You can not be serious!

Huh? WTF?! Do Republicans really think that women are that stupid? Frustrated Hillary supporters won't be able to vote for her in November, but this 1/2 term governor of a sparsely populated state, ex-mayor of Bumfuck, Egypt, this former beauty pageant contestant, gun-toting enemy of polar bears and women's rights is somehow the next-best-thing? Really? McCain, if elected, will be the oldest man ever sworn in as president. He has battled cancer no less than four times. His medical history file is over 1200 pages! Is he really going to try to sell us on the idea that he believes she is ready to lead this nation should anything happen to him? Presumably, while continuing to deny Barack Obama's readiness and experience? Oh, Gramps.

The Abortion Issue

I was fortunate enough to have been at the Saddleback Church Civic Forum on August 16, 2008 in Lake Forest, CA. Pastor Rick Warren asked the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Barack Obama, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"
Senator Obama then launched into a very sensitive, very intelligent, and very nuanced response to that question, a question that he must have heard as "at what point does a fetus become a person?"
I know he was in hostile territory trying to win some hearts and minds. I know he was caught off guard with these questions (unlike McCain). But he really did come off as too uncertain, too apologetic. My answer, admittedly with the benefit not only of hindsight but of hearing Sen. Obama's and others' responses to this question, is as follows:

"Well, first of all, Pastor Rick, and with all due respect, the way you phrased that question perfectly exemplifies the divide in this country over this issue. The answer to the question, as you asked it, is: 'Of course "babies" are entitled to human rights at all times, without question.' The implication in your phrasing is that supporters of Roe v Wade have no regard for babies whatsoever, that millions of Americans are absolutely cavalier about snuffing out the lives of innocent infants. I humbly submit to you and the members of this church, and to evangelicals and all so-called pro-lifers across this great country, that this is not the question that pro-choicers are wrestling with. Nor are we wrestling with the question of when life begins. Clearly, life begins at conception. A living egg cell is fertilized by a living sperm cell becoming a living zygote. The living zygote divides again and again, becoming a living embryo. The multi-cellular embryo gradually develops the phenotypic anatomy of humanness and is called a fetus. The fetus grows in size and, more importantly, in nervous system complexity, developing a spinal network and the tell-tale neo-cortex indicative of the human brain, beginning at about 21 weeks. No, the issue we wrestle with is not when life begins. It's not when babies have human rights. The question for us is: "When does a fetus become a person?" Now, to answer that question with specificity is above my pay-grade, frankly. Clearly, there is much debate over this question in America. However, as Commander in Chief I will have to err on the side of the known person, the young woman seeking an abortion, because a) none of us dispute her status as a person, and b) the decision to rule against her would seem to be based on the religious views of a certain sector, and I am not comfortable with legislating the religious views of anyone.
That is why I support a woman's right to choose. It's because it is a complex and difficult issue, not because I don't care about a baby's rights! It's because so many more lives are impacted by unwanted pregnancies than just the potential lives of the unwanted fetuses, not because I love abortions and think we should have abortions all the time, for sport. Nobody really thinks that way, and it is harmful and disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Look, we've had a pro-life president in the White House for the last 8 years and we're no closer to solving the abortion issue. Maybe it's time we stop shouting past each other and start talking to each other about what we have in common. We can all agree that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is a good thing. It will lead to fewer abortions by definition. Until we can talk to each other from a place of agreement and common ground, nothing will get done. I'm willing to work with you if you're willing to work with me."

I, Sagredo

In 1632, Galileo Galilee published his "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems- Ptolemaic and Copernican." The Church, of course, held fast to the Ptolemaic view, the view supported by the Bible, that the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo had the temerity to utilize observation and measurements and calculations to arrive at the most reasonable answers to such questions. The Church/State began all such "investigations" with the presumption that the Bible is inerrant. Needless to say, Galileo, and all men of science in their day, had to tread very lightly when introducing any new ideas that might contradict the accepted doctrine. A common literary device of the day, and one which made the author appear at least nominally neutral, was the dialogue. In this case, Galileo presented his helio-centric view in terms of a fictional discussion held among three men: Salviati- an intellectual espousing the Copernican view (clearly speaking for Galileo), Simplicio- an Aristotlean philosopher supporting the then-orthodox view of geo-centrism (the position of the Church), and Sagredo- an intelligent layman in search of the truth (with whom we, the reader, are meant to identify).
Of course we do identify with Sagredo. We should identify with Sagredo. We should be open-minded and willing to hear the arguments of all sides, and further, to weigh those arguments against our own critical thinking and logical skills before reaching any conclusions. To me, this is the elegance of Galileo's "Dialogue." He not only gently introduces his new, blasphemous paradigm, but he presents the oppositional arguments and shows the reader (by following Sagredo's line of reasoning) how to properly digest these arguments. Genius. Too bad he was imprisoned and forced to recant anyway. Oh well. At least the Church acknowledged their error and apologized for it almost 400 years later.
That spirit of open-mindedness, of critical thinking, of justice and truth, that attitude and hunger of Sagredo's persists to this day. It is the highest ethics of journalism. It is the solemn duty of elected and appointed officials. It is the right and obligation of our citizens to ask- what are the facts? what is then the best way to proceed? Salviati may know best, or perhaps it is Simplicio who will deliver us from despair. Sagredo is not certain. Sagredo wants to hear the facts and the persuasive arguments from all sides before making a decision. Sagredo Lives. Sagredo Speaks.