The Power Of Perspective

Look at the picture. What do you see? Two dog heads? A mask? A butterfly-beetle hybrid? Symmetry? A blob of ink? Or, like me, did you say, “No!  I refuse to give in to this! I hate these! I see nothing!” and then see dog heads and a mask simultaneously anyway?

Perspective can be a fickle thing. Sometimes, as in the case of the Rorschach test above, the power of suggestion can completely change the way you see an entire picture. If you saw dog heads initially, and that was all you could see, you could probably see a mask and butterfly after I gave them as possibilities. Maybe you could even remove all images in your mind after I mentioned “a blob of ink”. But in many, more serious instances, perspective is not only fixed, but crucial. How you see an inkblot test will not affect your life or that of someone else, but perspectives on what constitutes murder, who deserves life, and when life should end will definitely affect people’s lives. Unfortunately, the harmful, serious perspectives are often the ones that are hardest to change.

The pro-life movement is based on changing someone’s opinion of life and death. But such large issues are the foundation of people’s entire worldviews. In asking them to change how they see abortion, euthanasia, and similar issues, we are asking them to change how they see humanity, dignity, and life itself. Not just when life begins or ends, but what life means and why it is. That is huge. It’s easy enough to say to someone, “Look at this picture. See it this way? Now look at that aspect of it. See it this other way now?” and they say, “Yes, I do see it differently now! I will now always see that in the picture.” But to ask someone to see the world so completely differently as to change their entire life is another matter. You are telling them that they are wrong. You are telling them that people they respect and love are wrong, and that the very people they look up to lied to them. You are telling them that their entire life has been a lie. That the foundation of everything they have known and lived is just…not true. No one wants to be told that. The prospect is terrifying and angering. It puts people on the defensive. Convincing someone to change their opinion of something so fundamental takes more time, more effort, and more patience than convincing them to see a blot differently. It takes more argumentation. It takes more than one conversation. And it will probably take more self-control.

Obviously we should not stop spreading the pro-life message just because it is hard to tell and hear. The truth is often uncomfortable and unwelcome. But we have to bear in mind that we are shaking these people’s worlds to the very core and treat them with the care we are asking them to give the unborn and dying. And do not get discouraged if someone does not appear convinced after a single discussion—you are blowing their mind, after all.

Written by BCR Secretary Eileen Wittig. Originally posted at iycoalition.org

War and Politics

NOTE: This is a modified post originally found on Stanton J. Skerjanec's blog, "Arguing with a Firestorm."

If you are involved in the CRs on campus, you most likely appreciate politics somehow, someway. You probably also think political science majors have some high ambitions to be in politics. While this definitely can be true, it's not necessarily the case. Political science and politics are two very different things, and are related only in topic, not in substance. Dictionary.com defines political science as: nouna social science dealing with political institutions and with the principles and conduct of government. It defines politics as: noun the science or art of political government. Sounds similar, yes, but here is where I will define it for clarification. 

Political science is the study of politics, and politics is the practice of power, making political science the study of power. Modern poli sci has developed into a more or less objective examination of a specific social experience, much like sociology or psychology. It uses tests, experiments, data analysis, theories and laws, statistics, models, and countless of other resources to determine and track trends in politics and government. It could be as local as a public policy analysis of preserving the population of fish in Canada, or the permit qualifications of taxi drivers in Madison. It could be the large-scale study of the effectiveness laws remain in correlation to their passage time in Congress, or the examination of how often politicians keep their promises. All of those require collected data and analysis, and then a process of the scientific method, modified for social sciences. From all that is studied conclusions are drawn, usually in order to help make decisions or simply to examine political phenomenons. 

But politics is a certain kind of art. Vulgar to some and exhilarating to others. Sun Tzu's famous military treatise is called "Art of War" for a reason. War has rules, but they're more like guidelines. It takes strategy and skill to become a master general, to outmaneuver and beat your opponents, to win over allies and utilize their strengths, protecting weaknesses. War requires a certain amount of flexibility, knowing when to be ferocious and when to have restraint. 

And you know what they say: politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.

An Honorary American, this World War Champion knew how politics worked

Politics is deal makers and deal breakers, hand shaking and head shaking, ideas and ideology. It is war and peace, but mostly war, with peace used as a tool of war. Politics is a paradox of peaceful conflict we Americans don't appreciate, or we look down upon with scorn. I mean that we either don't care about politics or we are disgusted with it. In our democratic system of republicanism, instead of spilling blood in order to achieve a victory in government, we spill votes. That's a novel concept! Government victory without physical war? That's incredible, and we don't recognize that. The disgust of politics usually comes from what people see as lies, corruption, and the inability to get along. This is understandable. 

Politics is a complex form of human interaction. It's not enough to be right; you have to convince others you're right. You have to rub some elbows or twist some arms in order to get what you want. This can come in the form of hosting dinner parties, doing some personal favors, or some other form of what is collectively known as "schmoozing." It can be humiliating to some to have to schmooze, but if we see it more as building relationships rather than sucking up to people, then we see it as what is always necessary for any human interaction: connecting to others. On the other hand, this doesn't always work, and the true tactics and strategy come into play.  A politician may have to bargain with a whole slate of fellow politicians in order to achieve a goal, whether that be vote swapping or other quid pro quos. It could be outright force against an opponent via procedural rules or threat of losing prestige and power. 

The disgust of it all is in how debasing it seems, to have to resort to schmoozing or fighting. The thing is, folks, it's only a reflection of regular human interaction (albeit, in a more complicated form). Everyday we attempt to convince others of our ideas. When we can't do that, we try other ways of achieving our goals. Take, for example, four brothers charged with cleaning the bathroom. One assigned to the best post of the mirror and sink. Another to the lesser item of cleaning the shower. Still less the third must clean the toilet. Finally, the worst post assigned to the fourth brother is the floor, including that around the toilet. What person wouldn't attempt to achieve the better post, either by bargaining with his brothers or appealing to a higher power (mother)? Politics is bred into our very interactions. Government politics is simply the manifestation of our inclinations on a public and large scale.


But some would still say that politics just doesn't seem right. Something still makes them squirm with revulsion. Why? Why would they take offense to this human trait? The answer, my friends, is for a different post, one that requires a bit different approach to humanity as a whole.

Sir James Munby And Respect, Or Rather, A Lack Thereof

About a week ago, an article on Life News described a law case in England in which a senior judge “ordered” a 13 year-old mentally disabled girl to have an abortion “against her wishes.” Naturally there was considerable uproar. What is England coming to, if she can and will allow her judges to “force” a girl to have an abortion? Thankfully, Life News misreported and exaggerated. The basic facts were correct: an anonymous 13 year-old girl with an IQ of 54 and the mental capabilities of a 7 year-old was impregnated by a 14 year-old boy. Social Services brought the case before Sir James Munby, President of the High Court’s Family Division, when the girl was 14 weeks pregnant.

It is at that point that Life News’s accuracy stops. Contrary to what Life News reported, the girl was neither “forced” nor “ordered” to have the pregnancy terminated. As Law and Religion UK said in their summary of the case, Sir James simply provided the legal permission necessary for the abortion to take place, in accordance with the United Kingdom’s Abortion Act 1967. As they said, “[T]he role of the court is to supply, on behalf of the mother, the consent which, as in the case of any other medical or surgical procedure, is a pre-requisite to the lawful performance of the procedure.” It is true that when the case began the girl was set against an abortion, but by the end of the case she was asking to have one.

However, there is a point that no publication seems to have picked up on. In the course of the hearing, Sir James said that “it would not be right to subject X to a termination unless she was both ‘compliant’ and ‘accepting’. Both, in my judgment, are important. Only the most clear and present risk to the mother’s life or long-term health—neither even hinted at in the present case—could justify the use of restraint or physical force to compel compliance.” Law and Religion rightly interprets his words as further evidence that Sir James did not force the girl to have the abortion done, but his words are actually very disturbing. Sir James has just said that he believes that forced abortion is sometimes justified: “[T]he most clear and present risk […] could justify the use of restraint or physical force to compel compliance.”

It turns out that this is neither his first nor his last time expressing frightening views on birth control. London’s newspaper The Telegraph ran a story about Sir James and his stance on giving contraception to “problem parents,” parents who have a dozen or so of their children taken away by social services. But Sir James does not mention providing contraception to save the children who would be born and then taken way. Instead, he says that “[t]he savings if you can avoid care proceedings are enormous.” He is concerned for the financial state of the government, and apparently thinks that it is not worth risking for children’s lives.

An article in Britain’s Daily Mail, published half a year before the 13 year-old girl’s case was heard, sheds more light on Sir James’ philosophy. In a speech to the Law Society’s family section at their first annual conference, Sir James said, “All are entitled to respect, so long as they are ‘legally and socially acceptable’ and not ‘immoral or socially obnoxious’ or ‘pernicious.’” In other words, only some people deserve respect. But not everyone.

What makes a person legally acceptable? Presumably their legality as a citizen. What makes someone socially acceptable? Actions and decisions made according to accepted social standards. This would mean that illegal aliens, drinkers, drug users, fans of extremely loud music, psychopaths, hedonists, people with criminal histories, and “problem parents” are not acceptable and, according to Sir James, are therefore not entitled to respect. I have no doubt that everyone knows at least one person with at least one of those qualities. Does that person not deserve respect? Don’t you continue to give them respect because they are still a person, and not simply a series of mistakes?

Sir James seems to think that a person should only receive respect based on their worth and quality as a person. If someone is somewhat less than desirable socially, morally, or legally, then they do not deserve respect. Only people who are good, admirable, useful people should be respected.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has an entire article on the respect of the human person. As it says, “Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority. […] If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects.” That last part sounds like what Sir James said about giving contraception to “problem parents” and forcing a mother to have an abortion. And as someone who very consciously only respects certain people, why should he not support forced birth control?

Yet Sir James’ self-described dislike of immoral people does not correspond with something the same Daily Mail article reported. Sir James said in a speech in London that “Happily for us, the days are past when the business of judges was the enforcement of morals or religious beliefs,” and that it is “Victorian” for judges to rule in favor of “virtue and morality” and against “vice and immorality.” Apparently the questions of morals and vices, their qualifiers, and their consequences should be left to the people. But only until something goes wrong and the courts have to deal with the effects.

Written by BCR Secretary Eileen Wittig. Originally posted at iycoalition.org