Abortion

West Pediment of the U.S. Supreme Court. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

I want to shoot all of the participants in this argument, all of them, on both sides. I am sick to death of hearing about it. Don't we have anything more significant to talk about? Of course we do, but that's kind of beside the point, this is evidently an argument some people can really sink their teeth into, not like an argument over some government policy in Lower Elbonia.

Meanwhile The Verge is giving me pause. I'm reading the chapter about Martin Luther and how he triggered a schism in the church. The smaller the difference, the greater the hatred. That schism resulted, in among other things, 100,000 dead in the Peasant's War of 1525.

In a previous chapter The Verge talks about the Spanish Inquisition. I had always heard that it was unjust and awful and how they tortured zillions of people to death. But The Verge gave me another viewpoint - why the Spanish rulers did it. It wasn't just to be mean and rotten, the purpose was to ensure obedience from the population. If being mean and rotten helped get the job done, then it's a totally valid tool. 

The purpose of the inquisition was to make sure everyone followed the same set of rules. People whose belief in a different set of rules was so strong that they could not recant, were killed. It was a horrible process, though not much different in effect than a war. Probably fewer casualties as well.

So it doesn't really matter whether we are arguing about abortion or not. If we somehow all magically came to believe the same thing about this issue, it wouldn't help. We would find another issue to argue about because that's who we are. Athletes compete in games to see who's the best. As a side effect it improves their status in society. Soldiers go war. Traders trade. There are a multitude of occupations and in every field there are going to be people pushing and shoving to get to the top. Mind you, I don't mean literal pushing and shoving, though that can be of use in some sports, there are plenty of ways to use to your talents to get what you want and that's what many people do.

At the top of the heap, or maybe it's a small clump off to the side, are the chatterboxes, people who have something to say about whatever it is. They are all competing for attention and they are playing by chatterbox rules, and those rules have nothing to do with seriousness of the subject matter, it's only whether you can say something about it that will get you more attention.

I don't mean that people are consciously choosing what they say. Oh, some of them might, but I suspect for the majority they are simply operating on instinct.

P.S. Yes, I know I am a slow reader. I only pick up the book and read when I am waiting for someone and I'm not too tired, which means five or ten minutes at a time, two or three times a week. Sometimes I get stuck somewhere for a couple of hours and I get through a chapter or two, but mostly we're talking two or three pages at a time.

P.P.S. From the article where I found the picture of the pediment at the top of this post:

The central focus is of Liberty seated on a throne and guarded by figures who represent Order and Authority. Although these sculptures are metaphorical figures, they were carved in the likeness of real people. From left to right, they are

• Chief Justice William Howard Taft as a youth, representing "Research Present." Taft was U.S. President from 1909 to 1913 and on the Supreme Court from 1921 to 1930
• Senator Elihu Root, who introduced legislation to establish the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts
• the architect of the Supreme Court building, Cass Gilbert
• the three central figures (Order, Liberty Enthroned, and Authority)
• Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who was Chairman of the Supreme Court Building Commission
• the artist Robert Aitken, sculptor of the figures in this pediment
• Chief Justice John Marshall as a young man, on the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, representing "Research Past"