weeks ago. Is it absurd that, mostly for his benefit, I'm leaving the heat on when there's no one home?

7. My New Year's Resolution to "get back in shape" has been moving pretty slowly. It has thus far been limited to taking the stairs at work. . . as long as I'm going down.

Check out more Quick Takes at Conversion Diary!

"If you don't know whether a body's dead, you don't bury it": Good, Secular Pro-Life Arguments

"If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it."

So said Ronald Reagan in a 1983 article for The Human Life Review. The abortion debate often revolves around the question of when life begins. Conception? Implantation? Quickening? First trimester? Second? Third? Birth? Partial-birth? Is a "clump of cells" alive? An embryo? Is an embryo a clump of cells? What about a fetus? Is a fetus more alive at 7 months than at 2? Is a newborn 10 minutes after birth more alive than a fetus 10 minutes before birth?

All of these questions are essentially irrelevant.

I would argue that this is because life begins at conception, plain and simple, but I can't prove that to you. Neither, however, can you prove to me that it does not.

One of us is very wrong. If I'm wrong, my mistake would deprive women of a reproductive health service with no moral implications, having potentially damaging effects on women's rights and health. If you're wrong, your mistake would destroy an innocent life.

Would you rather imprison or execute a wrongfully-convicted "criminal"? If you might be wrong, if you can't know for sure, you opt for imprisonment, right? If you have to take a chance, either with someone's freedom or with someone's life, you err on the side of not accidentally killing the innocent.

I will not argue that carrying a pregnancy to term reduces the freedom of a woman, but if it did, that is certainly the lesser of two evils when compared to killing an innocent child.

If you were driving down the street, and saw a life-like baby doll lying in the middle of the road, would you run it over? You don't think it's a real baby, but you can't be 100% sure. Do you run it over? You do not. You swerve, you get out to make sure. You double check. You don't risk the life of what's even possibly a child.

Killing a baby is a terrible thing, and I don't think anyone disputes that. Killing a baby is such a terrible thing that it should be avoided at all costs. So terrible that even the potential, even the slightest possibility of it should be avoided at all costs. The possibility of killing a baby based on a misconception is such a terrible thing that the abortion debate simply must operate under the assumption, from all sides, that life begins at conception. The consequences are much more dire if the pro-choicers are mistaken about the beginning of life than if the pro-lifers are.

My Rosaries are Nowhere Near Your Ovaries: Good, Secular Pro-Life Arguments

I've begun to realize that most people who are pro-choice view any religious language - from the most concrete "Abortion is wrong because the Church says so" to the vaguest, most unassailable, "Life is sacred" - as justification of their view that anyone who is pro-life is trying to force his religion on the rest of the world. This, of course, is not true. While the idea of people joining the Church pleases me greatly - and I was never so honored as when a friend asked me to be his RCIA sponsor - my pro-life views have almost nothing to do with that. They just make sense. They just feel right. I understand the perspective of pro-choice people, which tends to be well-intentioned, but I really can't fathom how most of them come to their views, because, to me, the right to life is. . . self-evident.

While secular arguments for the pro-life position resonate with me precisely because life is sacred, they work just as well, I think, if that premise is left unspoken.

Imagine: "You shouldn't kill babies because all life is sacred." Works for me.

But try this: "You shouldn't kill babies." That works for me, too, and I think it works for everyone.

I'd imagine most people inherently believe life is sacred, but many will not explicitly acknowledge that, and trying to make them do so turns them off entirely. They know there's something special there, so they won't fight it, as long as you don't make them admit that "sacredness" is real, or that life's inherent worth is God-given. Just leave it at "life has inherent worth," and you'll get a whole lot further with some segments of the population.

With that in mind, consider this the introduction to a series of posts on the completely secular pro-life arguments that I find most compelling. I'll do my best to leave God out entirely.

Boys, Guns, and Abortion

My boyfriend is pro-choice. He's said, "I don't think abortion is a good thing, but I don't think you can make it illegal. If it were up to me, though, there wouldn't ever be a single abortion."

That was the most recent time we argued about this subject. The first time, we had a conversation that went something like this:


Scarlett: What would you want to do if we got pregnant before we got married?
Rhett: Whatever you want to do.
Scarlett: But what would you want to do?
Rhett: I'd support whatever your decision was.
Scarlett: But what you want to do?
Rhett: I'd be okay with whatever you wanted to do.
Scarlett: But what would your preference be?
Rhett: I don't have a preference. It's up to you.
Scarlett: Okay, pretend I'm in a temporary coma and can't have or make known an opinion, so the decision is entirely up to you and you have to make it before I wake up because afterwards it will be too late?
Rhett: I guess I might have a slight preference that maybe we keep it.


Why is that so hard to say? If you can say, "If it was up to me, there wouldn't be any abortions," why won't you express an opinion when I'm trying to leave it up to you?* Why has society beaten it into men that not only is this not their decision, but they're not even allowed to have an opinion? How on earth did we get to a point where even "I'd prefer we have and raise this child, but I'll support whatever decision you make" is considered coercion? Why do otherwise strong-willed, opinionated, caring men in communicative, involved, equitable relationships suddenly start acting like these most important of decisions are to be made unilaterally, and I'd better just leave the room while you think about it and decide. Why can't they say what they think, even in a hypothetical situation?**


Because society has apparently told them, time and time again, that to express an opinion is coercion, will force a girl into doing what her boyfriend wants. But imagine a girl who is honestly trying to decide whether or not she'd be able to bring a baby into a loving family to raise it well, despite being a young, un-wed mother. If what her boyfriend communicates to her is "I don't care whether this child lives or dies" - which is pretty much what "It's your choice. I don't have an opinion." communicates - the prospects of the kid having a loving family suddenly seem quite dim. The father could very well be open the idea of raising and caring for his child, but since he's not allowed to say so, she won't ever know - especially if he wouldn't even say so earlier in the relationship, when it was only a hypothetical discussion.


During this most recent argument we had about abortion, I asked a question that seems to be a pretty standard pro-life tactic. "Oh, so you don't think abortion is a good thing, but don't think it should be illegal? Name one other thing that you think there should be less of that you don't bother to make illegal." He named two.


Guns and cigarettes.


Good answers.


At first blush, they work well for you, pro-choicers. You don't get rid of the Second Amendment, even if you want to reduce gun violence. And of course you don't outlaw smoking, even though it's bad for you and we all wish no one smoked. That wouldn't be consistent with a smoker's personal autonomy.

But let's take these analogies a little further, shall we?

A plan for effective gun control and reducing gun violence would not include the government paying for guns for poor people. It would not include federal funding, to the tune of 336.7 million dollars a year to the nation's largest gun manufacturer. It would not include a bill designed to eliminate all current restrictions on gun ownership and use.***

We reduce smoking by telling kids in school not to smoke. No public school would ever tell kids not to have an abortion. Phillip Morris has to put warnings on cigarettes. Planned Parenthood doesn't have to start appointments with warnings about how bad abortions are. It's a good thing, an act of concern and compassion, to try to convince a friend to stop smoking. It's oppressive and coercive to try to convince a friend not to have an abortion. A girl can tell her boyfriend to quit smoking or they're through - now that's coercion! - but a guy can't tell his girlfriend - or even his wife - that he'd like them to raise their child, even if he doesn't issue an ultimatum, doesn't speak in absolutes.

I could maybe accept the "aim for fewer abortions without making it illegal" line of thinking if we actually treated abortion the way we treat other negatives that we don't make illegal, by actively discouraging it. As it is, we make it a special case, no one offers advice or makes suggestions for fear of "oppression," "coercion," or limiting "women's rights," doing nothing but paying lip service to the idea of reducing the number of abortions.




*Not that it would actually be up to him, because I abortion's simply not on the table for me, nor is there any likelihood of our getting pregnant before we're married.
**Is asking many rhetorical questions in a row poor blogging technique?
***I generally only use Wikipedia as a source for topics that are too controversial for me to find accurate, unbiased data by googling.

7 Quick Takes Friday Part IV

Visit Jen at Conversion Diary for more Quick Takes!

1. You know you're set in your ways - perhaps to a fault - when you reach for a pen and find yourself thinking, "Come on now! Who in their right mind would ever use blue ink?"

2. The kind of thing you would only ever overhear if you worked at an archives:

"Come tell me about some history so I can love you again."

3. I can't be the only person who sees a commercial for this and really, really wants to caulk a bathroom, can I?

4. Only in DC can you ask a crying not-quite-two year-old who the new president is and have the response be an excited "Brock Obmama!" and no more tears.

5. I find the new president's daughters very confusing. It seems to me that they are always referred to as "Sasha and Malia." Malia's the older one, though, and everyone knows that the older sibling always comes first when referring to a pair of siblings. Trust me. If the press knew that, I could stop being constantly confused by which one was older, and I would appreciate that.

6. I hate milk, and almost never drink it. When I eat chocolate chip cookies, I drink lemonade. Delicious.

7. Who would have thought that, in my second semester of grad school, I'd be back to reading Spark Notes for class? I'm not proud of it, but between Inauguration hoopla and an entire day devoted to watching 24, I didn't spend enough of my weekend devoted to homework. I'm going to have to come up with a real schedule for this semester, or else possibly cut back on my hours at work, but I can't really afford that.

March for Life, Part II

I decided to go to the March for Life today, even if it did just mean walking around the Mall for 20 minutes on my lunch break, even if my presence makes no difference in the fact that this country will support abortion more tomorrow than it did yesterday. It was inspiring - more so than I expected - to see hundreds, possibly thousands (this was before the actual March arrived) of people of all different ages and ethnicities, who actually believe that human life is worth protecting. As much time as I spend on the internet reading pro-life blogs, when you're from a blue state and live in the bluest of blue cities, your friends are all pro-choice, your family's mostly pro-choice and the rest apathetic, it's hard to conceptualize that the pro-life movement is this big and this real. All those pro-life writers, all those pro-life voters - they're real people! Flesh and blood people who care passionately about innocent lives. I've heard people say that the March for Life is more about solidarity than change, and that always made it seem inane. Of course the March has to go on - in many ways it's the only visibility the pro-life movement gets - but if you're only going to make yourself feel good about the existence of others like you, there's almost no point. I still feel like that, to a degree, but now I understand the point of solidarity, how important it is to not just know but to experience the fact that there are more pro-life people in this world than just me, my Aunt Sue, and that kid Jake from work. I understand action, though, too. I heard a few congressmen (I think) speak, and I'll have to look up who was who and who said what, but the one saying "We're winning this because of people like you" didn't speak to me. We may win the war - I have to believe, no matter how unlikely it seems, that we'll win the war - but, just as Obama is poised, pen over paper, to overturn the Mexico City Policy, so are we poised to lose a lot of battles in the coming years. The speaker who inspired me was the one talking about action - about letters to the editor, meetings with your congressmen, asking how they intend to vote before they do so, because complaining after the fact does no one any good. As I'm sure you can tell from this morning's post, I didn't expect the March for Life to make me feel good, to give me hope in humanity and the legislative process, to reinforce the belief that this is something worth fighting for. I was wrong.

March for Life

I'm at work today, mere feet from the National Mall. The Mall, today, is not as crowded as it was on Tuesday, or even as crowded as it was on Sunday afternoon for the concert, but it's crowded nonetheless, with pro-life protestors. Estimates I've seen say there are probably 100,000-200,000 of them. I support their cause whole-heartedly, and I may walk out there during my lunch break to see what's going on, but I'm not sure I "get" March for Life. It just doesn't seem to do anything. Abortion will be just as legal tomorrow as it was yesterday, whether I go outside or spend my lunch break inside online or doing homework, whether any of these well-meaning protestors show up at all.

Most pro-life efforts, for that matter, don't seem to do anything, and that's very frustrating for me lately. I've written my Representative, and my Senator (just the one - it didn't seem worth it to write Clinton, since she won't hold that office long enough to vote on anything in this Congress; I'll wait and write her replacement), but even that, concrete though it may be, seems futile; all of my congressmen have 100% NARAL ratings and are very pro-choice. Clinton is even a cosponsor of FOCA. What I say won't change how they vote at all. I'll dutifully sign a postcard when I go to church on Sunday. My postcard won't change how they vote. Whether I march down the Mall holding a sign at lunch tomorrow won't change how they vote. Prayer may change how they vote, but it sure hasn't yet. Volunteering at a crisis pregnancy center or praying outside of an abortion clinic are both ideas I've considered briefly, but I don't get the feeling that they save very many lives. Some, I'm sure, but until they can change society's mind and a senator's vote, it doesn't seem like any of it actually matters.

And I know that it does matter. Of course it matters. The deaths of millions of innocents certainly matter. Their lives, short though they may be, matter. But it doesn't seem like any of the pro-life movement's most concerted efforts are worth it, because it doesn't seem like they have any effect, and what modest effects they may have had over the past eight years certainly won't be matched by a similar response over the next 4 (or 8).

Which is to say, I should feel hopeful, knowing that my office is literally surrounded by hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers at the moment. . . but I don't.

My Inauguration Day Experience

In 2005, even though I'd voted for Bush, I didn't bother to attend the Inauguration or Inaugural Parade. I just honestly don't care that much about politics, I didn't want to deal with the crowds, and my roommate and I figured we'd rather stay home and watch soap operas. Who would expect that a Presidential Inauguration would pre-empt All My Children?

My fear of crowds was clearly much worse this year, since the crowds would be much worse. I watched the Inaugural Concert (who knew there was such a thing?) on TV in Rhett's living room, and didn't make any plans to go to the Inauguration itself. Monday, though, I started feeling like I was going to be missing out. It is kind of a big deal, after all. I made plans to try to meet up with friends for the parade. Parades are fun, regardless of what they're celebrating.

Once I got downtown, I realized that we were heading at the parade route from opposite sides, so I would have to cross Pennsylvania Avenue to get to where they were. After walking for a while and half an hour or 45 minutes in line, I started to hear whisperings from the people around me that no one was being allowed to cross the parade route, not even at the designated crossing points that had been advertised beforehand.

I had told my friends earlier that if it didn't look like we'd be able to meet up, I'd just go home. Parades are fun, unless you're watching them alone in a crowd. But I was already there, I was already waiting, I was in the one security line that seemed to be moving. Wouldn't it be too much of a waste to go home without even giving it a shot? I stayed in line, but I wasn't happy about it. I was getting quite depressed about prospect of waiting for 4 hours (turned out to be 5, but I couldn't have forseen the delay from Sen. Kennedy's seizure), alone, with no one to talk to, just to watch a parade celebrating a man whose ascent to the Presidency worries me more than it pleases me.

Then Rhett called. Even though he and his mom had had tickets to the Inauguration itself, the crowds were so bad they couldn't even get inside the gate to get to their seats. They had turned around and gone back to his apartment to watch on tv. I joined them. He gets stuck outside of presidential inaugurations at the same time I do; that's why I love him.

It was still maybe not my favorite way to spend the day; he, his family, and all of his friends are staunch Democrats who love Obama and hate Bush. I'm a right-leaning moderate who doesn't really like Obama, and doesn't really like Bush. I was not 100% on board with the champagne toast when Obama took the Oath of Office, nor with all the clapping when Bush left DC in what would formerly have been Marine One, but I'm not quite at the place yet where I want to have political arguments with Rhett's mother, so I drank my champagne, didn't clap, and watched tv without talking much. Still, it was a heck of a lot warmer than the Mall, and after something like 5 hours of Inauguration coverage and updates on Ted Kennedy's condition (which would have been welcome had they been updates, but since they were just repitions of the same information at 15-minute intervals, it got a little grating), we were able to change the channel and watch Cash Cab.

Politics on the Street Corner

Coming home from church last night, a group of people - most looked like teenagers, one or two might have been a little older - were talking about Obama and the upcoming Inauguration, which of course led to talking about Bush and the out-going administration. I'm no huge fan of George Bush - nor of Obama, nor, for that matter, of any politician I can think of - but you simply cannot blame everything that's ever gone wrong on him. I'm not nearly outspoken enough, though, to get into political arguments with strangers on the street by protesting when they say things like,

"Ain't never had no terror attacks before George Bush. Al-Qaeda started planning September 11 as soon as they heard George Bush was president."

I generally have no interest in politics, and don't have any plans to blog about it much if at all. There's startling ignorance displayed, though, by people who can hate someone without having all the facts - like that the plans for 9/11 were initiated well before Bush took office, or that there were plenty of terrorist attacks during Clinton's terms.

On a related note, I generally despise the term "drank the Kool-Aid" as used in reference to fans of Obama - I think it's insulting, and I have a lot of good friends who are fans of his - but I couldn't help but note that it unfortunately seemed very apt yesterday when I walked past the Metro. There must have been a dozen people selling T-shirts on the street corner - with everything from his face to the White House in grey, labeled "The Black House" - and a guy selling commemorative newspapers, not to mention all the tourists. I've gotten into arguments - online and in real life - for saying things like "he's only human," so I'm not going to comment any more, beyond saying I wish him all the best.

Grover Cleveland's Health Update

Update: Grover Cleveland is doing well. He still seems a little lethargic, and he wasn't as enthusiastic when I got home as he usually is, but he's up and moving and eating some, so I've got high hopes for him.

7 Quick Takes Friday Part III

1. After a long Christmas break, I came back to work on Monday and learned that all the men's rooms had become women's rooms, and all the women's rooms had turned into men's rooms. Very important information, indeed.

2. I've had this idea in my head that I'm a good influence on Rhett's eating habits. After all, I've introduced him to exotic foods like the eggplant, the mango, the avocado, and the kiwi, not to mention cookies baked from scratch, and sushi. Earlier this week, I learned that this is a two-way street. . . when he introduced me to the corndog.

3. Inauguration mania is making living in this city quite an experience. I'm pretty sure Bush's last inauguration - I was here for that one, too - was nothing like this, although as a college freshman, there may have been some hubbub that I missed because I was in a bubble and isolated from the real world. This time around is madness, though. I got an e-mail from a friend, who lives in Virginia, just outside the District, asking me if I could babysit Monday for a family she usually sits for. It ended with, "I'd do it myself, but I can't get there, because all the bridges will be closed." Absurdity!

4. Earlier this week, I was intrigued by signs posted on tree trunks and telephone poles around Rhett's neighborhood. (It's not a bad area, I swear.) These signs read something to the effect of "This has been declared a Prostitution-Free Zone by DC Metropolitan Police." Okay. Unsettling, but legitimate. Closer examination, though, would reveal that they also said, "In effect: 1/16/09 until 1/25/09." Really? Shouldn't the whole city, be a "prostitution-free zone," you know, all the time?

5. This weekend, Rhett and his friends are reviving an annual tradition, wherein they watch the previous season of 24 in real time. An hour per episode, starting at the time the season started (6 am), staying up for 24 straight hours. I've never even seen an episode of 24. I'm not sure why I've let myself be talked into attending this event, but I have. I'm looking forward to it, but with a degree of trepidation.

6. Grover Cleveland (my fish) is doing very poorly. I think the house got too cold during the day yesterday while my roommate and I were both at work. As I type this (Thursday evening), he is locked in the bathroom, because that is the room that heats up quickest, since it's smallest. Keep your fingers crossed.

7. I've been walking around in a fog all week. I'm not sure quite what's up with me. I can't carry on a conversation well, and since I've been meeting lots of new people, both at work and in my classes for the semester, I think I'm coming off quite poorly. I'm not usually much of a conversationalist, but I don't usually feel quite as incompetent and tongue-tied as I have been at almost every turn lately. When I was having drinks with my close friends, I could laugh and say, "Sorry, I've been such a poor conversationalist all day" when I mumble incoherently at a pleasantry, but that's an awkward thing to say to that new guy at work I've made small talk with twice.

Make sure everyone checks out 7 Quick Takes Friday with Jen over at Conversion Diary!

What's Past Is Prologue

Since getting back to DC on Sunday, all I've heard about is the upcoming historic Inauguration. Traffic patterns for the historic Inauguration, crowd control for the historic Inauguration, Metro access for the historic Inauguration, and even a news story about how hospitals will only be offering emergency care that week, because of the historic Inauguration, so your stomach virus or diagnostic testing had better wait. Because it bugs me when people write history in the present - the future cannot yet be history, no matter how important it is - here are a few cool links about the actual past.

http://wardepartmentpapers.org/
The reconstructed papers of the War Department, 1784-1800. An 1800 fire destroyed the War Department offices, and this project by George Mason University attempted to piece together what was lost by retrieving alternate copies.

http://architecture.about.com/od/usa/tp/WhiteHouseFacts.htm
This just popped up in the "Web Clips" at the top of my Gmail, but it includes a handful of cool and interesting facts about the history of the White House.

http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Default/Skins/BEagle/Client.asp?Skin=BEagle
I've already linked to the Brooklyn Eagle's online archives, but I think it's cool enough and relevant enough to do again.

http://archives.gov/75th/
The National Archives is celebrating its 75th Anniversary in 2009. This site should be updated throughout the year with information about events happening not just at AI (the main building in DC) but also at regional archives and presidential libraries throughout the country.

http://www.ellisislandrecords.org/
Free search of Ellis Island's records of incoming passenger ships. Go find your ancestors!

http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov/
Did you know the Lincoln family dog was named Fido? 2009 in the Bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, and this site includes cool facts and information about Lincoln as well as links to exhibits and programs celebrating his 200th birthday.