Abortion is an issue many Americans do not wish to discuss, debate, or even hear the word for that matter. The issue of abortion does not divide Americans, but rather Americans' values separate the proponents of abortion from the opponents of this act. Many "Pro-Choice" advocates (which are defacto pro-abortion proponents) argue that religious people have no right to impose their private religious belief on those Americans who do not share a theistic worldview much less adhere to Christian teachings. Although I disagree that religion should be kept a private matter and lacks validity in the public square, I think that it is necessary to make a non-religious case against abortion.

Why? Because many Americans who fancy themselves Pro-Choice may feel that abortion is ethically problematic and/or immoral, but believe that Americans should have the right to make this choice nonetheless. Also, a non-religious argument case against abortion, and in favor of the sanctity of life can be made convincingly without bringing in any references to the God of Abraham. Not only can this argument be persuasive, but is entirely logical based upon secular reasoning.

For example, does it make sense for a species to actively exterminate itself? No, it does not. But women have natural miscarriages quite often. But are these miscarriages the product of the healthy development of an embryo or fetus? No, the mother's body recognizes that something is wrong with the development of the child, and expels it.
Many advocates of abortion point out that an embryo is different than a human being.
Isn't a human embryo a human being in a developmental stage by definition? In other words, a human embryo is specifically different from a chicken embryo or a cow embryo or even a chimpanzee embryo? In other words, if allowed to mature, what would an aborted embryo develop into? Do you really think that a woman who has been raped should have to carry a rapist's child to full term? Does aborting the child erase the evil act of the rape? Does the abortion alleviate the trauma the woman has suffered or exacerbate it? (Reasonable people can disagree about this issue)

Does the "Americans can have the choice to do potentially unethical acts" argument apply to child pornography? Incest? Polygamy? If not, why not? Furthermore, if abortion is simply a surgical procedure like many others, why is it not shown on "the surgery channel"? Or on a special on "20/20", "Dateline", or a "CNN Special"? Certainly topics of less heated debate are featured-such as gun control, Social Security reform, and electronic voting machines.

In conclusion, I think that America's brilliance as a democracy lies within the ability for citizens to discuss, debate, and make public policy decisions through the democratic process. I feel that giant billboards of contorted aborted fetuses does not advance the discussion between the different sides on this issue, and is actually quite counterproductive. Making a religious argument is ineffective with people who do not share these beliefs and principles, and can only further alienate potential supporters of life in all its stages. It is time for Pro-Life advocates (wherever they may fall on the political spectrum) to begin to make an argument that is long past its due.

 

Unconscious Interests, Favorite Reads, and Unsatisfying Intellectual Explanations

Republican challenger, Richard DeVos will lose this year's gubernatorial contest to incumbent Governor Jennifer Granholm.  Do I want the Governor reelected?  No, but Richard DeVos has not convinced many disillusioned and irritated Michiganders to lend him the support that they previously gave Granholm back in 2002.  Are Michiganders angry at Governor Granholm?  Yes.  Are they willing to elect Richard DeVos?  No.  As a public high school teacher, approximately 90-percent of my colleagues are stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party-locally as well as nationally.  As I listen to the many anti-Bush rants in the teachers' lounge before school and during lunch, I also hear quite a bit of anti-Granholm sentiment.  Many of my colleagues are frustrated and angry that Jennifer Granholm acted as a "do-nothing" governor during the last 4 years in office.  As the number of unemployed grew, and the negative buzz about Michigan grew louder, she seemed "asleep at the wheel", and more interested in commenting on issues of a national character than the events taking place under her nose.  Despite being highly educated, well-spoken, and a Clintonesque campaigner, she seemed a distant ruler from the state capital in Lansing. 

So along came businessman Richard DeVos.  His massive advertising blitz propelled him from a long-shot candidate to a serious challenger to the beleaguered governor.  He hired the best and brightest Republican strategists from around the country, and produced upbeat ads with everyday Michiganders who spoke of their fear of losing employment and their frustration at losing children to other states who could employ them.  For awhile, DeVos seemed as if the perfect fit for Michigan's woes.  A take-charge businessman, who would inspire confidence in the small business owners and manufacturing workers alike.  But the distant-feeling that Granholm espoused is also present within the DeVos campaign.  Like the professor from The Wizard of Oz, DeVos appears from behind the curtain only in television commercials, and when forced to publicly debate his rival. 

The first bungled opportunity came as he expressed support for intelligent design in public schools, while getting off message on the economic woes of Michigan's economy.  While many politically conservative Christians support intelligent design in public schools, many are ambivalent on this issue.  I think that this open expression of support, actually hurt his electoral chances with nonreligious undecided voters who are apt to vote with their wallets.  Another disaster came as he did not support the full repeal of the single business tax.  Whether true or not, many small businesspeople and business leaders want that tax jettisoned as a symbolic and real sign of commitment to the business community that so distrusts the current governor.  The failure to eliminate the single business tax in rhetoric alone has caused many potential-DeVos supporters to reconsider Granholm as the "devil you do know is better than the devil you don't know" candidate.  Lastly, the first public debate demonstrated that Governor Granholm is the better politician in saying what needs to be said to get reelected (another Clintonesque trait) rather than DeVos' slowly, meandering answers that went nowhere quick.  Consequently, the number of undecided voters increased after the debate as questions about a DeVos governorship have grown. 

In the end, I believe that the Granholm-DeVos Contest will be close, but not close enough for the Republican challenger.  I predict that many Michiganders disgusted with the current Governor may vote for DeVos as a protest vote against the "business as usual" approach during the last 4 years.  Many of the undecided voters will break for the incumbent as DeVos has not gained their confidence over a well-liked Governor who disappointed.  The day after the election will show that Michiganders will grant Governor Granholm a second chance at regaining their trust, and that Mr. DeVos had many of necessary characteristics of a leader, but still lacked the traits that matter most.

Well, since I am a public school Social Studies teacher, it seems about time to comment on the various goings-on within the public school system where I teach, and in the issues discussed within Michigan public schools in general.

The hot topic of the last several years has been how little American citizens know about geography, history, civics (United States' Government), and economics. Reinforcing this narrative is the popular segment "Jay Walking" on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The supposed goal of Social Studies classes is to teach young Americans critical thinking skills, while teaching them factually correct information in the subject being studied. The ultimate goal is to have a knowledgable, critical thinking, citizen who will participate in American democracy.

The bipartisan education bill, No Child Left Behind, has required every state to administer a standardized test to its public school students in the subjects of: Math, Science, English, and Social Studies. These tests are designed to track students' progress from elementary school through high school. Secondary students take these standardized tests in 9th grade as freshmen, and then again in 11th grade as juniors.

Michigan school districts have responded to this federally-mandated state standardized tests by realigning their Social Studies' curriculum to provide students the necessary knowledge that will be assessed on the test.

Consequently, many students take American History in 9th grade and 10th grade, while U.S. Government has been shifted from a senior course to junior year or before. In the district where I teach, the sequence looks like the following:
9th Grade:
American History
Global Issues

10th Grade:
American History (1914 - 1952)
American History (1952 - Present)
AP American History

11th Grade:
Economics
U.S. Government
AP U.S. Government

12th Grade:
No Social Studies Required

What has been the impact of having younger students taking civics courses? Many teachers I have spoken with do not like having 9th, 10th, and 11th graders taking U.S. Government because they feel that students do not possess the cognitive ability and/or critical thinking skills necessary to make the class as enriching as it previously was. In addition, the Advanced Placement teachers have told me that the quality if student work has gone down as the AP American History and the AP Government class is now taken by 10th and 11th graders respectively. I do not know if the number of students taking the AP tests in these classes or the quality of their scores has also gone down.

I have found that students find the scope of the 9th grade American History quite boring
(1876 - 1914), and many of the teachers agree. Also, many students seem to like the Global Issues class in which the teacher designs the course. Some teachers cover the world regionally-from Africa to Asia to the Middle East, and so on, while other teachers present this course thematically. I think both methods of teaching the course seem quite logical. What themes do teachers use to explore the vast peoples and cultures of the world? World Religions, Globalization, The Environment, Human Rights, Overpopulation. I find that selecting these themes are broad enough to include many culture throughout the world, and give students the framework to make the connections between varying topics.

Unfortunately, I also find that using the thematic approach can often devolve into a course on the instructor's liberal political ideology where each theme is viewed through the prism of the liberal Democrat instructor teaching the course. World Religions becomes a class on religious universalism where all major religions have similar beliefs, teaching, and perhaps even the same God. Sometimes instructors do not teach about Christianity because "the students already know it". Globalization often becomes a unit on outsourcing, sweat shops, and corporate greed. The Environment may focus on corporations polluting rivers and land in developing nations. Human Rights may become a unit on American imperialism in the quest for oil or anti-Soviet allies. Overpopulation deals with China's One-Child policy and the misuse of land in The United States as urban sprawl continues to spread further and further from big cities.

My fear is that young Americans will only see the negative aspects of the ideals that make up America. The themes they learn will be: America The Imperialist, Capitalism is Evil, and Corporate Polluters. How can we expect young Americans to participate in a democracy the promotes the ideals of democracy, capitalism, and freedom of religion? If I were a 14 year old student, I would not want to participate in a country that I thought was morally bankrupt that only caused problems globally. In fact, if learning that the 2000 Presidential Election was stolen, I would not even try to write my public official, attend a political rally, and/or vote-why would I? My vote would not even count.

American History courses can quickly become a tool for liberal indoctrination rather than for what they are meant to be-the pursuit of an objective telling of American History from multiple perspectives. More on this later...

Update 10/2/06

Many of the American History courses can be taught from an ideological perspective with historical events simply being taught to illustrate examples of the educator's worldview.  This is true of both liberals and conservatives within the classroom.  Personally, I believe that teachers should meet their students' needs by presenting the facts as modern historians understand them, and offer students various interpretations of the events that possess validity.  I have heard teachers discuss how the current American war in Iraq is "Vietnam All Over Again", and how they want their students to make these "connections".  I believe that it is more intellectually honest, and more effective for the students if this "connection" is presented as an open-ended question that the student can analyze with their own mind, and support with facts from both conflicts.  Often, I find that some American History teachers take pleasure in students drawing the conclusions that agree with their personal worldview.  The themes often boil down to:  American imperialism, American mistreatment of minorities, American corporate greed at the expense of the worker, America the overzealous military power, and America the corrupt.  The Cliffs Notes of history presented students is condensed into the following major historical events to support the above-discussed worldview:
1.  Genocide Against Native Americans.
2.  Genocide Against African Slaves.
3.  Rights Denied Women.
4.  Rights Denied Workers.
5.  Unnecessary Military Conflicts.
6.  Unnecessary Paranoia about Soviet Power.
7.  Unnecessary Social Conservatism.
8.  The Glorious Rise of Social Programs
9.  The Civil Rights Era
10.  The Rise of Partisanship and Election 2000

It is entirely correct to study and discuss the abduction of African slaves from the West Coast of Africa, and their horrible, inhumane treatment in North America, but it should also be placed within the context of the time, so students do not begin to judge all historical events with a presentism that does not reflect the contexts of the past.  Also, teachers should encourage a free exchange of ideas within the classroom that delve deeper into the reasoning of the people involved in order to examine cultural values in that contemporary time period-not contrast all historical events with the liberal mores of 2006. 

Students often learn how to develop their opinion on a topic regardless if they have factually correct information to support their position.  I see students who make have an overabundance of passion about their opinion, with very few factually correct facts to support their position.

Often teaching Social Studies can be more about the teachers' pursuit of convincing themselves of their political worldview and/or evangelizing their students than an honest, open exchange of ideas.

In the politically-charged environment of many Social Studies' classrooms, I would not want to participate actively in a democracy that has only been the perpetrator of genocide, economic and political exploitation of other nations and minorities, and is an imperialist hegemon that the international community despises and distrusts.  As an ever-increasing number of young people are learning history in an environment of political indoctrination and with a presentism devoid of historical context, it is difficult to imagine young Americans participating in a democracy that they do not believe in.

The following post comes originally from Michiganders for Romney where I am a regular contributor.  

G.O.P. Frontrunners for the 2008 Presidential Nomination 

Well after a two-and-a-half month hiatus, I am back blogging here at Townhall.  My primary blog is St. Stephen's Gate over at blogger.  Despite teaching and coaching, I am going to try my darndest to make political posts here, while maintaining the homebase at blogger, and making the occasional contribution to Michiganders for Romney.  Let's see if my optimism can be sustained. 

One of the joys of reading is not only satisfying a curiosity or gaining new knowledge, but the new directions it takes you in. While reading Victor Davis Hanson's "Carnage and Culture" this summer, I became interested in military history and the cultural mileiu in which the battle took place. While at Barnes and Noble, I made an impulse purchase-Michael Oren's "Six Day War". Although dense reading, I devoured the book within two weeks, and found a new interest in the emergence of radical Islam within the Middle East, and the history of anti-semitism (I have been reading Walter Lacquer's "The Changing Face of Anti-semitism". This led me to read all of the editorial articles surrounding the recent-controversy about Pope Bendict XVI's Regensburg speech.

Most recently, I have had an interest in the battle for the truth of Christianity within a post-modern western culture. Last night, I bought G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" and Ravi Zacharias' "The Real Face of Atheism". Both of these books relate to the Pope's recent statements about the positive agenda that Christianity supposes instead of the widespread perception that it is a religion based upon a laundry list of: Thou Shall Nots.

Last year at this time, I had an interest in pursuing a law degree at a Catholic university-where I could combine the study of theology with law. Now, I am more interested in world philosophies as they apply to religion, and how these philosophies bear themselves out in real-world behavior. I continue to wonder if I am to live in the secular world as a lay person or perhaps as clergy bringing non-believers to the truth that is Christianity. Despite my impatience at the answer, I have faith that I will come to a fulfilling resolution.

In the wake of the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I began to reflect on the shock, horror, grief, and anger that it elicited within me and many fellow Americans five seemingly short years ago. In the meantime, the United States Government launched a "War on Terror" against Afghanistan's Taliban Government, and, shortly thereafter against Saddam Hussein's Baathist Government.

Whenever I heard President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, or reporters use the phrase "War on Terror", I felt surprised at my own emotionless at this rallying cry against a foe who had brought down two-110 story skyscrapers in downtown New York City.

Why was I not channeling the frustration, sorrow, and anger that I had previously felt on the day that marked a "Pearl Harbor" moment for the current generation of Americans?

When "terrorists" beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl and contract worker Nicholas Berg, why did I feel such internal confusion with these brutal acts against fellow human beings? Why are these terrorists beheading their captives? Why are they willing to strap explosive on their body in order to bring death to themselves and others?

When I heard political pundits begin to use the phrase, "Clash of Civilizations", I felt unease at this overexaggeration of a few inhumane acts by global terrorists.

Finally reality beaned me in the head after seeing terrorists strike Bali nightclubs where Australians often vacation, and train bombings in Madrid, Spain. Why were these people attacking such diverse locations as Bali, Madrid, and New York City in the previous years? What united these societies in their supposed offense to these terrorists?

Shortly thereafter, I was shocked at all three locations that the terrorists designated where inhabited by westerners, and that these terrorists were in fact united by their radical interpretation of the Islamic faith. The amorphous category of terrorist was now represented by the very real danger of jihadists who were willing to kill the people and the ideas which these people espoused, and replace them with mosques, calls to prayer, and sharia law.

Story-after-story further forced me to cleanse my mind of the political correctness that has increasingly infected American society and many of its people-these enemies are not generically terorists, but have a religious faith that they are trying to spread, while simultaneously destroying others who do not agree.

Controversy over controversy from the Denmark newspaper's publication of political cartoons to the recent speech by Pope Benedict XVI critizing Islam's conversion to the faith "by the sword", I became a true believer in the civilizational struggle in which all human beings are engaged. Will Americans wake up and throw off the intellectual shackles of political correctness? Will world political leaders stand up to the blackmail by some radical Islamic leaders who wish for apologies for their followers violent reactions to truth?

If the West and the ideas of liberty, religious freedom, and peace are to survive, than truth must vanquish the fatal disease of political correctness.

I watched about ten minutes of the Democratic debate between incumbent Senator Joseph Lieberman and his challenger, Ned Lamont.  I can fully appreciate why the Daily Kos crowd in tandem with the Moveon.org folks are supporting an insurgent Lamont candidacy.  In the brief time that I watched the debates, I noticed Lamont sounds like a Democratic candidate for president-not a serious senatorial candidate representing one of the fifty states in the union.  I heard his scathing critiques of the Iraq War, "Big Oil", and earmarks.  With the exception of Mr. Lamont's proposal for ending dependence on foreign oil with Carteresque (he brought up the cardigan speech-not me) conservation, I could tell you a laundry list of ideas that Lamont is against, but virtually no ideas that he supports (except cardigans and conservation).  If Senator Lieberman is the last of a dying breed of Scoop Jackson Democrat, than I shudder to think what label should be properly applied to the Democrats that are taking their place.  Perhaps a Moveon Democrat or a Kosocrat?  The Lamont-Lieberman debate  is being reaired at 6:00 am Eastern, and should be made available on the C-SPAN homepage.  I will link to the replay of the debate as (and if) it becomes available.