21 November—“Alma mater” is Latin for “nourishing mother.” The ancient Romans had given the title to several goddesses, notably Ceres and Cybele, both associated with agriculture, fertility, and motherhood. The title was transferred to academic institutions in the Middle Ages, presumably because their alumni regarded them in that positive way. (The good old days!)

Coming back to actual almae matrices (nourishing mothers), we find ourselves posturing around abortion. The anti-abortion faction likes to characterize those who don’t categorically oppose abortion as being pro-abortion; but it’s more likely they merely accept that abortion may at times be advantageous and/or necessary. (Remember Willy Clinton’s memorable aphorism, adopted by his wife, that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare?)

That takes us to Nikki Haley, who besides being a gerontophobe is no fan of abortion. The editorial in this morning’s Republican-American calls Nikki’s comments on abortion made during the GOP freak show in August “a Voltairian template” (because, even though the editorial doesn’t mention it, today is Voltaire’s 329^th birthday—he’s even older than Joe Biden.) and views it favorably.

While not in any way endorsing it, Haley called for a “respectful” approach to abortion and opined that “we need to stop demonizing this issue.” Looking forward to a federal abortion ban, she said a consensus will need to be reached: “Can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions? Can’t we all agree that we should encourage adoptions? Can’t we all agree that doctors and nurses who don’t believe in abortions shouldn’t have to perform them? Can’t we all agree that contraception should be available? And can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?”

When Mike Pence challenged her on inflexibly doctrinaire, conservatively expedient grounds, she told him to “be honest with the American people.” On more practical conservative political grounds, Nikki insisted, “No Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democrat president can ban all those state laws. Don’t make women feel like they have to decide on this issue when you know we don’t have 60 Senate votes in the House.” [sic]

Fine. As far as it goes. But now consider the alma mater thesis. Where does any government get off telling people what they can or cannot do with their own bodies? (Religions do it, of course, but that’s another matter.) If a person wants to cut off a limb or remove an organ, does the government interfere? Even suicide is no longer a crime.

As long as a fetus is connected to a nourishing mother by an umbilical cord and dependent on her for sustenance and life, then, that fetus is a part of the mother’s body. It’s essentially an organ; remove it, deprive it of its sustenance (blood, oxygen, etc.), and without external support it dies. The disposition of of the organ should be a decision of the organ owner or donor.

What happens when a viable organ is detached from its alma mater? Organ donors often decide who gets their donated organs. Surrogate mothers almost always decide who gets their full-term babies. But what about viable aborted fetuses? No need to destroy and discard them. Quite the contrary. Since they’re no longer part of nor dependent upon their former nourishing mothers, why not make the viable fetuses wards of the state from the moment of parturition, removal, or disconnection?

Forget about the former alma mater. Consider that she effectively surrendered custody of and all interest in the viable fetus when she decided on or agreed to abortion—just as she might have agreed to adoption had she carried the fetus to term.

Why waste a life, after all? Shouldn’t that make everybody happy?