Abortion

 

Here is one of the least profound statements that you’ll ever hear: Abortion is a difficult and divisive issue.

This is because many people on both sides of the debate look at abortion in a black/white manner.

People’s views on abortion can be roughly divided into two groups: those who think abortion is murder, and those who are in the “my body, my choice” group.

If someone says, “After conception, the fetus is a human being. So abortion is murder”. You can’t really argue this point because that is their belief.

If another person says, “As long as the fetus is in my body, It is part of my body, and thus it is my decision whether or not to have an abortion”. You can’t really argue this point either because that is their belief.

We have a conundrum. Is there a way to handle this?

It’s important to look at abortion from both a moral point of view as well as a legal point of view. Let’s look at the moral point of view first.

For those who think abortion is moral, there are many who think that abortion would be immoral after a certain gestational period. One thought I’ve heard was that abortion would be immoral once the child could live outside the womb. Others have suggested that abortion would be immoral once the fetus can feel pain. Although there is no medical consensus about this, it seems that most researchers would agree that after 26 weeks, the fetus could feel pain. This is at roughly 6 months. An abortion after this period would be considered a late-term abortion.

So morally, most people would think that abortion is immoral after the 6^th month of pregnancy (unless the mother’s health is at risk, or the baby is not viable).

For those who think abortion is murder, either at conception or shortly thereafter, abortion is immoral.

----------------------------------------

Deciding when and if abortion should be illegal is different than deciding when and if it is immoral.

One concept I like in the philosophy of law is that a good law is one that at least 95% of adults agree with. A complete ban on abortion does not meet this criterion, as only about 40% of Americans agree with this law.

Thinking about laws such as those that criminalize murder (after birth), rape, child abuse, or theft, well over 95% of people agree with these laws. Fortunately, most laws are related to these.

However, we could reach that 95% threshold if we made abortion illegal after the 6^th month.

With respect to abortion laws, most of them give punishments for those who provide abortions. But rarely do they indicate punishments for the women who get an abortion. These laws treat women as if they are not responsible for their own decisions. Rational abortion laws should penalize the women who get them equally to those who provide them.

This might sound callous, but there is a good reason to require abortion laws to be this way. After all, how many people (or state legislators) would vote to put women who have an abortion in jail? Not many. And that’s because most of us know many women who have had abortions, and even if we don’t agree with them doing so, most of us don’t want to see them in jail.

-----------------------------------------

Thus, the most compelling conclusion is that abortion should be legal until the last trimester. And in the last trimester, it should be legal if the mother’s health is at risk, or if the baby is not viable.

We can all come together when we acknowledge that no woman gets pregnant in order to have an abortion. What can we do to decrease the number of abortions without making it illegal?

Educating teens and adults about sex and birth control is a good first step. If you are going to have sexual intercourse, and you don’t want to get pregnant, the man and/or woman should use birth control.

Our culture is overly sexualized and is pushing the message that any consensual sex is good.

But sex between those who do not love each other, or do not respect each other can be harmful emotionally.

Men are much less discerning when it comes to sex. Women are more discerning because only they can get pregnant. We should teach our girls and women to say no to sexual intercourse unless they love and respect the man they are with, and that the man that loves and respects them.

Boys should be taught that girls are not ‘play things’, and to have respect for girls and women as they do for their mothers or sisters.

For a woman who does get pregnant, and doesn’t want the baby, she should be informed about the possibility of adoption.

The process of adoption could be much more streamlined and less expensive. Certainly, we want adopting couples to be well-vetted. Once that is done, and a mother is found who wants to give her child up for adoption, the couple should be introduced to the mother (if she so desires). Immediately after birth, and after the child has been cleaned and examined, the baby should be given to its adoptive parents. This allows the baby to immediately bond with its adoptive mother and father, an extremely important process.

We all want to decrease unwanted pregnancies. Doing this would decrease the number of abortions without making it illegal.

 

Tim Farage writes about the application of Natural Law to all areas of society, including education, government, economics, science, math, technology, environmentalism, and relationships.

Free-Market Economics is the only Moral Economic System

Usually, when we talk about ‘markets’, we are referring to ‘free markets’.

If someone is referencing economic exchange, then we can use the term ‘free-market economics’.

Think about an open-air market where merchants are selling their goods. You walk by a merchant whose product you want, and if you agree on a price, you buy it. If not, you don’t. No one can make you buy anything. And no one can stop you from being a merchant.

(Although the government may require health and safety regulations).

This is a good example of free-market economics.

In the United States and most other developed countries, free-market economics is the norm. You can buy cars from whomever you wish if you agree upon a price. You can buy coffee from McDonald’s or Starbucks.

Here is something I consider essential: Free economic markets are the only moral basis for an economy. Why? Because if you can’t choose with whom to do business, or if you can’t open up your own business, then someone else (e.g. the government) is deciding for you.

What right does anyone have, even the government, to tell you what goods and services you can have? Or what business you may start?

The United States’ Declaration of Independence has what might be the most profound words written in the English language:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Because it is our God-given right to be free, no one has the legal right to infringe on our freedom.

(If a person infringes on another’s life or liberty, it is appropriate for the government to prosecute that person).

It’s interesting to see that a free-market economic system is not an economic system at all. It just allows people to freely trade with one another.

Some people mistakenly call this Capitalism, but that is a misnomer. It is a word used my Karl Marx pejoratively, and we know how well Communism has turned out wherever it has been tried.

If we use the term ‘markets’ more broadly, it can refer to the freedom we have in all of the aspects of life. For example, we have a free market in friendship: You can be friends with anyone who wants to be friends with you.

We even have a free market in our food choices: eat whatever you wish.

The only sustainable society is one that allows free markets.

This is why there are so few Communist countries left. Even China, which is a Communist country, has started to prosper because they are allowing more and more free economic markets.

Freedom is essential to any good society. 

But in order to have an enlightened civilization, most people must use their freedom to improve themselves, and make the world a better place.

---------------------------------------------------------------


Tim Farage is a Professor and Graduate Advisor in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. He writes about mathematics, computer science, physics, the reconciliation between science and spirituality, Intelligent Design, and the application of Natural Law to our various systems such as education, government and economics.

How can we save the Earth?

The Earth doesn’t need saving. What can hurt the Earth? The Sun can. In a few billion years, the Sun will destroy the Earth. We can start worrying about that in a million years or so. A huge asteroid, say 1000 miles in diameter, could destroy the Earth. Not much we can do about that, so there’s no reason to worry about it.

What about saving life on Earth? Life has existed on Earth for well over 3 billion years. It has survived ice ages, large asteroids, diseases, and everything else that’s been thrown at it – for 3 thousand million years. At present, life exists on land, under the land, in the oceans, and in the air. Life on Earth is not likely to die off until the Sun does it in.

Certainly, some species will go extinct, and some new ones will crop up. This is as it always has been. Over 99% of the species that ever existed are now extinct. This is how nature works. Don’t feel bad: no species cares if they go extinct, except for humans.

So “saving the Earth” mostly means “saving humans”. Well, there’s good news about humans. There are human communities on every continent except for Antarctica. And we’re smart. We find solutions to problems that occur. We can adapt to many environments. Thus, it is difficult to see how a large portion of humanity can be killed off.

Disease? No. Many countries have modern sanitation and clean water and good medical care. Diseases that may have killed a large portion of humanity in the past can no longer do so.

Nuclear war? Only the United States and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons. What president of the US or Russia would start a large-scale nuclear war? A small-scale nuclear war, say between India and Pakistan, would kill millions, but would not be a threat to humanity.

Global warming? The Earth is warming at the rate of about 2C per century. And by 2100, we’ll mostly have energy generated from sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses, so that will be the end of humanity’s contribution to global warming. Global warming may be disruptive in some areas, but it won’t pose a significant threat to humanity.

Overpopulation? The current population is just over 7 billion. But the rate of growth is slowing, and human population is expected to top out just after mid-century at 9 to 10 billion people. Right now, we could provide enough food for that many people. Technological advances will make food, water, and other resources inexpensively available to all.

So that’s it. Humanity is not under threat. We do not need to save the Earth.

------------------------------------------------

Yet many people are suffering and dying who don’t have to be. And this breaks the heart of all people of good will. What can be done about this? What is the major cause of this?

At its essence, it is the lack of freedom that results in needless suffering and dying.

In the developed world, there is relatively little needless suffering and dying.

But in the developing world, millions are dying and suffering each year from:

- Pollution (mostly from coal-burning power plants)

- Lack of sanitation and potable water

- Terrorism (in Syria alone, millions are affected by terrorism)

- Lack of modern health care

- Lack of crime control

Why are these things happening? The governments in the developing world do not protect their citizens’ freedom to live and believe as they wish. In fact, they mostly violate it.

In many predominantly Muslim countries, you can be arrested or killed for having the wrong belief system. And if you are a person who was a Muslim and converted to another religion, that person can, by Sharia Law, be killed.

In most African countries, the governments are so corrupt that the ruling class keeps most of the wealth to themselves. And they don’t protect property rights, making it difficult for the majority to accumulate wealth.

When governments don’t protect their citizens’ freedoms, especially their economic freedom, their people will not become prosperous. Without prosperity, getting a good education is difficult. And having a good sanitation system is difficult. And being able to afford pollution controls. And conservation measures are difficult.

Without freedom, there is no prosperity. And without prosperity, many of the things we need to lead happy and productive lives are not affordable.

Prosperity is the key to a better world for all. And the single, best thing we can do to assist humanity in becoming prosperous is to promote individual freedom, especially free markets and free trade.

------------------------------------------

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. He writes about mathematics, computer science, physics, the reconciliation between science and spirituality, and the application of Natural Law to our various systems such as education, government and economics. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

Was America Founded upon Judeo-Christian Principles?

Yes, although it would be more accurate to say that America was founded by those who believed in Judeo-Christian principals.

All, or nearly all, of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were Christians, and all were very familiar with the Bible.

There were quite a few ministers among the Signers. George Washington and John Adams, the first two presidents, were devote Christians.

The main writer of the Declaration of Independence was Thomas Jefferson. He admired Christ very much, but did not believe in any of the miracles. But the most well-known part of the Declaration of Independence states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This has been called one of the best-known sentences in the English language, containing the most potent and consequential words in American history.

So our country was founded on this belief that our liberty was endowed to us by God, and therefore there could be no laws infringing upon our liberties. This is explicitly stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Benjamin Franklin believed in a Judeo-Christian God. He didn’t seem to belong to a particular religion, and he donated money to various churches, and at least one Jewish group. He asked that a prayer be said before the Continental Congress met to discuss declaring independence from England. Franklin wrote a letter to the President of Yale University a few weeks before his death:

"I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this one.”

Abraham Lincoln, our most beloved president, considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. He also instituted Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

The Ten Commandments were known by all, and was assumed to be the basis of morality. It is etched in many government buildings, including a number of places in the building that houses the Supreme Court.

The Founders did not want laws requiring particular religious beliefs. Nor did they want laws abridging religious liberty or any other liberty. Therefore, our Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws that infringe upon our liberties.

But the Founding Fathers also believed that America could not be a great country unless it was a moral country.

John Adams said, 

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Thus, the Constitution, which defines the powers of government, does not deal with morality or religion, because these do not come under the purview of government. This, I believe, is what causes some people to mistakenly believe that our country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principals.

But reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which contains the Bill of Rights, along with all the other writings of our Founding Fathers, show that the creation of our country was guided by Judeo-Christian principles.

---

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. One of his main interests is the reconciliation between science and spirituality. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com. Twitter account: Tim Farage (@TimFarage) | Twitter