Mental Health Care ?

   Now we are going to have a federal government movement to treat diseases of the mind like diseases of the body. This might be a nice idea if it were possible, but is sure to become very difficult very quickly. The first problem is that we do not have a scientific psychology. We simply do not know what we are doing when it comes to psychiatry and psychology Rather, we have a bunch of overpaid pseudo-scientists ready with their DSM to categorize and judge their peers like sophomore psych students do all their personal relations. What was only annoying in the age of “therapy” is positively dangerous in the age of careless and experimental drug treatment, a resurgence of electroshock and, soon, lobotomy. And here we are back at the topic of prescription drug abuse. Many people are sure to be harmed a great deal at great profit for the drug companies. Read Julie the Mad Blogger, if you do not believe me. Her story is about to be repeated 100,000 times.

   I have written on psychology, over there in the permanent pages in the Menu, but no one is able to read the chapter. Americans just are not very interested in learning something new about the soul, but more about making money and the body. The chapter sets out an attempt at a genuine, philosophical psychology. But I can say a thousand times that our psychology does not know what it is doing, and demonstrate this with a few points and questions, but the words go in one ear and out the other. Ask them what the well-functioning soul is, and it turns out they have not ever thought about it, but simply judge “mal-function” according to suburban common sense. A matter of one’s own culture, is it? And “adaptive,” what does that mean? And our entire text-books of “abnormal” psych do not contain the word love.  Our psychology is then incapable of studying the relations the complexity of which often causes the significant crises in our lives. We do not have a knowledge of the soul that corresponds with our scientific biology at the basis of medicine, and we cannot even treat these diseases without continuous and deadly medical error, infection from the hospital, etc, so that more deaths are occurring from medical error than on the highway. Further, what if justice is the health of the soul? Is not the value free science then a bit like a physician who does not believe thee is a health of the body, but know his own profit quite well?

   I have already limited my writing because of the new program. Criticism of the government will become a category in the DSM, as will criticism of psychiatry and the drug industry. Anything extra-ordinary will be endangered, and we are of course gearing up again to trample the Bill of Rights. The powers of government to do whatever they want will be increased, and the Soviet-style branding of every government critic as insane is sure to become commonplace.

   We do indeed have serious “mental health issues” in America, but these are not the sort that can be treated without doing more harm than good. Long ago, we ought have treated the criminal desire that allows people to harm others without caring what they do, and even to profit from harming others. How we will diagnose and treat this problem is a good question, but treating mental illness might come after we treat ethical illness, to assure the ethics of those we “empower” to treat our minds.

Marijuana Legalization Will Not Be Set Before the Majority

Our Republican congress here in Michigan, left over from before the Republican Party became toast, has blocked the question of Marijuana legalization from the ballot for this fall. Over 350,000 signatures were gathered, but the Republicans had passed a law requiring that the 180,000 signatures required be gathered within 180 days. And the Republican-friendly Michigan Court has upheld the law. 150,000 of the signatures were gathered in the 180 days, only 30,000 short.

What if all 350,000 signers then go next week and sign another petition, or even write in the ballot proposal? But once again, it becomes clear why this is a constitutional issue, and we need a U. S. Supreme Court decision on whether a thing can be a crime when no ones rights are violated and no commerce is involved. Office holders at every level of government have for fifty years been selected precisely for not understanding this issue. So we get anomalies where sodomy is a right, toxic antidepressants fine even if your driving, you know, we wouldn’t want anyone depressed, Oxy over-prescribed because it is profitable, and heroin detox a failure, just don’t smoke or prescribe weed! It is a “Schedule One” drug, and we are supposed to respect such authority. That is what happens when we try to address a constitutional question by ballot in the elections.

The people of Michigan have seen enough of this Republican governance, and won’t be electing Republicans now for some time, leaving the Democrats with insufficient criticism and opposition. But we have see what happens when government is run for profit.

Marijuana legalization is Blocked from the Ballot in Michigan

The 1986 policy used to block the petition has NEVER BEFORE BEEN USED.

This is why we need a Supreme Court decision declaring the prohibition of Marijuana unconstitutional. The prohibition itself leads to the violation of the constitution in countless other ways, and assures that money will flow to organized crime. All we need do is obey our constitution to cut the “war on drugs” in half overnight. Common sense, rather than special interest inspired regulation of genuine commerce would then have to be enacted. An example is that one ought not use carcinogenic chemicals in growing medicinal weed for sale. But again, the states never gave the federal government the power to prohibit growing ones own weed and smoking it. The federal government simply took this power, and justified it on the basis of their power to tax and regulate commerce, which are among their enumerated powers. They had to change the constitution to prohibit alcohol, and even then never prohibited making ones own beer and drinking it at home. The prohibition is a constitutional absurdity that has perverted our public offices beyond belief and in numerous ways. Only people who do not understand the issue, or else lie, are permitted to hold public offices. So we have cultivated liars and corruption in our polity, and all we have to do to be rid of this corruption is, like Dorothy, click our heels and obey our Constitution.

The following post was sent out by MI Legalize:

MILegalize has filed a 48-page, six-count complaint and 26-page emergency motion against various agencies of the State of Michigan for refusing to count the 354,000 signatures submitted by MILegalize to place the Marijuana Legalization, Regulation, and Economic Stimulus Act on the November 2016 ballot.

The State defendants are using a never-before utilized 1986 policy as an excuse not to count the signatures. This policy would require MILegalize to collect almost double the amount of signatures required to make the ballot by requiring affidavits from every signor of the petition whose signature was more than 180 days old- 200,000+ people- or, local clerks could certify the signatures as valid.
But that doesn’t work for a lot of reasons: local clerks have no legal obligation to verify the signatures, they have never done it before, have never received any training or money to do so, and even the Bureau of Elections stated clerks did not have to verify the signatures.
For these reasons, and more, the 1986 policy is impossible to comply with– they may as well have asked MILegalize to turn in a unicorn or find Bigfoot to qualify for the ballot.
The MILegalize legal team, which consists of six attorneys working on the case in consultation with many more attorneys behind the scenes, prepared a suit which MILegalize filed which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the state from using the 1986 policy; it asks the Court to declare the policy and two other election laws as unconstitutional; and asks the Court to order the Bureau of Elections to begin counting MILegalize’s signatures.
The case was filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims on June 17th, and MILegalize is currently waiting on the State’s reply or for the Court to issue an emergency ruling.
Rest assured, MILegalize will fight for the inclusion of every valid Michigan voter who signed the petition. We are fighting for more than just better cannabis laws, we are fighting for the heart and soul of our democracy. We will not quit.
At the same time we engage in legal action to protect the rights of Michigan voters, we continue to campaign for the November election and need your help educating Michigan voters about the initiative. Our enemies may be trying to keep us bogged down in court so the public does not get informed of the details of the campaign as much as they would if we had already qualified.
A typical statewide ballot campaign requires $3-$10 million dollars for media advertising and get-out-the-vote resources. MILegalize is not a typical campaign and we can achieve victory without the resources of a typical campaign, but we still need your help to win.

If the Orlando Shooter Was On Antidepressants, Does Anyone Care?

Does anyone care if psychiatric medicine is causing mass murder in America? Or are we just too snowed by the reputation of the “mental heath professionals” and our ignorance of psychology, the ignorance of our science, to consider the possibility that our “cure” is the cause? The Emperor Wears No Clothes! The medical profession cares more about profiting from prescriptions than about the health of their patients, and the psychiatric profession is no different. It is our modern sophistry, the practice of a profession for profit, together with the legal and congressional professions. Our stupidity is the architectonic national disaster.

Hey, kids, just don’t smoke! And have a little Ritalin!

Orlando: The “Only” Obvious Difference between the U.S. and Other Nations?

On NPR news they just said “…and the only obvious difference between us and these other countries is” our loose gun laws. Oh, except that we invented the drug-them-all-for-profit mental health system, that our congress is corrupted by campaign finance bribery and gerrymandering, and, oh yeah, we are so stupid that our public radio radio cannot understand a simple explanation, and oh, 4th, we blame and spy on, demonize, assault and threaten to drug anyone who is not also this stupid and tries to pint out, for example, that antidepressants are rather obviously involved, or at least worth considering as a cause. Again, the two problems coincide, and public shooting began at the same time that psychopharmacology and the prescription drug industry took over the practice of the “mental health professionals.” This is precisely what we are doing that other countries are not doing, and why things like Orlando and Sandy Hook keep happening. Other nations do not worship profit, subjecting education, psychology and law enforcement and the courts to money, and other nations are not so slavishly subject to popular opinion.   And perhaps other nations do not only consider problems when there is blood all over, but listen to intelligence and foresight when people make basic, communicable suggestions.

The right to bear arms has an obvious limit, and there is no reason not to license guns as we do cars, except that we are too stupid to do this correctly. We would have B. A. sociology students judging Clint Eastwood, who would surely be smart enough not to say anything the shrinks do not understand. Everyone can drive a lethal car, and licences are lost due to irrresponsibilities, but it is not clear that guns should be licenced like this. The States can surely license guns as they do cars, since the Second Amendment was never yet selectively incorporated (or, applied to the states as well as to the federal government through the fourteenth Amendment, which applies the liberty of the Fifth Amendment to the states). Again, the CLC policy is to drive a wedge between responsible and irresponsible gun sales and ownership, in every way possible, so that the end result is that responsible but vulnerable people have guns for protection but criminals and irresponsible people do not have guns, even for protection. The difference between a machine gun and a hand gun is about 7 dead compared to 49 dead. We do not allow private ownership of tanks and nukes, and there are some simple but severe weapons that, when we are under attack, as we are, the police may not allow one to own.

And why do we not go straight after these shooters, but give them three hours? Why do the people themselves not attack them, even by throwing things, at an opportune moment, all at once? Perhaps because we rely on guns, which are often useless in the clutch, or worse than useless. And our education is again too stupid and subject to stupid common opinion to cultivate a training for how to act in such a circumstance.

We do not understand our own Second Amendment, which is very difficult due to intentionally vague language, as has been said too by a constitutional scholar, though I have misplaced the name.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed because of the necessity of a well regulated militia to the security of a free state. If the people have their own guns, they will know how to use them, and the militia will be better regulated. When we bear arms, it is in service to the governor, especially when we assemble armed. This is because military power is subject to the civilian, elected leaders. But it does not quite say that we have to be in the militia to bear arms, but that the right of the people to keep and carry arms will not be infringed. It seems that the right is preserved where carrying a machine gun is forbidden, because the person might carry a long gun. But where the bad guys have machine guns, it would be legal to carry a machine gun, theoretically. And of course there is a right of self defense and the defense of others, and though this is not in the Bill of Rights, it would be recognized by combining liberty of the Fifth Amendment with the Second Amendment. This liberty is very difficult. Unlike other nations, too, we are failing at it, in part because we are so stupid.

Was the Orlando Shooter on Antidepressants?

It may be inappropriate, and I may of course be wrong in this particular case, but one must wonder whether psychiatric medicines are a contributing factor in the epidemic of public shootings in America. I believe that it turns out that I was correct, that Jason Dalton Dalton was in fact on Prozac. Psychiatry now believes, and public opinion upholds, that their medicines are cures not causes, and that what we need is more “mental health care,” say, to treat people like me who see a possible cause, lives at stake, and try to raise these questions publicly, so that if these medicines are in fact crucial contributing factors, we might be more careful about them in the future. Seeing is of course dangerous, because one might speak a thing contrary to received opinion, which is of course also a characteristic of madness.

Again, the reasons that I question psychiatric medicine in relation to public shootings is that I know some other things that others do not know, and these comprehensive ideas come together to lead to a possibility, for those who care. The epidemic of public shootings began at the same time that psychiatry switched from the “therapy” idea to the drug-them-all-for-profit idea. I also see financial interests, such as those of the drug companies, exerting a great influence upon both our politicians and our news media. But most of all, perhaps, is that long experience and the road that I have taken have shown me, I believe, that we do not have knowledge about the soul even as we do about bodily medicine, so that, as I say, we literally do not know what we are doing when we drug people. Our trust in the mental health profession, like our trust in the priests that once was a part of common opinion, has been gravely misplaced. I know, perhaps, because I have seen what they study to excel in psychiatry, (which is literally the “healing” of the psyche or soul) and I have also spent time with those like Carl Jung, Socrates and Jesus, who know what they do not know but also know some things we do not know, and care enough to take the risk to try to tell us.

If, for example, antidepressants were taking weak or bad souls and “dropping the floor out from under them,” or “pushing them over the edge” by making them suicidal in addition, things would be just as they appear: The shootings would happen, and no one would raise the question, except perhaps for a few who see the matter from this side, like Andrew Thibault or Julie the Mad Blogger. And for ourselves, we would let it go, but it is hard to see ones nation suffer and things be destroyed in these ways while no one will even raise the questions.

It is of course difficult to tell whether the medicines given for one malady actually make it worse or just fail to cure it, and also difficult to tell whether these cause other problems, so that the side effects are worse than the original problem. But it is not difficult to tell that Purdue Pharmacy made 31 Billion dollars off one kind of 12 hour Oxy while delivering many of our youth to the porch of the heroin dealers, nor is it difficult to tell that we have a little problem with campaign finance in this country, so that Congress would be reluctant to fix this if it were the problem. Nor is it difficult to see that a failure of common sense integrity on one matter can have a trickle down effect into matters one would never have been able to think out and foresee, because we just do not have the time, integrity and brain cells to think out everything. Nor is it difficult to see that there are a lot of people who would do a lot of things to protect a 31 Billion Dollar interest. Look what those GM CEO’s did to hide the ignition switch problem. Oh, but these are rich people, and they would not be rich if they did not have virtue, and far more than any of the poor? They clearly spend their leisure time pursuing the mysteries of engineering for the good of the customer, or the study of the soul for the good of mankind regardless of profit, for they already have enough money, and do not need to be slavish to earn even more. They might even, whodathunkit, ignore the question of whether antidepressants are causing the epidemic of public shootings, though the companies might privately correct the problem without acknowledging their error, which would be better than nothing. And when they cash their six figure checks, everyone will know that they have made the right choices. You see, we understand too something about the weakness to which America is subject, though we perhaps do not see these weaknesses as well as our enemies do.

So far, we have heard that this man had “Bi Polar Disorder,” a severe case of mood swings once called manic-depression.; This is just a description of symptoms dressed up in scientific sounding language, and by those too who have never thought it profitable, say, to study tragedy and comedy. Everyone knows that we have alternating good moods and bad moods, and those who do not cultivate the soul are more subject to moods than those who do. Severe mood swings are something we notice too in those long subjected to psychiatric medicines, like the twitches they like to ignore, though the government may at least make the companies list these things as “side effects.” Public shootings are consistent with the known and listed side effects of antidepressants. From the fact that there was such a name, “Bi-polar,” applied to this man, I can reason that it is likely that he had some contact with the “mental health profession,” and from that I can reason that it is likely he has been given their psychiatric drugs. But I am still sticking to my first guess, which is that like Jason Dalton, it will turn out that this murderer was on antidepressants.

 It is amazing that when a question arises which might cost the drug industry the opportunity for ill gotten gain, there is suddenly all sorts of reverence for privacy. For marketing purposes, no one cares if the most private conversations are broadcast through our T. Vs and computers and phones, but these murderers have such privacy that we the people are just forbidden the crucial information needed to determine whether antidepressants are the key factor in the epidemic of public shootings. Again, without my consent, a conversation with a friend about a molestation that occurred when he was eight and did not discuss with me for thirty was was captured through my television and computer (which I do not own), and this is just fine with everyone. Congress will do nothing to protect privacy because the spy-marketers are making money and Congress is getting a cut. And really, what do we have to hide, especially from our enemies? But let a question of murder arise that might get in the way of profiteering at the public expense, and suddenly we have such reverence for privacy and the Fourth Amendment that we cannot even collect statistics on whether these shooters are not literally all on antidepressants, which would look bead for the industry indeed, and the profession of gathering six figures for drugging people after fifteen minute interviews- which, in case you do not know, has become the common practice in this iatria of the psyche.

Antidepressants are Causally Related to the Public Shootings Epidemic

Once again, prescription anti-depressants are going to be found causally related to the epidemic of public shootings in the United States. The radio news will dot report the question, and the Lieutenant Governor will not raise the issue, because of the power of the prescription drug industry and their influence on politicians through “Campaign Contributions.” We have always had guns, though not quite so promiscuously. What is different is the prescription drug industry. Other nations have psychiatry and psychiatric medicine. What is different is our corruption and the power of money to obscure the common good in the United States. What is different, coinciding with the epidemic, is that most people in the United States are now on prescription drugs. And again, our enemies could not have devised a better way to weaken us or bring us down if they were literally behind this, as they seem to be behind the Oxy-heroin scandal. Hey Purdue, would you commit treason for 31 billion dollars? Someone else will only do it anyway if you do not, so hey, you might as well be the one making the money. These people already have more money than a person can spend in a lifetime, and may never notice the profits earned at the expense of their nation. But that is the result of the empty or easily perverted American view of “success.” You cannot serve both God and mammon, and it seems we have taken our choice.

Soon they will come to try to drug me, for saying such things. What an imagination! I am learning, though, as with the oil spill, that when I am beating my head against a wall because the world won’t see what seem to me alone to be the simplest things, there is usually a reason I could not imagine. They did not want to clean up the oil spill, but had already decided to use dispersants. That’s ok, the Gulf of Mexico is salt water anyway.

Marijuana, Prescription Drugs and Driving

The Michigan legislature recently addressed the question of Marijuana and driving, attempting to devise a way of testing when medicinal and other weed smokers are too high to drive. This is a serious question, as it is possible to be too high to drive, though it is also a roundabout attempt by the Republicans, or what is left of them, to criminalize weed. The result of the medicinal law has been that, as occurred regarding tobacco, growers are given a volume limit, which they then enhance chemically by corrupting the plant. They use chemicals to make their limited amount produce more of the drug, so that 12 plants now, using chemical methods, can produce many pounds of very potent weed. Next time the legislature will think to require that the weed be organic, but then all those chemical companies contributing to campaigns just won’t be satisfied.

Marijuana and driving is a question different, of course, from alcohol and driving. Alcohol effects the motor functions, so that one becomes sloppy, and cannot keep one’s lane. With weed, one is likely to be twice as “paranoid,” and hence cautious, as any motor functions are effected. One is likely to keep one’s lane just fine, but lose track of where they were going! Reaction time slightly lower, but caution increased, so that, as Jack Herrer reported, driving stats for weed smokers are the same or even slightly better than non weed smokers (though that test was done before the age of medicinal weed). Habit is dissolved a bit, if attention is increased, and much of driving depends upon habit. But it is possible to become confused and make errors, especially in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Yet it is difficult or impossible to set a medical test, as unlike alcohol, the stuff stays in the system when one is no longer under the effects. It is just different, a different kind of thing.

It is however astonishing that it has not occurred to the Republicans to prohibit Prescription drugs and driving. If the Americans could not drive with prescription drugs in their systems, the nation would screech to a halt. Congressmen could not get to work in Lansing. And Oxy, being an opioid, is more likely to effect motor function and be responsible for traffic accidents. They made 321 Billion dollars off one version of Oxy and no one was driving on it? And what about antidepressants, with “Abilify”? What about Ritalin and Aderall, are these not a bit distracting? 50, 000 traffic deaths a year and what, no one has thought to keep these statistics? No one funded the study?

Our nation has entered a grave corruption, in part as the result of the attempt to prohibit Marijuana contrary to the Constitution. The paradoxical result of the prohibition of a non-toxic, nonaddictive herb for philosophical reasons, reasons of opinion or conservative opinion, has been the handing of our nation over to the drug dealers now powerful enough to legitimize the trade in the prescription drug industry. With drug money in Congress, and a system that just cannot say no to “Campaign finance,” these perversions are sure to continue, until the Americans “Just say No.”

So, hey, was Jason Dalton on Antidepressants? There is no answer yet? Mr. Thibault too understands the sudden grave government concern with the privacy of a mass murderer to be a part of a cover-up. People will do a lot for billions of dollars. But in the end, one will find the American FBI equal to corruption, and largely  above the ultimate power of money. Lets show the FDA and the drug companies who is America!

Hey FDA, you ought be ashamed, without redaction, though you cannot be. But you can be as unemployed as I am, and you won’t do half as much good with your time. The Food and Drug administration, at taxpayer expense, is simply on the take. This is not surprising, considering that the Americans might whore their own children for a few billion dollars, and the third prepared to vote for a tyrant just cannot say why one should not, prostitute their own children for money. “Success” this is called, the American Dream, the American way. My suggestion is that we the free Americans stand up and show them the American way, because if it were too late, they would not be required to have warning labels.

It is of course difficult to tell whether a troubled person was treated with antidepressants and just not given enough, or whether, as we think obvious to common sense, troubled persons are made suicidal and taken over the edge by the drugs that were supposed to help. A recent “study” cited on the radio assures us that antidepressants have no link to suicide, nor can radio personalities read either the label or the writing on the wall. Jason Dalton is said to have been on Prozac, and Purdue just pocketed 31 Billion dollars from Oxy, (not to mention the kickbacks from the heroin dealers!)

Again, the lack of scientific knowledge in the field of psychology allows these corrupt companies to use the power of their wealth with the broadest latitude in the field of psychiatric drugs. But the same has been done with Viagra and restless leg syndrome, abusing the Hippocratic oath which once guided medical ethics and bolstered trust in medical authority. The destruction of our confidence in medicine and psychiatry is an unfortunate, but warranted, result. I think, though, now the voters may just be getting a bit of that restless leg syndrome, and we can think of a nice, traditional, low tech way to exorcise the problem!

The abuse of prescription drugs, as well as the corporate control of speech and public opinion, must stop. It will stop when we the voters reform “campaign finance” to exclude bribery. We must stop electing politicians who prostitute the citizens to line their own pockets as a condition of employment. We must stop electing only used car salesmen. What, they snow us with that blow-dried look, and we call this a sign of the merit worthy of office in the United States?


P. S. Hello,!

Are you aware that your website requires visitors to “sign in” before they can like anything, and given the whistle blower topic and documented cover ups, one cannot be sure that that is safe? WordPress does the same to me, and it is in violation of the First Amendment, though my Congressman has apparently been paid not to care. I re-blogged an article of Mr Thibault from the website of Juliethemadblogger.

CLC or Centrist Reasoning on the Abortion Issue

Here is the difficult issue that truly has divided the Democrats and Republicans, and any candidate for Congress should try to address the matter. Barack is the first Democrat I ever voted for, since becoming a “Republican,” because I believe our nation has made a grave error on this matter. Abortion, though, is different from murder, and the whole question takes us into a grey and difficult ethical area. The Bible, of course, has no teaching against abortion, and Hebrew law, I believe, distinguishes between the killing of a fetus and the killing of child. And it is of course said that the Lord knew the prophet Jeremiah in the womb, and the prophetic psalmist as well, as Ben Carson pointed out. But abortion is almost always wrong. It is the Hippocratic Oath that forbids doctors from doing abortions as a “service,” basically because medicine is to be used to heal, and pregnancy is not a disease or illness. To consider abortion a part of medical services- and compel Catholic hospitals to provide abortions- is a violation of our liberty. Children come along, and the adults must just make way for them, sacrificing their own interests for the future. Our current law and popular opinion have led to the killing of millions of human “fetuses” for mere convenience, and is a national sin.

For the Democrats, then, we note that all the arguments used to favor “choice” also allow for infanticide. Why should the killing of a child not also be the matter of a “woman’s right to choose,” as it surely is within the third trimester? “Do with her own body?” Why not also the day before giving birth, not to mention prostitution. My mother used to tell us, when she was angry, that abortion should be legal until the child is 18! They do not wish to take account of the rights of the “fetus” at all. But these rights are quite obvious after the time of viability, when it might live if born prematurely, though these rights still overlap logically with the rights of the woman carrying the child in her body. Ancient opinions once determined how to hold these rights in priorities, for example, doctors would usually abort a fetus to save the mother. But what if the mother almost surely has only a short time to live? Women and children first in lifeboats at sea is how we used to consider the difficult choices in priority. But there is clearly a gradual development of the human and its rights, and hence we are horrified by partial birth and late term abortion, even more so than early abortion. Liberal opinion cares for animal rights and forbids animal cruelty, and, well, a fetus is surly at least endowed with as many rights that it is the purpose of government to protect, even from the sacred self interest behind a “woman’s right to choose.” What if she does it to hide an adultery, or as a means of birth control, repeatedly, or on a whim? Our teacher used to joke about how one is forbidden to kill the snail darter, a small endangered cave shrimp, but not forbidden to kill a human fetus for mere convenience. This is the contradiction of liberal opinion waving the banner of a “woman’s right to choose.”

In biology, there is a principle that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” an amazing thing that accounts for why small fetuses look more similar to chicken fetuses than do older fetuses, which pass in appearance through a mammalian to a primate and then a human phase. Perhaps at some stage, the form or ontogeny is recapitulating the phylum or “phylogeny” of the snail darter, and might then be protected as the member of an endangered species. Our Bible does not teach against “evolution,” you see, but does not tell us just how God went about forming man of the dust of the earth, nor does it say just how long he took in doing this, nor just what “Adam” means. Perhaps their Bible does, but we have not read that one. It surely does not say that we must be limited by how readers first imagine Genesis.

Nor does liberal opinion take account of the rights of the father, who has no say at all in the matter. A child conceived in love or marriage, wanted by the father, may be aborted by the mother because of the supposed sanctity of a “woman’s right to choose.” I may myself have lost a child in this way, one that I wanted, if it was indeed my own. But this circumstance may be unavoidable for practical reasons, and the alternatives may be even worse: we must consider, and it is very difficult. Can the law compel a woman to carry a child in the first trimester? Even as the law compels a mother to care for her child, and does not here admit the absurdity of some “woman’s right to choose?” As with the difficulty of the rights of the father, the rights are overlapping and must be sorted in the particular according to priority. A woman voluntarily pregnant might just have to go through the nine months of difficulty for the sake of the 80 year potential future that she bares in her womb. She can then give the child up for adoption, though the women know that nature too takes over here, and while women will abort a fetus at whim, they will not bear the pain of violating the maternal attachment once the child is born. On this question, we must often return to the distinction between what is right ethically and what is right politically, since it is not the purpose of U. S. law to legislate what is right ethically, but to secure the rights that make it possible for us to neither be compelled to do what is wrong, nor be prevented from doing what is right ethically. I think that even to abort the child of rape is wrong, in part because the child did not do it, and would raise in my own family the child of one who raped my wife, should such a thing occur. But there may be such a natural repulsion to bearing the child of one’s rapist, not to mention the legal rights it would give him, that the law cannot compel such a thing in the first trimester. The rights of the woman, indeed to “choose'” may then take precedence over the purpose of government to secure the proto-rights of the proto-citizen.

A human is a fetile conception with 26 human chromosomes, and if one waits but nine months, it will be a citizen endowed with rights. So the fetus is a proto-human, and abortion at whim like a proto-murder. Its rights seem to grow with its development inside the woumb, from almost none the morning after to the rights of an infant at viability.