What are the Real Morals and Questions in the Abortion Debate?
Abortion rights activists are in trouble. Their terminology is failing. While they have successfully fended off the "anti-life" labels from their enemies, their own "pro-choice" label is becoming increasingly limited. First, there is the counter-attack on conservative forces, attempting to label "pro-lifers" as "anti-choice." This is a mistake. It exposes the weakness of the word choice. "Anti-choice" and "pro-choice" are bland. While the "right to choose" sounds nice, it does not link to a moral. The opposing side, for example, has a powerful tool in "pro-life." They have linked their political stand to a moral: saving a life. Now, who doesn't want to save lives? Too simple you say? In the end, yes. But most people don't get that far. For a world ruled by headlines, they have the advantage. The right to make choices in the end must be limited by the right to life. For example, we should all agree that murder is wrong. So, when can you rationalize taking a life? Do you see how the contextualization weakens the pro-abortion side?
There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.
But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.
So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .
There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.
But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.
So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .
Labels: abortion, choice, civil rights, freedom, language, politics
|| posted by mW @ 5:37 PM
Hate is Hate is Hate is Hate and Why are the Preachers the Last to Get It?
The House of Representatives yesterday passed legislation extending federal hate-crime legislation to include attacks resulting from bias against gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. This would expand the reach of a law that has existed since 1968, but has until now focused on race, color, religion, and national origin. In a political era fraught with scandals, and fixated on ill-conceived wars, it is fantastic to see a commitment by some politicians to protecting the ideals that this country was founded on. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Hate crimes have no place in America, no place in a nation where we pledge every morning 'with liberty and justice for all.' We must act to end hate crimes and save lives." Bravo. Bravo.
But not everyone feels the same way. According to the Washington Post, "the House's staunchest conservatives wrote to Bush, saying the legislation federalizes crime enforcement and 'segregates people into different groups...then seeks to either reward or punish these different groups using different standards." This is absolutely non-sensical dribble. First of all, this law does no more to "federalize" law enforcement. Hate crimes have been illegal to some extent since the late 1960s. Also, note that they do not use any legal terms, such as "constitutional" in their complaint. This is because they full well know that section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress sweeping powers to legislate just this kind of thing. Just who do these hypocrites think they are? Are not these the same politicians voting for the Patriot Act and its extension, the most sweeping form of federal law enforcement legislation this country has ever seen? Or in favor of President Bush being able to set up wiretaps on anyone, without even a warrant? Second, they think that this law "segregates" people into groups? I'm sorry, but this law does not tell whites and blacks to be separate groups or force gays and straights apart. America segregates itself just fine, thank you. Sadly, American culture has long identified itself by such distinctions. All this law does is stipulate that if a person hurts another person with a motivation based on these distinctions, the act is more heinous than otherwise, and should be punished accordingly. Thirdly, this extension of an already existing law does not treat groups by different standards. All it says is if you hate a gay person and hit them or kill them because of that bias, you will be subject to punishment above and beyond the penalty for hitting or killing someone. The same would apply to a gay person who hits or kills a straight person because they hate straights. The law applies equally to any person in any group, majority or minority, who acts in hatred to hurt a member of another group. These politicians, and their statements, make no sense once examined under a microscope.
But the story doesn't end there, as you knew it wouldn't. Conservative religious groups are also concerned, reports the Washington Post. They're afraid "the bill would make criminals of clergymen who speak out against homosexuality, then inadvertently inspire violence from misguided followers." Listen, laypeople of America: no priest wrote that statement. Not one. It was written by lawyers or public relations specialists with knowledge of the law. First, they are aware that inducing another to commit a crime can be a crime. Second, they use the word "inadvertent" to avoid any imputed intent to the priest. Lastly, they note that not only does the priest not intend harm to anyone, but if harm did actually result, the acting person was clearly "misguided." Bullshit. I can't say it enough times. Bullshit. What does anyone expect when they counsel that an entire segment of society is wrong? They know, and they're covering their ass. I don't know why they cling to this crap, but I can explain why they should know better.
Here's the simple logic. It's all heirarchical. Religious persons have long been concerned about war. If "thou shall not kill" is a key commandment from one's god, what does that mean for the soul of those drafted into wars? Thus Catholic Catechisms, among other sources, responded that as long as the war was just, and one was faithfully obeying one's duty to one's country, it was essentially all good. So, killing is okay if there's a good reason. I.e., millions of dead to stop a great evil like Adolf Hitler is acceptable. By analogy, abortion is murder. Thus some people believed they could attack or even kill abortion doctors to prevent thousands of murders. Seemed a fair trade-off. And now, you say gays are sinners by virtue of their "choice" to be gay. (As if with all the prejudice and difficulties that come with being gay, it's somehow a "choice." They're called genes. Some people are just born that way. As one character says in the movie, "Chasing Amy," "it just feels right." Whether straight or gay, or somewhere in between, people just do what their own biology dictates. For the same reason that humans are attracted to other humans, rather than say, dogs, we are each attracted to certain sexes, man or woman, despite what our own sex is.) But the use of the term "choice" is just a way to get around knowing that people would not hate gays if they were born that way. I recommend segments of George Lakoff's, a Berkeley cognitive linguist, book Moral Politics for more on this choice of words used by religious groups. Yet when these religious groups indicate to their congregation that an entire segment of society doesn't have a right to exist, they cannot honestly expect some not to act on those words-especially with the weight given to words of the clergy by the faithful. They have to know. Especially after the issues with abortion doctors, these religious groups have to know. So in the end, this resistance to hate-crime legislation is no different that the priestly sexual abuse scandals. Sweep up culpability under the rug, cover your own ass, and most importantly, protect your money. But they of all people, should know that hate is hate is hate. But money changes quite a lot.
One of the most successful anti-hate groups in America is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). They not only fight for civil rights, but pursue aggressors in civil lawsuits. For example, when the Ku Klux Klan killed a black man, the SPLC helped the man's family file a wrongful death suit not only against the men convicted in criminal court of his murder, but of the Klan itself. They ended up confiscating the group's regional headquarters as part of the settlement. This is how to fight hate today. Bankrupt the haters. Because if a person is convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court, it is an almost automatic civil suit victory for wrongful death, where the burden of proof is the lesser "preponderance of the evidence." So if someone's church tells them that gays are evil, and that person kills a gay person, I say attach a civil suit not only to the person, but the church. While society may have a special respect for the clergy in this country that might deem this improper, I say the hell with that. No one feels sorry when the Catholic Church forks over millions because they hid the fact that some dozens of priests molested hundreds of kids. Same thing here. If you preach hate, you SHOULD be held liable, no matter who you are. And certainly, plenty of hard working Americans, who barely scrape by, might be surprised to learn that the churches who solicit their donations every week from the pew, have invested that money to make billions. Not each individual church, of course, but when sectarian groups put together their funds, it's a dirty little secret of money economics. Any major religious group has significant bankrolls. And they don't even have to pay taxes on it like you and I.
But even beyond the money, who are these preachers anyway, and what Bible do they read? Even if you were ignorant enough to believe gayness a sin, wouldn't Jesus be living with them, not hurling stones at them? Didn't he hang out with thieves and prostitutes and counsel mercy for all? And guess what, those are professions: things about which people have choices. There can be nothing wrong with-and indeed can only be called alignment with one's nature (as opposed to foolish claims of the opposite)-being who you were born to be. Gay people forced to pretend they're not who they are suffer a hell on earth as it is. Let's just let them be who they are and find happiness. Aren't they promised at least the pursuit of that? Oh yeah, and they deserve life and liberty too. So let's punish those who would take away any of those rights: life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. What else could be more American?
So the moral of this post is that hate has no place in America. Call your senator and convince them to pass this bill in the Senate. And then write the White House and tell them that a lame duck president with twenty-some percent approval has no right to stand in the way of a Congress with the mandate of the people in general, let alone stand in the way of making hate-crimes illegal.
But not everyone feels the same way. According to the Washington Post, "the House's staunchest conservatives wrote to Bush, saying the legislation federalizes crime enforcement and 'segregates people into different groups...then seeks to either reward or punish these different groups using different standards." This is absolutely non-sensical dribble. First of all, this law does no more to "federalize" law enforcement. Hate crimes have been illegal to some extent since the late 1960s. Also, note that they do not use any legal terms, such as "constitutional" in their complaint. This is because they full well know that section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress sweeping powers to legislate just this kind of thing. Just who do these hypocrites think they are? Are not these the same politicians voting for the Patriot Act and its extension, the most sweeping form of federal law enforcement legislation this country has ever seen? Or in favor of President Bush being able to set up wiretaps on anyone, without even a warrant? Second, they think that this law "segregates" people into groups? I'm sorry, but this law does not tell whites and blacks to be separate groups or force gays and straights apart. America segregates itself just fine, thank you. Sadly, American culture has long identified itself by such distinctions. All this law does is stipulate that if a person hurts another person with a motivation based on these distinctions, the act is more heinous than otherwise, and should be punished accordingly. Thirdly, this extension of an already existing law does not treat groups by different standards. All it says is if you hate a gay person and hit them or kill them because of that bias, you will be subject to punishment above and beyond the penalty for hitting or killing someone. The same would apply to a gay person who hits or kills a straight person because they hate straights. The law applies equally to any person in any group, majority or minority, who acts in hatred to hurt a member of another group. These politicians, and their statements, make no sense once examined under a microscope.
But the story doesn't end there, as you knew it wouldn't. Conservative religious groups are also concerned, reports the Washington Post. They're afraid "the bill would make criminals of clergymen who speak out against homosexuality, then inadvertently inspire violence from misguided followers." Listen, laypeople of America: no priest wrote that statement. Not one. It was written by lawyers or public relations specialists with knowledge of the law. First, they are aware that inducing another to commit a crime can be a crime. Second, they use the word "inadvertent" to avoid any imputed intent to the priest. Lastly, they note that not only does the priest not intend harm to anyone, but if harm did actually result, the acting person was clearly "misguided." Bullshit. I can't say it enough times. Bullshit. What does anyone expect when they counsel that an entire segment of society is wrong? They know, and they're covering their ass. I don't know why they cling to this crap, but I can explain why they should know better.
Here's the simple logic. It's all heirarchical. Religious persons have long been concerned about war. If "thou shall not kill" is a key commandment from one's god, what does that mean for the soul of those drafted into wars? Thus Catholic Catechisms, among other sources, responded that as long as the war was just, and one was faithfully obeying one's duty to one's country, it was essentially all good. So, killing is okay if there's a good reason. I.e., millions of dead to stop a great evil like Adolf Hitler is acceptable. By analogy, abortion is murder. Thus some people believed they could attack or even kill abortion doctors to prevent thousands of murders. Seemed a fair trade-off. And now, you say gays are sinners by virtue of their "choice" to be gay. (As if with all the prejudice and difficulties that come with being gay, it's somehow a "choice." They're called genes. Some people are just born that way. As one character says in the movie, "Chasing Amy," "it just feels right." Whether straight or gay, or somewhere in between, people just do what their own biology dictates. For the same reason that humans are attracted to other humans, rather than say, dogs, we are each attracted to certain sexes, man or woman, despite what our own sex is.) But the use of the term "choice" is just a way to get around knowing that people would not hate gays if they were born that way. I recommend segments of George Lakoff's, a Berkeley cognitive linguist, book Moral Politics for more on this choice of words used by religious groups. Yet when these religious groups indicate to their congregation that an entire segment of society doesn't have a right to exist, they cannot honestly expect some not to act on those words-especially with the weight given to words of the clergy by the faithful. They have to know. Especially after the issues with abortion doctors, these religious groups have to know. So in the end, this resistance to hate-crime legislation is no different that the priestly sexual abuse scandals. Sweep up culpability under the rug, cover your own ass, and most importantly, protect your money. But they of all people, should know that hate is hate is hate. But money changes quite a lot.
One of the most successful anti-hate groups in America is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). They not only fight for civil rights, but pursue aggressors in civil lawsuits. For example, when the Ku Klux Klan killed a black man, the SPLC helped the man's family file a wrongful death suit not only against the men convicted in criminal court of his murder, but of the Klan itself. They ended up confiscating the group's regional headquarters as part of the settlement. This is how to fight hate today. Bankrupt the haters. Because if a person is convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court, it is an almost automatic civil suit victory for wrongful death, where the burden of proof is the lesser "preponderance of the evidence." So if someone's church tells them that gays are evil, and that person kills a gay person, I say attach a civil suit not only to the person, but the church. While society may have a special respect for the clergy in this country that might deem this improper, I say the hell with that. No one feels sorry when the Catholic Church forks over millions because they hid the fact that some dozens of priests molested hundreds of kids. Same thing here. If you preach hate, you SHOULD be held liable, no matter who you are. And certainly, plenty of hard working Americans, who barely scrape by, might be surprised to learn that the churches who solicit their donations every week from the pew, have invested that money to make billions. Not each individual church, of course, but when sectarian groups put together their funds, it's a dirty little secret of money economics. Any major religious group has significant bankrolls. And they don't even have to pay taxes on it like you and I.
But even beyond the money, who are these preachers anyway, and what Bible do they read? Even if you were ignorant enough to believe gayness a sin, wouldn't Jesus be living with them, not hurling stones at them? Didn't he hang out with thieves and prostitutes and counsel mercy for all? And guess what, those are professions: things about which people have choices. There can be nothing wrong with-and indeed can only be called alignment with one's nature (as opposed to foolish claims of the opposite)-being who you were born to be. Gay people forced to pretend they're not who they are suffer a hell on earth as it is. Let's just let them be who they are and find happiness. Aren't they promised at least the pursuit of that? Oh yeah, and they deserve life and liberty too. So let's punish those who would take away any of those rights: life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. What else could be more American?
So the moral of this post is that hate has no place in America. Call your senator and convince them to pass this bill in the Senate. And then write the White House and tell them that a lame duck president with twenty-some percent approval has no right to stand in the way of a Congress with the mandate of the people in general, let alone stand in the way of making hate-crimes illegal.
Labels: civil rights, congress, gay, politics, religion
|| posted by mW @ 8:12 AMToo Smart?
Plenty of people are upset at the current state of this country. In one sense, that's no surprise. People always complain. But in another sense, it seems heightened now. The Bush administration's approval rating has dropped into the high-twenties, an all time low. A lot of smart people I know constantly ask how so many people could be "so stupid" to fall for the tactics of this administration.
However, more and more, I feel the opposite is the problem. It's not that there are a lot of dumb people out there, too dim to notice the perspicuous manipulations of a devious regime. No. I'm starting more and more to think that there are too many smart people out there, controlling perception, managing spin, and manipulating representations in order to establish what the rest of us call reality. Our country is built on laws. But inherent to American culture is that whatever you can get away with to succeed is okay. Therefore, even moreso, whatever you can get away with legally to succeed is okay.
Just because something is not illegal does not make it right. Maybe insurance lawyers can find a loophole to tell someone that the insurance policy they've paid for twenty years doesn't cover their damage; maybe pharmaceutical companies can pay for pretty ads to make people ask their doctors for drugs they don't need; and maybe selling guns to Third World countries fills the coffers of this and other countries: but maybe none of those things are right.
No. We definitely have too many people keeping us busy with a surfeit of information, anesthetizing television, and sense numbing video games: while I have no objection to the content of any of these things, the problem that is it all functions to keep our attention off the things that matter. No matter one's education, every person has an instinct for what is right and wrong. But we only can care about it if we know about it. So no. Education is not the problem. How we use our educations is the problem. It's a moral problem. A matter of ethics. Choose the word you like. But something in our culture fosters those that can live without it. And that's a problem with which we all are being force to live.
However, more and more, I feel the opposite is the problem. It's not that there are a lot of dumb people out there, too dim to notice the perspicuous manipulations of a devious regime. No. I'm starting more and more to think that there are too many smart people out there, controlling perception, managing spin, and manipulating representations in order to establish what the rest of us call reality. Our country is built on laws. But inherent to American culture is that whatever you can get away with to succeed is okay. Therefore, even moreso, whatever you can get away with legally to succeed is okay.
Just because something is not illegal does not make it right. Maybe insurance lawyers can find a loophole to tell someone that the insurance policy they've paid for twenty years doesn't cover their damage; maybe pharmaceutical companies can pay for pretty ads to make people ask their doctors for drugs they don't need; and maybe selling guns to Third World countries fills the coffers of this and other countries: but maybe none of those things are right.
No. We definitely have too many people keeping us busy with a surfeit of information, anesthetizing television, and sense numbing video games: while I have no objection to the content of any of these things, the problem that is it all functions to keep our attention off the things that matter. No matter one's education, every person has an instinct for what is right and wrong. But we only can care about it if we know about it. So no. Education is not the problem. How we use our educations is the problem. It's a moral problem. A matter of ethics. Choose the word you like. But something in our culture fosters those that can live without it. And that's a problem with which we all are being force to live.
Labels: business, ethics, morals, politics
|| posted by mW @ 9:10 AM[top]
All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010