Sunday, February 03, 2008

Wilbur Larch, among others.

For a quarter-century I’ve been scourged by critics hereabouts on the grounds of presumed communism, atheism – and the worst condemnation of all – humanism.

Communist? Only the most stunted of imaginations could contrive charges of communist sympathies in an entrepreneur and small businessman, and yet this idiocy surfaces again and again. I'm a social democrat in the classic European mold, without a political party in this country to represent me, and so be it; I vote against the fascists, and have a clear conscience.

Atheist? Yes. We can discuss that aspect another time, although I suppose that a rejection of the supernatural leads somewhat naturally (pun intended) to the final slur, that of secular humanism.

Humanist? Absolutely and indeed, and in fact, I subscribe to the following, as worded by the Council for Secular Humanism:

Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.

Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness … equality, justice for all … in the here and now, in a world defined far more by gray areas than black and whites connected to the unverifiable … where we must negotiate and compromise with each other in human communities … all these notions underpin my personal conception of humanism. You’re free to disagree.

To me, no one issue better illustrates the struggle for equality on the part of fully half the world’s population than the right of reproductive choice for women. While a woman’s freedom to choose the option of abortion may well represent the extreme component of reproductive choice, a clear majority of Americans believe that it should remain just such a legalized, regulated, and defined option.

I support a woman's right to choose.

Seldom does NAC publish full articles from other sources, but today is an exception.

----

The Abortionist.

THIS COMMON SECRET: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor.

By Susan Wicklund with Alan Kesselheim.

A review in the New York Times Book Review by Eyal Press, a contributing writer at The Nation, and the author of “Absolute Convictions: My Father, a City, and the Conflict That Divided America”

One morning in January 1991, Susan Wicklund arrived at work wearing a heavy coat of makeup and a curly auburn wig pulled over her half-inch-long gray hair. It was a get-up worthy of a double agent, and it succeeded in helping Wicklund slip unnoticed across enemy lines, though not without feeling as if she’d stepped into a version of “The Twilight Zone.” “Why do I have to do this?” she scrawled in her journal afterward. “WHY?”

The price of concealment is the central theme of Wicklund’s memoir, “This Common Secret,” which offers a rare glimpse into the life of an abortion provider who, like her dwindling band of peers, learned to don an array of disguises over the course of her tumultuous and peripatetic career. Wicklund grew up in a small community in rural Wisconsin populated by gun owners and deer hunters. She went on to become a reproductive health specialist who helped staff abortion clinics in five states, mostly in the Midwest, places that, by the late 1980s, had become veritable combat zones.

Wicklund’s daughter, Sonja, who contributes an epilogue in which she recalls breaking down every time she learned that another abortion provider had been shot, saw her mother as a pillar of strength who never let the wrath of anti-abortion protesters faze her. As it turns out, the stoic demeanor was as deceptive as the wig. The unstinting pressure — “Wanted” signs bearing her photo posted up around town, throngs of demonstrators amassed outside the places where she worked — often drove Wicklund to tears. She took to carrying a loaded .38-caliber revolver. She watched what she said to strangers, sometimes even to relatives, refusing for years to tell her grandmother she performed abortions out of fear she’d disapprove. When Wicklund finally divulged the secret, her grandmother shared one of her own: at 16, her best friend had gotten pregnant, most likely following an act of incest. She’d tried to help her end the pregnancy with a sharp object, and watched her bleed to death.

“This Common Secret” does not attempt to offer a comprehensive account of the abortion conflict, much less an evenhanded one. Though Wicklund claims to respect those who harbor moral qualms about abortion, her book makes no effort to engage critics of Roe v. Wade. The narrative has a somewhat slapdash feel — a journal entry on one page, a flurry of statistics on the next — and, though recounted in the first person, lacks a distinctive voice, perhaps because the book was written with a co-author.

Yet in setting down her story, Wicklund has done something brave, not only by refusing to cower in the shadows but also by recounting experiences that don’t always fit the conventional pro-choice script. Before receiving her medical training, Wicklund had an abortion herself. She was asked no questions, offered no advice and left the clinic feeling violated. Years later, she terminated the pregnancy of a woman who’d been raped and wanted an abortion. Afterward, Wicklund examined the product of conception and discovered the pregnancy had occurred two weeks earlier, meaning it was not a consequence of the rape. Both she and the patient were horrified.

Opponents of abortion might view such episodes as proof that abortion is evil. For Wicklund, they are what drove and inspired her to help each woman she encountered make an informed, truly independent choice. At a clinic she ran in Montana, this meant placing the emphasis on counseling, which sometimes strengthened a patient’s resolve to terminate her pregnancy and other times led her to reconsider and bear the child instead. Wicklund may never convince the protesters who demonized her that women should be free to make such decisions on their own. But in sharing her secrets, she has shown why there is much honor in having spent a lifetime attempting to ensure they do.

32 comments:

Daniel Short said...

How fitting that this story should contain a reference to a woman that was raped. You see an astonishing number of women that seek an abortion are victims of rape. That's right, a number you cannot igonore. How's .2% hit you? 2 of every 1000 abortions are performed on rape victims. I guess that is the best argument for the so called pro-choice movement. That's all I hear when I present my arguments against abortion and for life. What about rape? Anyway, there's my 2 cents, you guys know how I feel. Roger, say what you want, my position on HUMAN life is unchangeable. How's that for a humanist position?

All4Word said...

And yet, deep down, it comes out in the grammar. "...a woman that was raped."

Humanists (and grammarians) would insist that she was a woman who was raped.

The tree that fell. The boy who ran. The car that wouldn't start. The driver who wouldn't start that car.

Daniel, don't play poker. You have a "tell."

The New Albanian said...

Spoken as though it is all about you, Daniel. Unfortunately, it wasn't the case that I stated my beliefs today in the solitary hope that you would reaffirm your position ... but thanks for doing so.

It's fairly obvious that your position on human life is unchangeable. It's just as obvious that to read a piece of several hundred words and several dozen potential themes for discussion, yet to land with both feet on the issue of rape-induced pregnancies and the implications for the abortion debate -- something addressed by the book's author and the reviewer as a device for exploring the very same avenue that you're flaming -- tells us that like most males, you're in no position to fathom rape.

Trivialize at will, and with all the Biblical backing you care to muster -- and that's precisely the same reason I view it as bunk.

Let's see ... we're all supposed to have the freedom to spend out money without government or anyone else telling us how to do it. Women, on the other hand, are not supposed to have the freedom to deal as they see fit with their own bodies because unverifiable dogma has it otherwise.

Damned strange God you worship, Daniel.

The New Albanian said...

Thanks, All4Word.

Daniel, don't play poker. You have a "tell."

Succinct and true.

John Manzo said...

Not to change the subject:

But thanks Roger for the great NY!!!

Go Giants!!!

jon faith said...

Here's to humanists, even thouse who act upon their own troubled positions. Divorcing the context, I will offer the last sentence of a quote from a hero. Sorry, it isn't Mike Sodrel.

"I shall never again be polite." - Albert Camus

Daniel Short said...

Randy, I know you own a bookstore and therefore are a self proclaimed intellectual. Let's examine the author's words - "Wicklund examined the product of conception" - Huh?(Bad Grammar again) Are we so politically correct that we can't even call it an embryo, fetus, baby, child or human offspring? We must call it the product of conception. Some sick humanists you guys believe in. Also, I don't need a tell because I always show my cards.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Camus=hero?

Finally, somebody's pandering to my religion.

Ceece said...

yay Giants!!!!!

Congrats JM, it was a heck of a game!

John Manzo said...

Roger...Your Dolphins got THEIR biggest win of the season. The Dolphins remain the only perfect team. It's funny, but the 1985 Bears went 18-1 but lost a regular season game and won the Super Bowl. The Pats lost the Super Bowl and no matter what else they claim, and they are a great team, is that they are not perfect.

On this night the New York Giants were the best team in the NFL.

Anonymous said...

Let’s see. You support life as long as it is not that of an unwanted child.

You want Equality in what? Money, assets, jobs, family, and opportunity even when individuals are not equal, when they don’t work as hard, or when they choose to take less responsibility, etc, etc, etc.

Justice for all; whose justice? 51% of the vote, or Stalin’s, Hitler’s, Hussain’s, or do you get to decide that?

Where do human values come from?

What is compassion and who decides? How do they decide? What acts are compassionate and based on what standards? Is killing the unwanted, elderly, disabled, mentally handicapped compassion? It is in some countries.

Just because you reject the supernatural doesn’t mean a thing. It is clearly contradictory to your other claim of using reason and scientific inquiry as there are many things that science or the natural world cannot prove yet we know exists.

It takes more energy to have faith in your secular humanism than it does to believe in a God.

The New Albanian said...

It takes more energy to have faith in your secular humanism than it does to believe in a God.

But far less wishful thinking.

Nothing good comes easy. anyway.

Iamhoosier said...

HB,
I realize how the word "yet" was being used by you in your next to last paragraph. Here is how how I would that same word and sentence.

...as there are many things that science or the natural world cannot prove yet.

Anonymous said...

Once again, you still don't understand that science cannot prove the supernatural realm.

The term itself "super"natural means it is above or outside the natural realm and science is limited to only the natural world.

Intellectual honesty should demand that you want to keep all possibilities open; but your limiting yourself by your own faith in naturalism.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

God says the supernatural realm doesn't exist.

The New Albanian said...

HB wrote: The term itself "super"natural means it is above or outside the natural realm and science is limited to only the natural world.

Intellectual honesty should demand that you want to keep all possibilities open; but your limiting yourself by your own faith in naturalism.


Theists are positing the existence of an entity that, by definition, lies outside the natural realm.

We as humans are part of the natural realm. It makes no sense to suggest that because I can imagine something that transcends the natural realm, I can prove my assertion with tools that only exist within the boundaries of the natural realm.

Minds indeed should be kept open to possibilities. But how can specific religious dogma proceed from an open mind, one waiting for evidence?

It doesn't matter much to me. One may believe in any number of gods (ancient Rome) or god at all. Just don't beat me over the head with dogma. I actually take that "freedom of conscience" stuff seriously.




Indeed,

Anonymous said...

There are many things we discern from things other than scientific facts.

From a legal perspective, how do you prove “motive”?

You do this by observing behaviors, evidence, history, etc, and than you make a conclusion that fits best.

But you can never prove “motive” based on your definition of science and how you view the world.

Some argue that science should be king in the area of the empirical, that theology should reign in the area of the non-empirical, and never the two shall meet.

But why should we accept this modern view of science?

Such a definition ignores a long history of fruitful scientific inquiry that was not marked by this distinction.

For millennia science was viewed differently.

The older tradition had one aim: to identify ideas worth believing.

According to Aristotle something was scientific if it was assured or certain, regardless of which realm it referred to.

The important thing was whether or not a view was properly justified.

It was also distinguished by its "know-why"--its comprehension of first causes--as opposed to its "know-how."

Daniel Short said...

Excellent analysis.

Crickets, pin drop, somewhere a dog barks.

The New Albanian said...

To the contrary, pins dropping, crickets chirping and dogs barking remain observable, quantifiable phenomena in the real world.

The key difference doesn't change. Even if I were to relent and accept this notion of pole-vaulting past what can be known into the realm of fantasy, the very best that can be achived is the the potentiality of the supernatural.

There would still be no way whatsoever of defining this essence so narrowly that moral proscriptions to women about the way they may use their own bodies comes out as a result.

In that respect, there's no observable difference between religion and Stalinism. Both provide consolation for those so inlcined, and threaten the non-believers with excommunication.

back to you, Daniel.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."

- Aristotle, Politics.

Daniel Short said...

A fetus in a womb is certain. A pregnant woman's body contains another body within. If the woman chooses to abort, she may be called courageous. If the man chooses to abort, he would be called out of luck - or guilty of fetal homicide. Either way, someone is choosing to end another human life. Is the life not wanted? Who doesn't want it? Does the baby get a vote? I am a product of conception, just like you. When does the product become a human and then deserve life? Maybe Mr. Singer form Stanford can help you on this one.

Daniel Short said...

Sorry - the much more intelligent Princteon University.

Anonymous said...

It is very telling that the secular humanists who continue to respond are never willing to answer some of the questions posed earlier about their beliefs.

Equality in what?
Whose justice?
Where do human values come from?
What is compassion and who decides?
How do they decide?
What acts are compassionate and based on what standards?

Iamhoosier said...

Interesting to see Mr. Short using the " Crickets chirping, pins dropping,..." quote. Especially when he refuses to respond to questions on his own blog. Was he just giving lip service to policy discussions? I realize it is much easier to debate those things that cannot be proved one way or the other.

Daniel Short said...

Sorry Hoosier - you'll have to forgive me. I am very busy working. Please repeat the questions on my blog and I'll do my best to answer them completely. It is interesting to note that you make a lot of noise in cyberspace while hiding behind a pen name. Reminder, I do not have a tell becaouse I show everyone my cards.

The New Albanian said...

I was going to make a joke about raising on a measly pair of twos, but I won't. In the current combativeness, it might be miscontrued.

Iamhoosier said...

Daniel,
Last post under "Christian Roots..." posted on 2-1-08 at 8:36am.

I will agree that I do raise a lot of noise in cyberspace. As for hiding behind a pen name, that is not entirely true. I have been "out" for quite some time. Due to my age and new fangled Internet paranoia, I do not find it prudent to CONSTANTLY have my name posted. I sign my name completely from time to time and always provide it upon request. I have even actually met Healthblogger. We had a very nice chat.

Back to my cyber noise. I am definitely the pseudo in pseudo-intellectual. ;-)

Mark Cassidy

PS Wish I knew more about poker. I know that I am missing something!

Anonymous said...

Still awaiting the intellectual answers to the questions posted.

The New Albanian said...

HB - I promise to do so, but I can't right now.

I may bring it back on the marquee in a day or so.

Right now, I'm turning into a pumpkin.

Iamhoosier said...

HB,
You and I have went back forth many times over the last couple of years. I would love to sit down and have some of these discussions, as the time lag and necessity of brevity on the blogs makes these topics difficult.

One thing that amuses me, though, is when you write about keeping all possibilities open. I am then reminded of another discussion when the "facts" upon which you based your reasoning were proved wrong. Your response was, "My facts may be wrong, but my conclusion is still correct".

That's the way to keep ALL the possibilities open.

Mark I. Cassidy(for Daniel, I forgot my middle initial the first time)

Anonymous said...

I know I am aging, but you will have to refresh my memory on when I ever made that statement and if I did in what context.

Dementia must be setting in

Iamhoosier said...

HB,
This past Friday...just kidding.

Quite a while back. There was discussion about nuclear weapons and it went on to President Truman's decision to drop the bomb. Whether it was the right decision or not.

Like a lot of these topics, there is no way to PROVE if it was or was not the right decision. If you study it, you develop a BELIEF. It's not a fact, just my opinion or yours or Roger's or Daniel's etc.

I think I know what you were trying to say but you have to admit, you don't back up often(ever?). Sometimes I am a little envious of your "sureness" about so many things. Then I remember that usually I am right, so the heck with ya!(smile)