Wednesday, November 29, 2017

The following essay is part of a series of articles I wrote in 1991, called Perspective Inversion, long before blogs or even the World Wide Web existed. I’ve updated this two-parter with some recent research (which my being a Ph.D. now forces me to cite and reference…) and present it with an upgraded Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Alliance orthogonal chart.


   Both sides of the abortion battle are fighting for human rights. Pro-Choice people struggle to defend a woman’s right to control her body. Pro-Life people crusade to protect the life of the child within. It is this apparent clash of rights that has led to explosive confrontations and vicious opposition. The question, though, should not be whose rights shall be sacrificed to whom, but how can we protect the rights of everyone simultaneously. The conflict stems less from evil intentions on one side or the other than from the tragically flawed outlook that abortion is the same thing as pregnancy termination. It is not.


   In order to reconcile these two warring factions, it is necessary to ask what each side truly wants. Pro-Choice advocates seek the unconditional right of a woman to end her pregnancy. The method to achieve this has always been abortion, or the intentionally fatal removal of the fetus. Pro-Life advocates assert that a “preborn” is a human being with full rights to life. To protect this life has traditionally required full-term delivery of the infant. Therefore, supporting reproductive choice required the death of fetuses, and protecting the lives of fetuses required forcing motherhood on women.
   Is this terrible choice necessary? Must a woman choose to kill or be enslaved?
   I believe that there is a radical new possibility: pregnancy termination without fetal death; freedom of choice for women and protection for the fragile lives they carry. A fusion of both rights.
   I believe that abortion is a moral dilemma that has a technological solution. To see what such a solution might be, though, requires that Pro-Choice and Pro-Life proponents both allow the scales to drop from their eyes in order to view the question from a new angle. A perspective inversion, as it were (that is, after all, the title of these articles).
   What if a means existed to remove a fetus from one woman and place it—still alive—into the uterus of another? Such a technique already exists on a primitive scale (it is called non-surgical ovum transfer). What if that fetus could be placed in an artificial womb or high-tech incubator? Or frozen cryogenically for later thawing and implantation? Would this not satisfy both the truly Pro-Life and the truly Pro-Choice? For such a solution to be satisfactory requires that members of both movements identify their true desires.


   The Pro-Life position comprises two sub-groups: a minority who merely desire that fetuses not be harmed whether or not a woman wants to give birth to it, and a (usually religiously-rooted) majority who demand the additional power to force the woman to see her pregnancy all the way through despite her objections. I believe that every woman has an absolute right to terminate her pregnancy at any point. Human rights are equal and reciprocal, though, and carry with them responsibilities. If a parent has no right to enslave her children—to force them to feed and protect her—then a child (or a self-appointed “spokesman” for a fetus) has no right to enslave its mother—to force her to feed and protect that fetus against her will. To demand forced motherhood — when there is an alternative — is indeed to demand slavery.


   Similarly, the Pro-Choice position comprises two distinct sub-groups: a minority who want simply the right to terminate a pregnancy by whatever means are available, and those who demand the additional privilege of destroying the fetus. I suggest that a fetus—being genetically different from the mother—is a distinct human being, separate from the woman even though temporarily trapped inside her. The chorionic membrane is a barrier it builds between it and its mother and should be respected as a threshold no one has the right to breach with deadly intent. To demand a fetus’s death — when there is an alternative — is indeed to demand murder.


   I agree with the Pro-Choice camp that pregnancy is similar to trespassing. It is a woman’s right to determine if and when a fetus—whether originally “invited in” or not—has overstayed its welcome. She has the total right to “evict” the trespasser. Where I break with the majority of Pro-Choice people, though, is my belief that no one has the right to kill that trespasser when a non-lethal means of eviction exists.
   How can I support both a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy and a fetus’s right to life? Abortion — by definition (“bad birth”) — results in the death of the fetus. Pregnancy termination, though, does not by itself require a death by abortion. Abortion is the sloppy, easy method of pregnancy termination. It is currently the only method of pregnancy termination because nobody has researched alternate, non-lethal methods. The reason for this is grounded both in ignorance and misguided self-interest.
   When I was writing a novel about this in 1987 (Solomon’s Knife), I realized that non-technological factors had created a scientific roadblock to research in non-destructive pregnancy termination. Since the prevailing judicial opinion is that a fetus is not human if a woman does not want it, there is no medical impetus to develop pregnancy termination methods that would keep such legally non-human tissue alive.
   No one on the Pro-Choice side is going to rock the boat. Since women already have the judicially granted right to an abortion, developing an alternative might, in their eyes, confuse the issue. And though the Pro-Life side recognizes the humanity of the fetus, they are so overwhelmed by the horror of a million and more annual deaths that the only answer they see in the short term is to outlaw any and all pregnancy terminations and ban all research into birth control methods, including non-lethal ones. They can imagine no other alternative to abortion and feel that compelling the mother to continue with her pregnancy by force of law is a small price to pay to protect those incapable of protecting themselves. They are wrong. Killing is killing and slavery is slavery. To label killing “abortion” or slavery “maternal obligation” does not diminish the enormity of either.
   What neither side has fully realized is that technology stands on the brink of making the entire abortion controversy moot.
  • —Electromechanical wombs—human incubators—are in development (Partridge, et al., 2017) that will allow fetuses to be brought to term without forcing motherhood on the unwilling.
  • —Uterine transplants —There has already been the successful transplant of a uterus from one woman (deceased) into a woman who was born without one (Ortiz, 2016). While this is not the same as a fetal transfer, one can envision this method or the artificial womb above being used to save the life of a very immature fetus in the event of the death or incapacity of the mother, where premature birth would not be an option.
  • —Cryogenic techniques already exist to preserve oocytes and embryos (Edgar & Gook, 2012) and it is not pessimistic to expect that the refinement of freezing techniques or the development of nontoxic cryoprotectants may someday allow for the successful freezing and revival of a fetus. This would allow a woman who may be unwilling or unable to be pregnant now to resume her pregnancy later or put it up for adoption by another willing recipient. Many women who rush into abortion regret their decision months or years after the irreversible act. A “fetus bank” would allow women a chance to reconsider, with the option of “birth abeyance” until later in life.
  • —Fetal Transplant — A woman who does not want to give birth at all could transfer her fetus to the womb of a woman who does, thus solving two reproductive problems at once and saving a life as a bonus.
   In my novel, I call this medical possibility transoption, the option of transferring a fetus from a woman who, for whatever reason, does not want to give birth, into a woman who does, or into an artificial womb, or into cryonic suspension.
   Abortion prohibition, like any other prohibition, never worked and never will. Women have been, are, and forever will be forced to make hard decisions about pregnancy. If the decision requires the end of a pregnancy, women will seek it regardless of the legal risk or the mortal threat to the fetus. And babies will still die from abortion, legally or illegally. The only solution to this tragic choice is to find a life-preserving, rights-preserving alternative. This is a battle that will not be won in the legislature or the courts. It will not be won by bombing clinics or jailing protestors. This battle can only be won in the realm of medical technology. And I possess enough faith in humanity to believe that women—if given a choice—will freely choose life over death.
   Abortion kills the fetus, yet medical technology is reaching the point where a fetus could be removed from a woman who does not want to be pregnant and implanted into a woman who does, or frozen for later implantation, or brought to term in an artificial womb (Hamzelou, 2017). I contend that these are solutions both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life factions need but have not sought.
   Ironically, the greatest impediments to the life-saving solution of transoption are those who ought to be most pleased by its possibility. Certain Pro-Life advocates will reveal their true agenda if they denounce transoption as yet another interference in nature’s — or God’s — way. The possibility of saving lives is secondary to these people. They would rather make criminals of women by outlawing abortion than find a way to allow them the choice of non-lethal pregnancy termination.
   On the other side are the Pro-Choice advocates who fear that transoption would make abortion less attractive and thus rob them of their privilege of destroying utterly the contents of their wombs. They would rather have millions of women endure the guilt and doubt that accompanies abortion than seek a surgical technique that would end unwanted pregnancies yet still protect what many see as a tiny, defenseless human life.
   Once we have separated the two factors of fetal death and pregnancy termination, we see that there are not two groups in contention but, rather, six.
   On the Pro-Life side, there are those who would firmly oppose any form of pregnancy termination, even if the fetus’s life would be spared. These people are what I would call the Anti-Choice woman-enslavers. Their opposition to transoption reveals their true colors. There are Pro-Life proponents, however, who are opposed to abortion yet are profoundly troubled by the idea of using laws to restrict a woman’s freedom of choice. These people are nonetheless comfortable with the idea of adoption and might readily accept the concept of prenatal adoption, which is all transoption really is. These people I call Mere Pro-Life and would view transoption as a godsend.
   Among the Pro-Choice supporters are those who feel that if a woman does not have the absolute privilege of destroying her fetus, she has no reproductive freedom. To demand a dead fetus, though, when a pregnancy could be otherwise terminated is to demand the right to prenatal infanticide. Once again, their reaction to the concept of transoption reveals a secret agenda. Such people are the Anti-Life advocates of the “right” to bury one’s mistakes. The overwhelming majority of women, though — the ones who actually receive abortions — have always been troubled by the necessity of choosing between their freedom and their baby’s life. For them, the Mere Pro-Choice, transoption offers choice without guilt, freedom without death, and a way to change a pregnancy termination from a life-extinguishing to a life-affirming action.
   The most hideous position is what I call Anti-Life/Anti-Choice Fusion. These monsters would force a woman to destroy her unborn child against her wishes. These are the killers who administer government population-control programs in such tyrannies as Nazi Germany and Communist China and North Korea, where State-mandated abortions are one more category of oppression enforced at gunpoint.
   Both the Mere Pro-Life and Mere Pro-Choice factions who are troubled by their positions need only to discover the possibility of transoption to move toward the sixth position: the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Alliance.

   There is no contradiction between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice once the irrational advocates of Anti-Choice and Anti-Life are jettisoned. Pro-Life/Pro-Choice is the only position that consistently defends all rights of all parties to a pregnancy, no matter what their age or sex. Reproductive freedom and preborn life are not fatally incompatible but are both part of the spectrum of human rights.
   If the parties to the abortion debate wish to seek detente, I would urge an immediate end to any legal and social obstacles to research that might develop pregnancy terminations that preserve fetal viability. I would urge Pro-Choice and Pro-Life activists to lay down their prejudices and work together for a life-affirming, choice-enhancing, and rights-preserving solution. The price in human suffering and death we have paid for the past several decades has been far too high.


Edgar D. H. and Gook, D. A. (2012). A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Human Reproduction Update 18(5), 536–554. doi:10.1093/humupd/dms016
Hamzelou, J. (April 25, 2017). Artificial womb helps premature lamb fetuses grow for 4 weeks. [Web site]. Retrieved from
Ortiz, F. (March 8, 2016). First U.S. woman with uterus transplant looks forward to pregnancy. [Web site]. Retrieved from
Partridge, E. A., et al. (2017). An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb. [Web site]. doi:10.1083/ncomms15112

Monday, July 24, 2017

Republicans Must Return to Their Abolitionist Roots

The total repeal of Obamacare is the only rational, consistent, and moral course open to Republicans. Such an action would follow the Abolitionist tradition that led to the founding of the Republican Party. In 1854, former Whigs, ex-Free-Soilers, and a handful of anti-slavery Democrats founded the Republican Party in the midst of a burgeoning Abolitionist movement. The demand to abolish slavery was not nuanced or couched in gradualist arguments. Slavery was a moral outrage, and despite the Democrats’ protestations that slaveholders would lose the benefits of forced labor and millions of slaves would be suddenly homeless and unfed, Republicans abolished slavery. Every Republican in congress voted for the 13th Amendment. Only 19 Northern Democrats did, and not a single Democrat voted for either the 14th or 15th Amendments.
Republicans freed the slaves even though Democrats threatened — and ultimately resorted to — violence, insurrection, and civil war. Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan to act as domestic terrorists. Democrats seceded from the Union. The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, prevailed against the Confederate States, made whole the nation, and abolished race-based slavery for all time.
Democrats, though, never really gave up on the oppression and control of blacks. Within half a century of their defeat, they had instituted odious Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, placed a Klan sympathizer in the White House, re-imposed segregation in the military and larger society, and — under the banner of Progressivism — instituted a subtle, sly form of universal slavery called the income tax. In 2010, Democrats continued their relentless progression toward total control over the individual with a new form of involuntary servitude: forcing every American to buy health insurance whether they want it or not, need it or not, or can afford it or not. The Affordable Care Act was designed to bring a sixth of the American economy under the control of the federal government.
Obamacare is a noxious and moral outrage. It is odious to the Constitution, to the free-market pillars of our nation, and to the individual rights to property, choice, and self-ownership. Everything that was wrong with health care before Obamacare was the fault of government control. The degree to which the government interfered with the triadic relationship among doctors, patients, and insurers was the degree to which the health-care system suffered. Obamacare expanded to near-totality the harmful effects of government control while almost entirely eliminating the few remaining ameliorating factors of choice and freedom in health care.
Few think that the health care provided by the VA or Medicare or Medicaid is quality health care, yet Obamacare was intended to bring the same low-quality, high-cost, and cruelly bureaucratic health-care rationing to every American — by force of law and pain of punishment. Obamacare was intentionally designed to fail, to drive insurance and health-care costs so high and restrict access so drastically that Democrats and the media hoped they could declare free choice in health insurance dead and announce the dawn of single-payer, totally socialized, centrally controlled health care — a goal of theirs since the dawn of the Progressive Era a century ago.
Outright repeal of Obamacare — Abolition — is the only position every single solitary Republican should take. Slavery was not “repealed and replaced.” It was not “reformed” or “fixed.” No Republican wrung his hands over whether abolition would “negatively impact” the cotton market due to the “uncertainty” created by freeing the slaves. No Republican vacillated out of concern that newspapers might cover them negatively for not “crossing the aisle” to seek a “bipartisan solution.” When righting a wrong, none of these considerations matter — they are only excuses to continue the abuses.
If this were 1863, would Senator Shelley Moore Capito be arguing that she “didn’t come to Washington to hurt people” such as slaveholders and their families or to deprive blacks of the room, board, and health care they received on plantations? Would she say “I don’t think it’s constructive to repeal a law so interwoven with our [economic] system without having a replacement in place”?
Would Senator Lisa Murkowski demand that a slavery-replacement plan be considered at the same time as the 13th Amendment? Would she say “the Senate should take a step back and engage in a bipartisan process to address the failures” of slavery and use taxpayer dollars to bail out the plantation owners to “stabilize the individual markets”?
Would Senator Susan Collins worry that emancipation from slavery would “affect the most vulnerable”? Would she say “We should not be making fundamental changes in… a program that’s been on the books for [hundreds of] years without evaluating what the consequences will be”?
Would Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put a two-year delay into the 13th Amendment to allow time to find a bipartisan replacement plan for slavery?
No! All of them would have been drummed out of the nascent Republican Party as gutless compromisers perpetuating the enslavement of millions. Consequences be damned, the only solution to a moral outrage is its utter and immediate abolition. Abolitionism is the root of the Republican tree and its greatest strength. Abolition is absolute. It cannot be disguised as anything else. Abolitionism defies all attempts to compromise, appease, sell out, or betray.
Abolition must always be the first and only position when Republicans and freedom-lovers of any stripe encounter a moral evil such as Obamacare.
Abolish Obamacare.
Victor Koman is the author of several award-winning novels, including Solomon’s Knife and Kings of the High Frontier. His Ph.D. was conferred by Capella University in 2016.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 23, 2012

Does Obama Accept Blame For Aurora?

This article was originally going to ponder President Obama’s off-the-cuff remarks in Roanoke. While revealing his belief that government is the fountainhead of all opportunity, he also exposed the serious flaw of Statism: if the individual is not responsible for his own success but is rather dependent on the existence of the State, then why isn’t everyone successful? Obama implied that teachers and roads and bridges and the Internet (all in his mind government creations) are responsible for an individual’s success. So why isn’t everyone successful?

In fact, if Obama’s sworn enemy, the 1% (who nonetheless donate millions to his reelection), were truly successful only because of government, then government has a 99% failure rate and should be abolished immediately as a horribly wasteful experiment.

That’s what this article would have been about. Then came Aurora. A dropout from a doctoral program planned an elaborate solo terror slaughter of a dozen people who did nothing to him but attend a midnight movie that he decided to attack.

The tragedy was immediately and cynically exploited by Democrats such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who demanded gun bans--another failed statist plan that leads to such disarmed-victim killing fields as Columbine and Aurora. The counter-argument--that there weren’t enough guns inside that theater that night--barely gets any coverage at all amid the cries to surrender essential liberties in the name of illusory security.

So now the question is this: if President Obama thinks the State is responsible for the success of businessmen, is it also responsible for the murders in Aurora? After all, the killer used the Internet to order his ammunition and he didn’t create the Internet. Government research created the Internet so that he could buy ammo on it. He didn’t invent ballistic armor--somebody else made that happen. He didn’t pave the road that he drove on to the Century theater--somebody invested in roads and bridges. He didn’t think up the explosive devices on his own--government schools gave him the scientific training and research skills to learn how to make bombs.

If individuals are not responsible for their own success--if the State makes individual virtue possible--then individuals are not responsible for their own evils. The State makes individual vice possible, too. So if Obama wants the electorate to think that government is the engine of success and he--as president--deserves praise for individual success, then he must also accept responsibility for mass murders such as those in Aurora. If not, why not?

Friday, April 06, 2012

Marine Disciplined for Stating the Law?

Marine Sgt. Gary Stein is facing separation hearings for running the Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook page. One of the statements he made was that he would not obey an illegal order from Barack Obama. However, he is fully in accordance with both his oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, and the Universal Code of Military Justice section 16c(1)(c):

Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

The Founders recognized that an American's fealty should be to ideas and to Liberty, not to Authority. Any authority--even a president--is subservient to the central principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and any order that contravenes those principles is invalid and need not, must not, be obeyed. This UCMJ section was taught to me by Lt. Skinner, who contrasted an American soldier's obligation to disobey illegal orders with the the lack of any such option for a German soldier in WWII. "I was only following orders," he pointed out, was not a valid defense for any member of the American military.

Sgt. Gary Stein should not be forced out of the Marines for stating, promoting, and defending one of America's most fundamental concepts: that every citizen must learn, understand, and defend Liberty, even if that means defying the State.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Post Office Cancels Santa

[Merry Christmas, everyone! To celebrate the day, here's something I wrote in 1991, but is just as timely today...]

I have a vice to admit. I collect stamps. Blame my father for introducing me to philately at an early age. I don’t have the full-bore habit, though, if you know what I mean by bore. I’ll occasionally buy plate blocks when an interesting stamp appears. So when I heard that the Post Office (nobody really calls it the United States Postal Service) had issued a booklet of five different Santa Claus stamps, I eagerly rushed out to buy them.

These stamps are lovely, all right. They even tell a little story: Santa drops down the chimney, checks off items on his list, delivers the goods, waves at us by the fireplace, and flies away in his sleigh. What wonderful stamps with which to spread holiday cheer! I rushed them home to show to my 7-year-old. Her reaction was not the one I had anticipated.

“Why do they have Santa on a postage stamp?” she asked suspiciously.

“It’s Christmas,” I said in that bewildered parental tone.

“You said someone has to be dead to be on a stamp. Is Santa Claus dead?”

That hit me from left field. I almost exposed the entire centuries-old Santa conspiracy by saying, “Well, honey, the law doesn’t cover fictional characters.”

“You mean Santa’s not dead, he just isn’t real?”

Aieee! My mind raced. “No, muffin. I mean, uh. . .” She could tell I was concocting a whopper. “I mean the, um, pictorial representation of Santa Claus--who really is a real person living at the North Pole--is an imaginative interpretation by an artist. You see, it’s OK for the Post Office to print stamps reproducing artwork, and these are stamps made from paintings of Santa.” Did it work? Had I buffaloed my little impressionable one?

Her eyes narrowed. “Every stamp,” she said in a sternly patronizing tone, “is made from artwork. Paintings of living people aren’t allowed either. The Post Office is either saying that Santa Claus never existed or that he’s dead!”

I had to come clean with the kid. Here was an agency of the federal government undoing everything Jack Albertson had done in Miracle On 34th Street when he took the sacks of mail addressed to Santa Claus and delivered them to Jimmy Stewart filibustering in the Senate chambers. (Or did Stewart fly the mail to Paris with Donna Reed? I’ve got to stop watching those Stewart/Capra marathons.)

I had to come up with an explanation. Maybe if I told her Santa had the misfortune to carry some gifts wrapped by Libyan elves. . .

“Sweetheart,” I said, sitting her down. “I want you to brace yourself for a shock.” She looked up at me with her large, innocent blue eyes. “You’re a big girl now,” I said, “and big girls have to face the truth, no matter how painful it may be.”

Her voice caught in a tearful sob. “You mean. . .?”

“Yes, Vanessa, the Post Office lied. The mean old postal commissioner, whose name, I believe, is Ebenezer-something, decided that if he couldn’t force everyone to give him an extra cent for each letter they mail, he would tell all the girls and boys that Santa was dead. Yeah, that’s it! And he didn’t get that extra cent, so he tried to ruin Christmas for all the little boys and girls. The newspapers are calling it Santagate. Garry Trudeau is drawing a few strips about it.”

She looked crushed, as if all faith had been stolen from her. She ran to her room, crying, “I’ll never ever believe in any federal agency ever again! And I’ll seriously question any statements issued at the state and local level, too!” Her door slammed. I heard sobbing.

Feeling like the grandfather of all Grinches, I half-heartedly made some eggnog and sat in front of the fireplace, staring in gloom at the gaily decorated Christmas tree desiccating by the hearth. Nothing could break my mood.

My wife finally consoled me by saying, “She may have lost her faith in the government, darling, but at least she still believes in someone who offers her something for nothing.”

That’s true! And he delivers overnight and never loses a package.