[Jeff Hatton is a prolific letter writer to both the Kokomo Tribune and the Kokomo Perspective newspapers on the issue of abortion.]
Jeff Hatton of Greentown is a “Sound Off” regular on the issue of abortion with the latest being his Tribune June 15th column. His position is clear. He believes all abortion should be banned because he says the Bible says God says so. He states “that life begins where and when the Creator says it does, at conception”. His position is straight forward and clear with no flexibility.
What bothers me is that I am wondering if Mr. Hatton has considered several circumstances in taking such an absolute position. What about the case of the Marion 10 year old girl that was raped and impregnated by a Kokomo man in 2017. This was reported on May 18th, 2017, by both Indianapolis Channel 4 and 13. Should a 10 year old girl be required to be pregnant and possibly give birth to a baby? Required motherhood from rape at age 10? According to Hatton, yes.
And what about instances when doctors have concluded continuing a pregnancy is a threat to the life of the woman? Should a woman and her loved ones have nothing to say about this. Should a woman be required to carry on? According to Hatton, yes.
And what about the cases where gross genetic abnormalities are detected; abnormalities that would at some time during the gestation period lead to the death of the fetus? Should a woman be required to carry on? According to Hatton, yes.
We can agree that women’s bodies are the ones chosen by God to nurture, develop, and give birth to new life. Men were not chosen for this role. I would admonish men to tread lightly when making judgments about agreements between God and women. However, this is not to say men do not have an important, caring, and loving role to play in parenting.
Hatton claims the Bible is clear. However, there are many, many contradictions and complications in the Bible. What we do know with certainty though is Jesus taught love, grace, and forgiveness. He did not teach absolutes.
It is easy to speak absolutes. It is not so easy to deal with circumstances that actually exist in life.
The whole abortion issue has been made more poignant with the incredible images seen in sonograms. Very early in pregnancy a developing life can be seen to move, have a heartbeat, and have a reaction to pain. That life before our very eyes can be seen for the miracle it is.
I have yet to meet anyone who likes the idea of abortion. But life is complicated and sometimes messy. Absolutes against abortion or for abortion rights are troublesome. There just is no easy, simple answer.
Paris Climate Accord & Director Krull
The director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism, John Krull, has done it again in his Tribune column of June 7th about President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. He refers to Trump’s decision as “dumb, bigly, yugely, and dumb”, again. He writes more like I would expect from MSNBC’s hysterical Morning Joe Scarborough or Rachael Maddow than as a responsible, knowledgeable journalist.
The Paris Climate Accord was yet another example of poor judgment by former President Barack Hussein Obama. Obama did not even have the courage to bring this agreement to the United States Congress for debate and agreement before he committed the United States to its terms. The Agreement terms put the United States at great disadvantage and would have cost taxpayers billions of dollars without commensurate benefit. The worst of the Paris Climate Accord was that the two largest polluters on the planet, China and India, would not have been required to reduce emissions, but in fact could increase them, until 2030. In the meanwhile, the United States has in fact already voluntarily reduced emissions to levels of over 20 years ago.
President Trump put America first. He has stated publicly he intends to encourage the development of cleaner energy sources. In almost the same breath when he withdrew the United States from the Paris agreement, he stated he was more than willing to negotiate a new agreement not so punishing to our country. He reminded all the United States is 20 trillion dollars in debt. We can no longer be the money bank for other countries, whatever the cause. It is up to them to deal with their own problems. This is particularly true for India and China who stood to receive United States monetary support from the Paris agreement. They are the biggest problems and we are not their savior. We need to deal with our own country and our own problems.
The climate is changing. Contrary to some right wing conservatives, the evidence is clear. There are dozens of biological indicators of change. I know of none that support ‘no change’ or insignificant change. The temperature of the planet is increasing on average. Ice caps and glaciers are melting. The range of insects, plants, and animals is being modified. Permafrost areas are melting. Sea levels are rising. There is no doubt about these.
What there is doubt about is exactly why and how much of change is due to human activity…. and conversely, how much can be influenced by behavior change by humans. We suspect root causes to be too many people and too much polluting industry. No one wants to address the former.
I am probably one of the strongest environmentalists around. I have demonstrated this beginning as long ago as the 1970’s when in top management of the Kokomo Tribune. I directed a survey of the Wildcat Creek water quality and helped to initiate the first Creek cleanup effort which continues today. The Tribune encouraged the improvement of the waste sanitation plant for better water quality discharge. The Tribune successfully opposed the creation of the Lafayette Reservoir which would have flooded over 4,000 acres of prime farmland. The Tribune was the recipient of the Izaak Walton League media award for conservation. There was more.
I believe the decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord was the right decision for the United States. It appeared too much to be a scheme for redistribution of wealth across the globe. Its terms were voluntary and not enforceable. We need to lead by example in all areas of conservation of natural resources, not be the suckers again to finance the rest of the world. Director John Krull is wrong again. One must question his qualifications to lead a university Department of Journalism.
Abortion
There is likely no subject more touchy or contentious today than abortion. Those who oppose abortion under any circumstance are passionate and zealous in their religious beliefs. Those who believe it a woman’s right to end a pregnancy even to the point of partial birth abortion near or at the end of nine months are just as passionate about preserving a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body, regardless.
The truth: no one likes abortion. One would have to be a little crazy to do so. What the issue comes down to is who is in charge. Is the state or a religion in charge or is a woman in charge. Can she decide what she will do with her body or is that choice to be one made by a law or religious beliefs of others.
Then we have complicating circumstances. What should be the case if a young girl is raped and becomes pregnant? I have read cases of girls as young as 12 being raped and becoming pregnant. Should she be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if that is not what she wants to do? Should she be forced to be an unwilling incubator? Oh, I know, many will not like that language, but that is the medical fact. And what about a 13, 14, or 15 year old or failed contraception or a time of temporary bad judgment?
Then we have the case of fertility clinics where hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs, now embryos, are held in suspended animation in liquid nitrogen containers. They are frozen solid awaiting only implantation into the womb of a willing woman. What about these embryos that are each the size of a grain of sand? Conception has taken place, so how are these to be regarded? Does incinerating or otherwise disposing of these embryos when a couple does not want them constitute abortion? Seems it would if “life begins at conception”, as many contend.
And what about the 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all conceptions that are spontaneously aborted due to some genetic mishap? Who is responsible for these: God? What about the case of a major genetic mistake that does continue in the womb? What to do about that? These are circumstances people do not want to think about, but should.
There are no absolutes. The current law of the land says women have the right to make the decisions. Some of the most vocal of those who oppose this and say women do not have this right are, ironically, men. I wonder about that. They have absolutely no risk. I would be more inclined to listen to men if they, at the same time, would sign up to be responsible for the care of an unwanted baby from birth to adulthood. I don’t see that happening. It is all mouth.
I believe the anti-abortion and pro-choice sides could find common ground if they would. I believe agreement could be reached on legally allowing an abortion choice up to a limited time from conception; say a matter of days or weeks, not months, unless the life of the woman is at risk. This would be a position not liked by either side but one that moves from the absolutes than now exist and one I believe many would accept. Think about it.
Agriculture Factories
There is a TEDx video that all should see. It is about factory animal production (CAFO: concentrated animal feeding operation); what they are and what they have done to agriculture.
The speaker, Michele Merkel, was an attorney that worked for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Her assignment included dealing with the problems of environmental pollution that resulted from CAFOs. She saw first hand the plight of people who lived near such animal factories. Water was polluted, air was made unfit to breathe, land was contaminated, and people were harmed. The animals were treated in ways that would horrify most people. She fought to correct those things.
That is until the George W. Bush administration came into office. She describes what happened. In short, the EPA was shut down regarding any pursuit of environmental violations by CAFOs. As a result, she quit. For over 15 years, she has opposed the EPA; she sues them over what they are not doing to protect people, the environment, and the animals.
One point made is that CAFOs are NOT agriculture as people generally think of farming. Corporations and their minions that treat animals as bioreactors are not farmers. They are corporation factory operators. Large agriculture corporations have usurped the terms “farmer” and “farming” and “agriculture” to hide behind knowing people would not support what is being done if they knew the facts. This is exactly the reason behind “AG-GAG” legislation that criminalizes the taking of photos and videos without permission of the animal operation. In some states, the laws even apply to photos taken from public locations. The corporations want absolute control and want to operate out of sight and out of mind.
In a State of the Union address as long ago as 1888, President Grover Cleveland said this:
Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.
Think about this. We are fast moving there with agriculture. Animal “production” and patented seed/chemicals are in the hands of giant corporations. The only stopping is for people to become aware and to then act.
Link long address is http://www.tedxmanhattan.org/michele-merkel-using-the-legal-system-to-fight-factory-farms/