Scottness

The Texans just passed on Reggie Bush AND Vince Young...in favor of filling the actual greatest postition need on the team and some extra picks, you ask? No. In favor of a guy who lost to another defensive player for MVP of his team.

I became an instant Houston Texans fan two years before they had ever played a down upon hearing that they were going to be called the "Texans". I believe that selection and the one of their logo would battle for the single best decision they've made to this day.

They're not from my city, but they truly won my heart during those early years...you know, those years before they played.

Here's my dead-honest opinion on the matter: I can't say I know the future, but I think the odds of regretting this decision are awful high. I'll be more surprised and impressed in this team's pick than any other decision in history if this turns out to be even just an equally good selection. I can't even hope that this was an awesome selection.

Reggie and Vince were not just freaky physical specimens. They were proven game-changers with the stats to complement their highlights, even on a big stage against the best competition of arguably the decade.

I was feeling somewhat guilty about the fact that I knew I would favor any team that moved to San Antonio. That San Antonio could have gotten a football team of its own must never have crossed my mind.

I'm still hanging with the Texans, but I actually want the New Orleans Saints (who got Reggie Bush at #2) to move to San Antonio now. I want it. And I wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt.

I dislike the current American approach toward politics. You've heard the reverently held democratic ideal that "every vote counts." Political correctness dubbed it a social moral to merely vote, as if standing in line and pulling a lever cures bad legislation. I submit that it would be better for our collective welfare to instead revere a slightly modified ideal, "informed votes count."

The root of the problem, of course, lies in that it is nearly impossible to adequately inform each voter in a vast heterogeneous citizenry. To make matters worse, the "age of information" quickly ushered in the "age of misinformation." The mass media machine, an inevitable puppet of ratings, indiscriminately inundates us with shallow, disjointed, divisive, distracting, irrelevant, partial, biased, or even flat-out false information. In these times where even the village idiot has his own virtual soapbox (this being exhibit A), swimming through the data is a daunting task.

However, can't we at least put up a resistance to the pageant that is now our presidential campaigns? Do we really have to fall for vague, media-friendly soundbytes with no substance, or for who can best contrive a 'winner' image? Do our politicians really have to become gutless people-pleasers for mass consumption? We're so conditioned by hype the World Wrestling Federation would envy that a good politician is now defined by a remarkable smile and superior question-dodging ability.

You know they do that because it works on our apparently lazy psyches. Can't we at least try to think a little harder before the debates are held in swimsuits?

You know you're in bad shape when you burp and taste nothing but tequila.

Preface
I should first recognize that any legal issue is a matter of punishability, not freedom. Laws simply bestow upon society the justification to punish a person if they are caught for freely choosing a particular course of action. One is and always will be absolutely free to break the law, and, in fact, do whatever she so desires. If one were legally restricted from performing an abortion, it would not impose on her “freedom” any more than any other law does. This may seem trivial at first, but somehow it is often lost in the debate and it is important to keep in mind when sorting through rhetoric.

The fulcrum of the issue
Assuming we want consistent policy-making, the question of legality with regard to the procedure we call abortion, the intentional killing of a human fetus, really rests on the answer to one question:

Is the killing of a human fetus the same as killing a member of the human species (homo sapien)?

Note, it has already been established with considerable unanimity that killing another member of the human species is usually punishable as murder (of course depending upon how the decision to kill weighs against the alternative and the intellectual viability of the killer).

Therefore, if the answer is “yes”, there is already a governing precedence regarding the legality of abortion, specifically that it should usually be illegal. If the answer is “no”, it is on its own as a unique issue, and it should be ruled upon ad hoc. As you can see, vast implications depend upon this pivotal question.

The short answer (conclusive)
Before tackling the question itself, we can already conclude something. The burden of proof lies on the ‘nay sayers’. Most citizens believe strongly that the taking of a human life is perhaps the most serious of offenses and should be avoided at nearly every cost. When weighed against every other offense, murder weighs heaviest in the scales of justice. Murder is usually not justified even if a person is stealing your belongings, physically brutalizing you, raping you, or even committing all three crimes against you at once.

In fact, human life is deemed so sacred that the killing of a human has historically been legally tolerated only when it was weighed against yet another killing, or a greater degree of innocent human death, as in the case of properly declared war, or in the case of corporal punishment. Even when one kills another unintentionally, she risks a conviction of involuntary manslaughter, no small punishment itself.

All of this is to say that murder, in most justice systems, warrants radical avoidance, even at the cost of severe pain, misery, and least of all, the inconvenience of being accountable for one’s fetus. It is truly a last resort. As a result, if there exists any measure of doubt as to whether or not an activity is murder, prudence demands that the law remain on the safe side, lest it unwittingly authorize murder.

That being said, it is relatively clear that, unless it can be proven beyond a hint of doubt that killing a fetus is decidedly not killing a living human, abortion should be punishable by law, or illegal, to be on the safe side. On the same token, the case where the mother’s life is in danger should be the exception. This case accounts for less than 1 percent of all abortions.

Given that whether or not a fetus is a member of the human species is still an open issue, and even if it remains so forever, the issue can and should be practically legislated with the information up to this point. All discussion after this point is in effect unnecessary, but still edifying.

The long answer (a moot point)
Though the likelihood that we can come to any watertight conclusions about whether a zygote, and a fetus in its latter stages, is indeed a human, there is still value in delving into the question. As a side note, it is interesting that the “intelligent” conversations will inevitably migrate to the foundations of personhood in philosophy, the same discipline that denies the possibility of coming to watertight conclusions about any propositions whatsoever. So, it is likely not saying much that we cannot come to watertight conclusions about this question.

With the standard, even common, rules of logical discourse and evidence that humans regularly use to reach conclusions, I believe we can at least rule out a number of oft heard assertions with an adequate measure of certainty. I will take these up one at a time. This way we can pare down to the only remaining options.

There is the claim, implied by the “my body, my choice” catch phrase, that a fetus is part of its mother’s body. There are at least two major problems with this idea. The first is that a fetus possesses a plethora of qualities that disqualify it from being part of the mother’s body. One body, by definition, cannot contain two separate DNA codes, two distinct blood types, two genders, two minds, and on and on. If you prick a fetus with a needle, the mother does not feel it. In fact, a fetus can survive for some time and be salvaged even if its mother dies. The second problem is that even if a fetus were a part of the mother’s body, it is a moot point. Women (and men) cannot legally do anything they want with their bodies. For example, offering my body for money is illegal. Injecting my body with certain drugs is also illegal. The existence of law is really a testament to the very notion that one cannot legally do anything she wants with herself.

A fetus is often dubbed a “lump of tissue”, in turn de-animating, and certainly dehumanizing it. I believe it is clear to most people that the fetus is at least a living creature. That is difficult to refute. If it were not living, there would be no sense in aborting it.

However, the question of its humanity is a bit more interesting. Is it human? The obvious follow-up is, “If it’s not human, what is it?”. Have we discovered a new species? What separates a fetus from a legally protected individual such as myself? Time and nourishment, hardly determinate qualities in species identification, appear to be the only differences.

Incidentally, whether it is "wanted" or not is hardly a determinate quality either, yet it is the operating definition in our current policies dealing with our unborn citizens.

The Deflection
Thus far, I have explained what I believe is the logical path toward addressing the abortion issue. As long as strict proof that an unborn baby is not human eludes us, consistency with existing murder legislation alone should settle the policy. Any other considerations appear to be peripheral and inconsequential to the conclusion.

Despite that, proponents of legalized abortion often argue that since pregnancy applies only to women, a man's opinion is inherently invalid by virtue of the fact that, for him, direct experience is a physiological impossibility. It is even implied that the most credible opinions belong to those who have specifically experienced an unwanted pregnancy or, better yet, the emotional horror of rape. This angle, whether deliberate or not, actually works to discount the view of most women also. Regardless, in the end, it is remarkably successful at muddying the waters of an otherwise on-topic discussion.

Reading between the lines, I believe that the argument can be a well-meaning, legitimate plea for empathy. It aims to evoke appreciation for the turmoil of sexual assault victims and women with unwanted pregnancies, particularly if they were to face no legal options to "escape".