Seriously, it was 'malarkey': on the need for intelligent diplomacy

I am not watching the US debates. They come on too late here in the UK and I already know whose values I really actually believe in, so I don't feel the need to watch.  But, Joe Biden's getting a lot of attention for saying Paul Ryan's answer to a question on foreign policy was "malarkey."

(Tellingly, the CNN video doesn't carry Biden's full answer because why would CNN actually feel the need to show an *exchange* from the debate when they can just show soundbites? It's not like the *exchange* is newsworthy, right? It's just the soundbite... that's what news is, isn't it?)

Ryan criticized President Obama's response to the Iranian Green Revolution in 2009.  He said that the Obama administration should've been out front criticizing Iran.  For me, this is personal.  I have friends who were part of that revolution and I know human rights defenders whose lives are threatened by the Iranian regime.  During 2009, I followed the unfolding news from Iran more closely than any other event since 9/11.  I was consumed with it, and with the hope that with each new news story I would learn the fate of friends who could not communicate with the outside world.

During that time, I wrote on facebook that I felt Obama was handling the Iranian issue in the right way. And three years later, I just want to be even more clear: there is no question.  Obama handled it exactly right.  Here's what I wrote in 2009, and with only a few modern updates and grammatical corrections it still stands:

Sometimes US foreign policy is based on our egos, rather than on what’s right and wrong, and it shouldn’t be. We need to stop making ego-based decisions and start making brain-based ones.

Too often, we in the US make every international event about us. Sometimes it's a good thing. If you’re Kosovar, you might appreciate US-led interference a decade ago. If you’re Kuwaiti, you are likely relieved we nosed around in 1991. If you’re Kurdish, you’re probably like the guy in the Kebab shop in town who thanked me for what my country had done for his people (you know, after ignoring the gassing by Hussein). And if you’re South Korean or Japanese, you might resent the presence of certain troops who rape young girls and ignore your laws and cultures, but you probably appreciate the fact that we’ve been willing to stand on the 38th parallel for over 50 years. These were times when our “it’s all about me”-ness benefited not just us but the rights of those we sought to protect.

And when the American people believe a situation is about them – that they need to make a difference or that they have a primary duty to provide relief – amazing acts of goodness and kindness can happen. The US people's response to the 2004 tsunami, the calls for involvement on Darfur, or responses to cyclones in Burma and earthquakes in Haiti, nuclear crises in Japan and floods in India are good examples of what calling on US egos can do.

But, sometimes it's important for us to remember that not *every* event is about us and not every democracy/freedom initiative would benefit from our involvement. Sometimes it’s good for us to have a little ego check and make sure that we’re not just getting involved in a situation because we want to remind everyone of how powerful we are, or we want to make sure everyone knows which side we’re on. For starters, the US doesn't always have the best track record of standing on the right side of things. Pinochet (Chile). Cambodia. Nicaragua, Guatemala, Rhodesia, South Africa and Iraq's Hussein are all prime examples of when the US has kind of (or majorly) screwed up. And when we do get it right, we don’t always have the best follow-through so the international community may doubt our commitment (Afghanistan circa 2008, anyone?).

When we're confronted with a new international situation, it would be good if our leadership stepped back and ask intelligently: what will our involvement accomplish, both for us and for them? We should be like doctors and "do no harm" in the international arena (or, at least, do as little harm as is needed, which is actually a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law). If it turns out that our involvement is just about making sure our voice is heard – regardless the consequences – or an attempt to stretch our egos by being the loudest and most frequent orator on the international stage, we should stop ourselves. If on the whole it stacks up that our involvement may benefit goodness, democracy and freedom, it might be worth putting our two-cents on the international table. It is the former situation we found ourselves in in 2009. It’s the ego-stroking that Paul Ryan wants the US to engage in, not the beneficial freedom-loving work that we should limit ourselves to.

Before I continue, I want to take a moment and address Iran and the Iranian people generally. No one in the world doubts now - or doubted then - how the US feels about the current Iranian leadership. If you do, you've been watching FOX News for too long and need to change the channel. Because outside of Glenn Beck no one really doubts this (oh, and that crazy lady on Morning Joe but I’m convinced that's just because she's stupid and makes things up on air... no one who is really smart really doubts this). Yes, there are some benefits to the US having Ahmadinejad in office - the man's batshit crazy so we look sane and measured when we tell him no nukes, and his resistance to Obama's willingness to talk only isolates him further and makes us look strong, confident and engaged. But, even with those benefits, the US - and the Obama administration - stood with the protesters and the international community does not doubt that. The Iranian people did not doubt that. Additionally, no one doubts the US position on the legitimacy of the election. There's no one in the *world* - sans ardent Ahmadinejad supporters in Iran and a few people who don't know anything about the election outside of Iran - who can look at this election and honestly say it's credible. Just because Barack isn't speaking out doesn't mean anyone thinks he's confused about this issue.

Now the Iranian people are a proud people. They have a right to be. If you’ve studied Persian art (it’s more than just rugs) or history, you know that Persia and Iran have a long and deep history of standing for human rights, of engaging with the Western state, of education, and of strength. They aren’t a nation to be bullied. And, for the most part, Iranians love their Islamic Republic. Our two countries have very different versions of what went down in ’79, so let me clarify what I’ve heard and read from the Iranian side so that we Americans can understand what we’re looking at: the ’79 Revolution proved to the Iranians that an unarmed but united people with truth and freedom on their side can defeat an armed oppressive regime. Their Shah, a brutal regime if ever there was one, was supported by the military and economic might of the US, which is how we earned out beloved nickname, the Great Statan. When they wanted him out, they were able to do it despite being over-matched in size and might. This was the Arab Spring before the Arab Spring ever came to be.  That's how the Iranians viewed '79.

Just like we have pride in our crazy state-federal divisions and our non-democratic electoral college (that makes us a Republic, just like a certain other country is a Republic), the Iranians feel pride in the structure they have. They believe the religious clerics are to act for justice and protect the people, while the democratic process allows people to vote for the President. Not everyone agrees with this regime or structure, but on the whole, mainstream Iranians have been satisfied with this. Attempts within Iran to undermine the structure and foundation of the Islamic Republic would be viewed as treason, just as would attempts to undermine the structure of the US government would be viewed here. They also have a general resistance to international interference, even to international aid. Iranians are sceptical and resistant to seeking non-Persian aid. It’s a lot like the US, as our government refused international aid and assistance following Hurricane Katrina.

With this background, let’s consider Barack’s options: (1) do what McCain attempted to bully him to do in 2009 - and what Ryan's telling us a Romney administration would do - and yell at the world about the corrupt election, call for new elections and greater freedom in the world, and insert ourselves into a tense situation for the benefit of our collective ego; or (2) decry the violence without intervening on the issue of the legitimacy of the elections at this time, letting Iran work its position out and then confronting the issue later after protesters are no longer on the street.

For the protesters, the first option would be disastrous. The Iranian regime is already making it sound like the protesters are puppets in the hands of western governments. For once, it's not *our* Western government - it's the British who were blamed for this one (for that fact alone, you have to know Barack is doing something right because if he *could* blame the US for the protests, he would. How often do you hear reports of Iranians shouting "Death to Britain?" If it happens, it's not nearly as frequent as the much more common chants "Death to America.")

But if Barack had taken the Romney / Ryan stance and called for nullifying the election, suddenly those accusations would shift from British interference to US interference. Iranian state television would continuously run clips of Barack calling for the nullification, pointing out that this is exactly what the opposition leaders have said. The proud Iranian people would pull back from any internal attempts to challenge the legitimacy of the election. The patriotism of the demonstrators would be called into question, and shouts of "Death to America" would thoroughly replace the current cries of "Death to the Dictator."

We can scream and shout all we want about how we just came in after the fact, but history would be on their side: the US has often intervened in the internal affairs of other states and it’s not far-fetched to imagine the US funding opposition campaigns. Identical calls from US leadership and the opposition forces would undermine the latter's credibility and suggest the Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad were right. The protesters would be easily blamed and dismissed as people who want to undermine the Islamic Republic, giving in to the demands and will of the Great Satan. Those arrested and beaten would face far worse treatment than they are already being subjected to. The "Green Revolution" would die out quickly and the government would point to US involvement as justification for its actions this past week. A semblance of legitimacy would be restored to a thoroughly illegitimate government, if not internationally than domestically. This prediction is not mine alone, but one consistent with those expressed by Iranian opposition leaders and those “in the know.” The son of one of the leading mullahs in the opposition was on the Daily Show and said that the best course of action would be for the American people to write and demonstrate but for the American administration to stay out of it.

If Obama sticks to the current course – calling on the government to honour the human rights of the protesters while not addressing the issue of the election until after this whole series of events is concluded – who we are or what we’ve done in the past is a non-issue. We would allow the demonstrators to retain their rightful place in the dialogue. They are the ones who stand for Iran. They are the ones fighting for its reality and its protection against corruption and impunity. They are the ones relying on centuries of great Persian values of democracy and human rights and they represent the very embodiment of the spirit of the Revolution of '79. They have legitimacy in their efforts right now and should be allowed to handle the post-election process the way they see fit. And from what I’ve heard, the opposition may want the world to watch, but they don't want the world to *act.* Quite honestly, in addition to undermining the opposition, US interference through too harsh or loud a stand may actually alienate the opposition. They do not want to be perceived as a puppet administration, and they want the respect of legitimacy that comes from within their country - not from having an outside force declare their legitimacy.

So, if Barack followed the Romney / Ryan policy, we would have undermined the legitimacy of the “Green Revolution” and we would likely have alienated the very people we say we want to stand with. All for the sake of our egos. I'm not suggesting the US should sit by and say nothing.

But, “doing no harm”  in 2009 meant watching and keeping focus on the activities in Iran, decrying the violence and calling on Iran to abide by human rights, and waiting out the ongoing internal process. Once this was done, we could (and did) denounce the election as a fraud publicly and repeatedly. No one doubts we knew this and felt this from the start, but by waiting we weren't endangering the Green Revolution or the people of Iran. I know it's a hard feat for American egos - we like to be right and we like everyone to know we're right long before they have to admit it out loud - but on this occasion, our egos would be writing checks the bodies of Green Revolutionaries shouldn't have to cash.

Those sentiments remain today. If the Ryan position was around in 2009, we would be in a much worse position than we are now - as would the Iranian people.  Ryan's position reminds me of the young 20-something Western human rights activists who often go in and lecture local victims about what they should want and what they need to demand and how the Western human rights activist is going to save them. But in doing so, they drown out the voices of the people who actually know what's going on.  They start from a position of telling and never get around to listening, and in doing so they seriously harm the very people they proclaim they are going to save. Standing for democracy and human rights doesn't always require you to be the loudest protestor; sometimes it requires you to sit quietly but resolutely and ensure the voices of those who should be speaking are heard.  That's intelligent diplomacy.  And that's exactly what Ryan railed against last night because he is, in fact, full of malarkey.

Why the "rape exception" is not about "punishing the child"

This week, I listened to the GOP - and my GOP friends - defend a prohibition on abortion even in cases of rape or incest (and some, even in the case of threat to the life or health of the mother). Often, this defense involves, "Why would you punish the child just because of how it was conceived?"  I want to respond to that here, publicly, because it says a lot about the worldviews of people when it comes to abortion.

The reason people believe there should be exception in the case of rape - even if you outlaw (most) other abortions - has nothing to do with the child.  It has everything to do with the mother. And this is where the worldview comes in.  If you believe that a woman's life and health and viability all become irrelevant at the time of pregnancy - that it all must become secondary to the needs and desires of a child - then of course you think that abortion shouldn't be allowed in the case of rape.

But if you believe that women are autonomous human beings who are in the best position to understand their own physical and mental health, then you have to recognize an exception for rape and incest. The reason for a rape or incest exception is because of the toll that can be had on a woman who has to carry a fetus to term.  It is about recognizing that the woman is in the best place to understand that toll on her and about ensuring she gets to control and decide what is necessary to help her recover from the rape.

I don't think a lot of men really understand the mental or physical consequences of rape. It's clear that people like Todd Akin don't, but even other men who think of themselves as compassionate and understanding don't really fully understand it.  So, I want to explain some of the consequences that I've seen in people I've known.

Below are the consequences I have found most common amongst my friends, colleagues and mentorees who have confided in me - sometimes immediately after, sometimes years after. They were not true for every one of my friends, but they were the ones that were most frequently true.  To respect their privacy, I am not using identifying details and I won't use any details that were discussed by only one rape victims; these are the details that have been consistent in their stories.

I want to be clear that while people may want to make gradations of what constitutes a 'serious' mental or physical reaction and what doesn't, such attempts are simultaneously useless and insulting.  There's no such thing as an 'easy' trigger reaction to PTSD. We would never tell a soldier the PTSD from war is "easy" because we think we should get to 'rate' PTSD responses.  Women respond differently to rape and sexual assaults, and each reaction from a woman is "normal" and severe.  There is help available for women around the world (various links are for various countries based on where my most frequent traffic comes from, with general links at 'for' 'women' and 'world'), but it is a process.

• Nightly replaying of the rape while they sleep. I can't call it a nightmare because that suggests something your mind has created or conjured up; this isn't their brain playing tricks on them. This is their brain reliving the actual rape. For months, they don't sleep soundly.  The sleep deprivation clouds their brains, and that makes them feel more crazy.
• Unlike a nightmare, which you can shake off within minutes of waking up, the nightly replaying of a real-life rape stays with the victim throughout the day. It plays in your head throughout the day. You end up not feeling safe and on edge. The entire day.  Then you go to sleep, and it happens again.
• When you see someone from across the street that resembles the man who raped you, you react.  This reaction can vary depending on the person, and even with a single person depending on the day. There's no "degree" of acceptability to these reactions, and all are equally bad even if from an external perspective there seem to be degrees. It is a trigger. It is the long-lasting presence of the rape that no one on the outside can see but that you can feel each time you see someone with a similar build, a similar haircut, a similar skin tone, a similar eye color. It can involve freezing while your heart quickens and you have difficulty breathing while you wait to know it's not him, or it can involve freezing and being unable to move even long after you know it's not him. It can render you speechless or it can result in screaming. You can regain your composure somewhat quickly, or you can end up crying hysterically in a bathroom, calling me to calm you down, or to come get you. It's not physical and mental strength you need. That's not what's preventing you from continuing your walk down the street, from breathing normally, or from getting up and leaving the bathroom. What you need is for the fear to stop. It's for you to know that you can continue on your day and not face a man who will again throw you against a wall, or a bed, or the floor, and violate your bodily integrity without your consent. It's to know you won't have to come face to face with him and have him act like everything's normal.
• You sit through a movie with your friends not knowing there's a rape scene coming up, or sit through a comedy show not knowing rape would be laughed at.  You're in shock listening to details you feel come from your most shameful**, horrific moment of your life while everyone else finds it entertainment. You fake not feeling well, excuse yourself, go home and lie on the floor in the fetal position.  You decide whether you need to call off work for the next day. Maybe you do; maybe you don't, but that night will be another sleepless one. (**Please note this this is a feeling and not a reality. If you are the victim of rape, you do not need to feel shame. Your attacker(s) is the one who should be ashamed.)
• The first time you go on a date with a guy you like, you are fine and having fun until he touches something on your face or your hand.  It triggers a memory - because it is PTSD you're suffering from - and you suddenly look at your would-be boyfriend or lover and realize you're pretty sure he's a rapist.  Not because of anything he's done but because you're pretty sure most men are rapist. Or maybe you realize in the intellectual side of your brain that that's not true, but you also realize you don't trust any man anymore.  You don't have normal relationships with them and you suspect they are all simply assholes.
• You might not tell anyone at first.  Particularly if you know - or are fairly certain - that telling will result in negative attention and reactions at work, in your classroom, or by your friends and family.  Yet, by not telling, you are forced to interact with your rapist - your boss, your teacher, your colleague / coworker / classmate - every day.  Each time he looks at you, you know what he's thinking and you feel the power he has exercised over you.  And he acts so naturally that you start to think you might be crazy - or maybe it really was your fault.  Because how could he act so normally around you after what he did to you? You shrink and he stands taller. 
• If - if - you tell the police, or the doctors and nurses, or a psychologist, you get a sympathetic ear. It gives you hope that others will be understanding. Until you meet with the prosecutor who will handle the case. He tells you there's nothing that can be done; it's your word against his and no jury will convict. He's very sorry, but your pain isn't real enough to warrant the effort. What was the most horrific crime you could imagine won't be recognized by anyone. And you feel embarrassed that you hoped someone would believe you. You feel ashamed because they didn't. And then you start to doubt yourself again.  Maybe you are crazy?  Maybe you should "just get over it"?  But how do you "just get over it" when the person who did this to you is still out there?  Still threatening to do this to other women?
• If - if - you've told people, only some will understand. Many - even your close friends and family - will question what you did to "cause" it. Many women - even your close friends and family - will assume it couldn't have happened to them, and therefore they feel safe and smug. They expect you to take responsibility for something you know somewhere inside of you you are not responsible for.  But that expectation seeps into your brain and you are starting to wonder what were you responsible for?
• If - if - you've told people, most will understand your shock and its effects for about a week to a month, maybe two.  At two months, people stop understanding the PTSD.  They stop understanding the fear.  They stop understanding the nightmares, or the way in which you discuss the issue.  You are left feeling alone, misunderstood, and at times you are made to feel crazy that this is still an issue.  Let me be clear: if this is something you're going through, you are not crazy.
• And most of these reactions leave you feeling a little less of yourself, if not a growing hatred of yourself.

How long those symptoms lasted depended for my friends. Some only suffered for a few weeks or months; some suffered for years.  The constant fear, the constant PTSD, the constant crying, the depression, and the feelings that you are crazy. The self-loathing and hatred that comes when you think maybe you were responsible, and then afterwards again for ever thinking that maybe you were responsible.  There's no real way to put into words what it really feels like.  I've described above symptoms of a deeper trauma.  That trauma is significant and real and long-term.

Now add to that trauma a daily physical consequence and it becomes so much more.  I tried to think of an equivalency for a war PTSD victim, but I can't.  The closest I could come up with is having a war victim with a lost limb and then telling them you're not willing to give them a prosthesis for almost a year later because you don't feel their entitled to it.  It's not a perfect analogy though, and that's because there really isn't an analogy to rape.  It's a unique form of torture (and it is actually used as torture around the world).

The reason for a rape / incest exception has nothing to do with punishment; it has everything to do with empowering the victim to choose for herself what she can handle mentally and physically, what she is able to deal with on a daily basis as the consequence of her rape.  Those who would suggest women can just give the baby up for adoption at the end don't understand that those 9 months of pregnancy may cause an irreparable delay in the woman's healing process.  It may cause more psychological damage as she faces each day the consequences, and with each kick of the baby remembers what his hands felt like on her skin.

Whether a woman is in a place to psychologically and physically handle the stress of pregnancy - and the minute-by-minute reminder of what happened to her - is a personal issue. It's a singular experience and cannot be the subject of a blanket determination. It is not for someone else to decide whether she's "mentally healthy" enough to deal with this repercussion.  It is not for a bureaucrat, or even her doctor, to say what she can and should handle as a consequence of her rape.

People who talk about abortions in the case of rape and incest as an issue of "punishing the child" don't fully understand what rape does to a woman, or the need for women to regain a semblance of control over their own autonomy and personal dignity.

Perhaps those individuals who oppose a rape exception will never understand the reality of rape victims, and I don't fault them for not understanding what it means. I fault them for assuming they understand what it means, and for assuming that simply because carrying a baby to term is right for one rape victim, then it should be right for all rape victims.

I don't usually screen my posts before putting them up, but on this one I did ask a few friends for their thoughts on an earlier draft.  Since I'm not a rape victim, I wanted to give a voice for others, not a voice to them, so I asked friends who either were survivors or who I knew were sensitive to the issues to comment. One of my friends wrote back and agreed to let me include the following from her email: 

"Forget the 9 months (not really, but for the purpose of my point) - If every time I see someone who resembles him I freak out, I would be terrified to see him in my child and whether I'd be able to handle that. I'm sure I'd love the child, but I'd be so scared that seeing the child would cause flashbacks and fear. I'd be terrified he would find out about the child and want to have contact - thus, meaning contact with me. I'd be terrified of how I and my child would feel if I didn't let him meet his child and was therefore taking my child's "father" away."

My friend will, insha'allah, one day make a wonderful mother, but I can't imagine the pain and dread, the long-term psychological toll, that would have played out had her rape resulted in a pregnancy. She doesn't believe in having an abortion otherwise, but said she would likely have one in this case because of the toll that such a pregnancy would have on her.  It's not about the child - it's not a punishment to the child - it's about her.  It's about what she could and could not handle.

There is no "right" way to handle this for a rape victim.  Some rape victims would find the idea of aborting a fetus conceived through rape repugnant. Some would find the idea of carrying to term too damaging. Both are acceptable decisions if they are the decisions of the rape victim, and that victim understands her decision is appropriate for her and her alone. Because ultimately, that's why people support an exception for rape and incest: it's an attempt to give a little power back to the woman to make decisions that are best for her mental and physical health.  It's a recognition of a woman as an autonomous individual entitled to human dignity, including mental health, and the right to control, influence and make medical decisions for herself.

Suggesting that abortion following a rape is about punishment - of anyone, father or baby - rather than about a woman making the best choices for herself in the face of unimaginable pain... that's cruel. It's inhuman.  It's degrading. 

And it shows you have no respect for a woman as an autonomous human being; you only respect her for what she carries in her womb.

Being Pro-Choice as a Christian: 8 Reasons

I was originally going to eschew discussing religion (or really anything very personal) on this page. My friend, Nat, however, encouraged me to take a few statements from a facebook discussion to share here. So, I should be upfront: I am a Christian. Yes, a go-to-Church, believe-in-the-Bible Christian. I'm also pro-choice and here are eight reasons why. I know some of them are oft-cited reasons by pro-choice Christians, but Nat assures me others are not.

(1) The belief that life begins at conception is a religious belief, and I am a firm believer that religious beliefs are for the religious believers to follow, not for society to impose on others. Science doesn't determine when life begins; at best, it tells us when a life is viable.  If it did indicate the point of "life", I believe that brain activity would be the standard. But even this is an unclear standard. The brain forms around week 3 of pregnancy (week 5 under scientific standards that apparently take into account 2 extra weeks before conception). The brainstem is fully formed around the end of the second week, and this controls the majority of our non-conscious brain activity. Our conscious brain, though, is the last to form. It is during the third trimester that the fetus learns to "think" and can recognize smells, etc.  So which of these constitutes "brain activity" for the purpose of determining life?  

And brain activity is, of course, not the only option for determining "life." It could be viability - which is much earlier than cerebral thought. It could be at conception. In Jewish law, life appears to begin with the first breath, or perhaps when the baby is more than halfway through the mother's body in the birthing process, and then it is not fully viable until after 30 days.  It appears Jewish teachings suggest abortion may at times be required to save the mother's life or health (including psychological health), or may be permitted if the child will be born with a birth defect.  The truth is, there is no clear Judeo-Christian, let alone all-religious, determination of when life begins.

We recognize that many questions about life and death are religious choices and religious beliefs, and in other aspects of society we honour that recognition.  We allow 7th Day Adventists to refuse life saving treatment - even for children - because their religious convictions require it. Yet, we wouldn't recognize that women have rights to determine the appropriateness of an abortion if they disagree with Catholic and evangelical Christian teachings on whether "life begins at conception"? That's an imposition of religious beliefs where society should not be imposing them.

I honestly don't see a great difference between forcing women to carry children to term in the US and forcing women to wear burkas in Afghanistan. Both stem from religious men telling women - who may or may not be religious - how God wants them to act, especially what God wants them to do with their own bodies, and then forcing them to comply with that dictate. They do not necessarily come from a woman's own belief system or her own choice. That, to me, is not what God calls us to do.

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible sets out rules for our relationship with God, but those rules are meant specifically for those who believe. While those rules may be good and right for any individual or society, they are *intended* for those who choose to believe in God and Jesus. Jesus never called on us to force non-believers to live by our rules; if anything, the Apostle Paul seems to expect the exact opposite. When Jesus told his followers to "teach[] [all nations] to obey everything I have commanded you" he did so only in the context of those nations becoming Christians first.  "[G]o and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Once people have accepted Christ's divinity and saving grace, they are to follow Christ. The inverse is not true. The Bible should be followed because of faith, not because of dictation, and anything else has the potential of turning a whole lot of people into Pharisees.

This does not mean that there is no standard of morality for society, but I take a Thomas Aquinas approach to this: not everything that is immoral should be illegal and not everything that is illegal is immoral. To do otherwise is to undermine the very foundation of free religious choice, justifying even the persecution of Christian converts in Islamic societies (because the religious ideology determines whether a crime is worthy of death). A pluralistic and secular society must decide morality not from religious ideology but from what is necessary for the preservation of society. Theft and murder clearly fall in that category; infidelity or religious conversion, for example, do not. Therefore, while I would consider infidelity immoral, the government has no place in enforcing this determination; while the Iranian government considers conversion to the Christian faith immoral, it should not be the state's place to enforce this. 

(2) Society regularly makes determinations as to who lives and who dies, often deferring determination to those closest or most knowledgeable about a situation, but sometimes even that isn't required.  In the case of abortion, society should defer to the mother, who is closest and most knowledgeable about the situation.

We (in the US and as a global society) don't provide universal health care, which often results in people needlessly dying; we have constructed intellectual property rules that allow for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs without having to distribute them to those who need them, resulting in millions of children dying from preventable and curable diseases; we have the death penalty; we allow family members to remove brain-dead individuals from life support; we allow individuals to sign 'do not resuscitate' forms that dictate when we can and cannot try to save their lives; we allow contraception, which prevents a fertilized egg (and therefore a conceived egg) from implanting; we allow war; we allow people to kill in self-defense, and we allow the use of the death penalty, which is imposed on behalf of society by twelve random individuals selected solely because they have driver's licenses or have registered to vote. And again, we allow 7th Day Adventists to refuse medical treatment because their religious convictions require it. These are just some of the times when society says that a collective on behalf of society or single individuals within society get to determine who lives and who dies - or when or how they die.

God may be pro-life, but our society is not. We regularly assign responsibility for life and death decisions to individuals or segments of the population. Abortion is no different.  We put the choice regarding abortion - which has a myriad of implications for mothers and those who love them - into the hands of those with the best knowledge of the situation and who are most directly impacted by it. This story is a perfect example of the need to give the choice to those closest to the situation. Who gets to decide when the pain of a child is so much that the appropriate medical choice is to allow it to die? The parents. Not society, not a bureaucrat in Austin, but the individual closest to the actual case at hand who is affected in the most unique ways.

(3) As this case demonstrates, there are times in which abortion may be the kinder thing to do for the sake of the child.  This child will never have an opportunity to "believe" in Christ because that requires some level of cognizance. Yes, the child may have proven to be a miracle baby, but the person who should get to decide whether that possibility is worth the pain is the parent. We do this for all types of other medical choices: when should a child's chemotherapy be stopped; when should life-sustaining treatment be stopped; when should feeding tubes be removed. These are all times when we entrust the family to make the judgment about what is kindest, what is most caring, what is most appropriate.

(4) Women disproportionately bear the burden of pregnancy and child-rearing, emotionally, physically, and financially.  Development studies indicate that giving women power over their own reproductive choices is an important step to ensuring economic independence and growth, both of the individual and the society. Countries with comprehensive sex education have better life expectancies, better economic growth, less maternal mortality, and higher levels of education for individual woman and those in her family. Educated and empowered women have a disproportionately greater impact on their communities than their male counterparts. Ensuring women can be educated and empowered requires them to have control over their reproductive rights. Taking choices away from women and providing them to others is not just disrespectful to the autonomy of a woman, but it is harmful to women's health and to society as a whole.

(5) Outlawing abortion has never worked. There is evidence of abortions occurring in Biblical times. If you outlaw it, you simply make it unsafe and expensive. So instead of harming one life - if you believe it to be a life - you harm two. The best we can ever do is to make abortion safe and rare and you don't do that by outlawing it.

‎(6) I believe that if you want to fight against abortion, you should do so in a way that empowers women rather than shames them. The best way to make abortion rare is to take care of societal health in other ways, including universal health care and better options for higher education, ensuring that people know about sexual health and reproductive choices and that when a woman does get pregnant, it does not mean that she'll be unable to experience educational and financial independence. Abortion rates are much lower in countries with universal health care, lower costs for higher education, and better sex education. Empowered women actually means fewer abortions.

If we as a society are going to address the causes of abortions, we need to do so first from a proactive, non-criminalizing way. Provide universal health care, address higher education costs, address maternity leave, provide paternity leave so that women don't bear the only burden of childbirth. If you want to fight against abortion, fight for better poverty-reduction strategies, such as more equal education for children and greater loan assistance for those pursuing higher education. Fight for greater financial assistance for young and unwed mothers, fight for more affordable housing, fight for universal and affordable prenatal care (something, by the way, that Planned Parenthood provides in certain areas for women who would not otherwise get it), fight for greater pay equality between men and women, and fight for more comprehensive sex education for children and teens. This has proven more effective than outlawing abortion and it ensures greater protection for those voiceless and defenseless children once they are born than the current tactic of the GOP legislators around the US.

(7) As we have seen in this election cycle, it is not a particularly far leap to go from abortion rights to government interference in other choices about parenthood. This future interference will inevitably focus first and foremost on persecuting mothers and women. First it was abortion, now it's contraception. A legislator in Wisconsin has presented a bill that would make single parenthood - which is disproportionately a problem for women - child abuse. So, now single women who do get pregnant and choose not to have an abortion are criminals who could lose their child. That's a *great* way to handle the situation. A woman who is abused and leaves her husband - a Biblical ground for divorce - is now also a criminal for taking care of her child.

When we treat women as nothing more than baby-producers and care givers, then these are the natural consequences: women are forced to give up their careers, they are forced to singularly bear the burden of the mistakes of two people (or non-mistakes, as in the case in the story), and they lose their own voice and are forced to adopt the choices made for them by others. Suddenly, maternity leave is not a choice, but a forced determination. Women aren't compensated for that time because it is expected of them and they aren't allowed to return to work because that's no longer their 'place'. Women start to be treated like cattle.

When we treat women like cattle, it leads to things like domestic abuse, rape, incest, FGM, etc. It all becomes slightly more acceptable. I realize it's easy to roll one's eyes at these very real possibilities and suggest this is just an exaggerated slippery slope argument. But those in the human rights world deal with the very real consequences of taking choices from women and empowering men or society to make those choices for women.  I see all of these things stemming from the same belief systems: a woman's principle role in life is not one she chooses but one that society forces upon her. 

(8)  I am not "pro-abortion."  In fact, I know no one who is. I am instead for making abortion safe, legal and rare. I have never had to face the question of whether I would have an abortion, but I believe that coming to this conclusion is a terribly painful process for most women who face this decision. I know a lot of women who as children dreamt about becoming mothers when they grew up; I know none who wanted to have an abortion when they grew up. By nature, pregnancy is what most (but not all!) women desire so when they are considering terminating a pregnancy, it is not an easy decision and it is usually done with consideration of the growing child inside them. I think there is no need for the state to make this decision even more difficult and painful for them.

I find hypocrisy, and even sometimes cruelty, in the anti-choice movement's treatment of abortion. I'm tired of members of the "pro-life" movement in the US claiming to care about children but also stating that we should stop providing international assistance to developing countries.  I'm tired of those same people justifying an unjustifiable war in Iraq.  In 2003, people operating on behalf of the American population started a war that cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, including thousands of Iraqi children. These were children God also knit together in their mothers' wombs; children who were defenseless and voiceless and helpless. Where was the voice of our pro-life movement then? Where is it now for children in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan who are killed in drone attacks or who are lumped together in the terrifyingly disrespectful term of "collateral damage" for our wars?  Where was the objection based on "every life is sacred" and "every child counts?" In this situation, we didn't even defer to those closest to the situation.  Someone in Washington makes a choice, not knowing whose lives will be terminated.

There are millions of defenseless, voiceless children who will die from poverty around the world because successive generations worth of US Presidents and Congresses have constructed trade and aid policies that actually harm those communities and are likely to ensure their continued impoverishment rather than sustainable growth. There are millions of children who die because our intellectual property laws protect big pharmaceutical companies at the expense of those children's access to medicines. Millions who will be left orphans for the same reason. Millions left without one or both parents - both in the US and outside of it - because of US health policies ranging from a failure to discuss and distribute contraception in AIDS affected countries to a failure to provide universal health care here at home. Children in the US and around the world die because they don't have access to food, medicine, or safe living conditions.  Our girls are sold into sex slavery, advertised regularly on sites like Backpage.com.

We abdicate our rights and responsibilities to fight for life in all these situations and the consequence is that children suffer. It is cruel to the mothers of those Afghan children, those Yemeni children, those Pakistani children, and those American children to treat the unborn as more sacred than the living. Let us give a voice to the voiceless amongst us; defend the defenseless on Earth.  When we have systematically, and as passionately, done that, then we should engage in the questions that we can only truly learn the answer to in Heaven, such as when life begins and what protections should be afforded to the pre-born.