Abortion Unwound

 

The young adult novel Unwind is being used to teach our children. Resolutely woke, it argues the case for abortion. This hinges, apparently, on when a human being gets a soul. It gives four positions, presumably spanning the field:

• At conception
• At quickening—"when the baby kicks”
• At birth
• When someone loves it.

And then the novel gives its own conclusion: that we really do not know. 

Therefore, no one has a right to impose their own views on the next person.

“If more people could admit they really don’t know, maybe there never would have been a Heartland War.”

Therefore, unrestricted abortion.

It is indeed true that we do not know whether a child at any given age has a soul. We also do not know whether Jews have souls. We do not know whether blacks have souls. Or women. We actually do not know whether anyone other than ourself has a soul, is conscious and self-conscious. We cannot see or hear the soul, or consciousness, or thoughts, other than our own. Everyone else might be imagined, or simulations, or alien lizard people.

Accordingly, this argument for unrestricted abortion is just as serviceable as an argument for unrestricted murder, or genocide. 

“Hey, nobody likes the Jews. That mean they don’t have souls. Let’s kill them and take their stuff.”

Why is it morally necessary to assume all other humans have souls? Because of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you are not prepared to accept that these lizard people or simulations have the right to kill you on a whim, you must not claim for yourself the same right over them. You cannot honourably take to yourself a right you would not want everyone else to have.

The question, therefore, is when the foetus is alive, and when it becomes human. 

It is identifiably human at conception, and it is identifiably alive.

Any other position ends in holocaust.

Abortion, War, and Being Unwound

 

The fundamental problem with the young adult novel Unwind, now being studied in a classroom near you, is found in this passage:

“In a perfect world mothers would all want their babies, and strangers would open up their homes to the unloved. In a perfect world everything would be either black or white, right or wrong, and everyone would know the difference. But this isn’t a perfect world. The problem is people who think it is.”

On the face of it, this makes no sense. Who thinks it is a perfect world? Not the left, who are always on about social injustice. Not the religious right, who say the world is fallen. 

What seems to be meant is that the problem is people who think things are either black or white, right or wrong. People who believe in morality; who would condemn a mother for not loving her baby, or people for not helping a stranger in need, as if they could know these things are wrong.

In other words, this is a rejection of the idea of morality itself. Right and wrong are only matters of personal preference, whim.

This is the dogma of the modern classroom. I got it drilled into me myself long ago in grad school, even back in the Seventies. One must never be “judgmental.” That was automatically wrong. One must never assert anything as true. That was arrogant. 

It took me decades to unlearn this; perhaps I am still tainted by it.

The book, lacking self-awareness, contradicts itself only a few pages later. Lev, a deeply religious kid who believes being killed for his organs is a good thing, because this is what he has been taught, has been kidnapped by Connor and Risa, wanting to save his life. 

So he escapes and reports to the nearest authority, the school administration.

“From here in the nurse’s office, Lev has no way of knowing if they’ve captured Connor and Risa. He hopes that, if they have, they don’t bring them here. The thought of having to face them makes him feel ashamed. Doing the right thing shouldn’t make you ashamed.”

In other words, despite his indoctrination by his family, his pastor, his religion, the government, and the educational system, Lev knows innately that Connor and Risa are in the right, and he is in the wrong.

Everyone does know the difference between right and wrong. Conscience will out. Such things are not socially determined.

When I dispute the initial claim, that nobody really knows what is right or wrong, I get a great deal of resistance from students. Particularly because the context seems to be abortion. They have  been well indoctrinated already; they simply will not say that abortion is ever in any way wrong. They will not even agree that it is a necessary evil. No, you can’t say anything is evil.

Then I ask “is war wrong?” And they immediately agree, seemingly without having to stop to consider. They have always been taught this too: that war is wrong in all circumstances. Despite the logical inconsistency. They had apparently never noticed it before. Some students realize the contradiction at this point, some seem not to.

Then I point out the passage featuring Lev’s thoughts on turning in Connor and Risa. 

Here they always, so far, fall silent. 

Poor kids.

Unwind

 

I am currently reading the novel Unwound (Neal Shusterman), because it is assigned in high schools.

As literature, it is on the level of Dan Brown, or a good comic book: great plotting, but no linguistic charm, vivid description, symbolism, deep characterization, or thematic sublety. It looks to be mostly a conversation starter to discuss politics; specifically, the abortion isse.

The opening premise is that, at some future date, the US dissolves into civil war on the issue of abortion. Eventually a compromise is negotiated: abortion is illegal, but you are free to kill or “unwind” your children at age thirteen.

There is an immediate logical problem with this premise: those opposed to abortion are not going to feel better about killing teenagers. Evidently the author does not understand the issue, or is deliberately falsifying it. Either way, this is not education, but misinformation.

Then the novel has the sole religious family being most aggressively in favour of unwinding their children, on the premise that it is in the Bible. 

Eh?

The author means tithing—so they are obliged to “tithe” their tenth child by killing him. And, after all, wasn’t Moses left in the bullrushes to die? So killing every tenth child is a religious duty.

The problem, as anyone who has read a newspaper or news aggregator knows, is that the religious are generally the ones in favour of “family values,” and against abortion. And, as anyone who has read the Bible knows, Moses was not left in the rushes as a tithe or sacrifice to Yahweh, but at the command of a pagan ruler trying to wipe out the Jews. They might also be aware that such child sacrifice was the crime that provoked Yahweh to cast the Canaanites out of their land, and give it to the Jews.

“Then they made their sons and their daughters pass through the fire, and practiced divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him.” 2 Kings 17:17

This book, used in our schools, is teaching young people the opposite of the truth. Partly, is seem to me, to discredit religion. Religion, they are told, is out to kill them.

According to the peace that ended the imaginary second American Civil War, mothers were also permitted “storking.” That is, unwanted babies could be left at someone else’s doorstep without penalty. This being a supposed concession to the women who wanted abortion.

They can do this, however, only if they do not get caught in the act. 

In other words, it is illegal. It is hardly a concession to say that those who do not get caught will not be prosecuted for a crime. 

 Moreover, the current laws are actually more generous. Currently, it is not a crime. Any mother can put her baby up for adoption. In many states, all she has to do is drop the child off at the nearest hospital. 

Again, the book is falsifying the abortion debate, and feeding the impressionable misinformation.

There is a grave problem here. As I think Mark Twain has said, it is far easier to trick someone than to convince them they have been tricked. By filling their heads with falsehoods, the schools are actually preventing kids from learning.