Did my civic duty, got my little sticker. Tried to avoid the early morning and lunch rushes by going around 10:30, and it paid off–only an hour or so to wait.
Watched the Bush interview by O’Reilly last night. He seemed a lot more articulate and intelligent out of the context of a debate setting. Of course, having an interviewer who agrees with the majority of your positions helps. But still–good stuff.
Thought-provoking blurb by John Piper:
Pondering One-Issue Politics and Cruelty To Animals
Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter?
No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office-on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor-that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.
It’s the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn’t, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.
So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It’s simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him-except that child-killing is more serious than those.
When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1says, “No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.” Subdivision 7 says, “No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.” The penalty: “A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that “no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law.” Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to “maim, mutilate and kill” a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?
These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil-even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.
“I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office.”
Yes, that’s what I voted based on. I’m appalled that I didn’t get a sticker though. I went around 10:30 as well (the whole waking up for 6AM voting didn’t seem too appealing after going to bed at 3), waited in line for about twenty minutes, voted, and got no sticker. I got a couple of “I’m proud of you”s though, so I think I’ll make it.
Now for the waiting… For approximately eight more hours.
Did you go with your dad? I went with my parents. Was nice to have somebody to wait with.
Yeah…the waiting. Gotta stay busy. And pray.
???
“No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.”
Wait. Are cows, pigs, deer, chickens, bears, etc. considered as being animals these days? Because I think a lot more people should be in jail if that’s the case.
I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office.
I wonder if he believes that the endorsement of the right to kill 100,000 born children, women, and men would disqualify a person from any position of public office?
Wait. Are cows, pigs, deer, chickens, bears, etc. considered as being animals these days? Because I think a lot more people should be in jail if that’s the case.
Good point, but if you’re trying to make the case in favor of abortion rights in terms of moral absolutes, you’re arguing the wrong way :) Even if the parallels drawn to animal rights in the article are flawed and we have a double standard, which is what you seem to be implying, the central theme of the article still stands, that is, abortion is unequivocally wrong.
I wonder if he believes that the endorsement of the right to kill 100,000 born children, women, and men would disqualify a person from any position of public office?
That’s rhetoric and an empty connection. It’s a different moral situation. You can’t use one to debunk the other. Bush didn’t wake up one morning and decide to murder that many Iraqi civilians. But people who murder unborn babies do so knowing full well, premeditatively, what they’re doing. Even if you hold Bush personally accountable for those peoples’ deaths, from a legal standpoint it’s manslaughter, and what takes place every day here in the US is first-degree murder.
Yes, I went with my dad. And I saw Matt’s mom while I was there. :)
I think it’s looking pretty good…
Good point, but if you’re trying to make the case in favor of abortion rights in terms of moral absolutes, you’re arguing the wrong way :) Even if the parallels drawn to animal rights in the article are flawed and we have a double standard, which is what you seem to be implying, the central theme of the article still stands, that is, abortion is unequivocally wrong.
Don’t worry; I wouldn’t think of making a case in favor of abortion rights in terms of moral absolutes because I don’t think there is anything absolute about human morality and ethics, as the world is and will be forever changing. However, it seemed to me that the author of this article is saying that abortion is unequivocally wrong because there are these laws regarding animal rights, and therefore these laws should also apply to the fetus. But if this premise of “fetus = animals” reasoning does not make sense, then neither does the conclusion he draws from it. I’m fairly sure that there are much more logical arguments if he had desired to argue against people’s rights to have an abortion.
But to further draw from the author’s comparison, we, as people, have to remember that many people who support women’s right to choose do not simply see a fetus as a smaller version of babies, much in the same way that cows and chickens are often not considered as animals to be protected, but more as food. There are many different perspectives that are inherited in this world, and I think it would be best if we all respect each other’s personal views. And when change is needed, it is better to subtly and patiently influence the world by having discussions and debates rather than forcing governmental restrictions upon it.
That’s rhetoric and an empty connection. It’s a different moral situation. You can’t use one to debunk the other.
I apologize; I don’t think I made my point very well. I wasn’t saying that there is a connection between abortion and the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, and I certainly wasn’t implying that it would debunk or cancel out his personal belief about abortion. As you said, they are two very separate issues. However, when you vote a particular candidate into political office over another, naturally all of these separate issues must be addressed together, and then weighed. And I just wanted to say that I personally prefer a candidate who hasn’t killed 100,000 innocent victims over someone who wants the government to force women to have and raise children even when they prefer not to.
Bush didn’t wake up one morning and decide to murder that many Iraqi civilians. But people who murder unborn babies do so knowing full well, premeditatively, what they’re doing. Even if you hold Bush personally accountable for those peoples’ deaths, from a legal standpoint it’s manslaughter, and what takes place every day here in the US is first-degree murder.
In regards to your statement about manslaughter and first-degree murder, Bush would certainly be unfit to govern our nation if he is not intelligent enough to figure out that there would be massive human casualties when he started a pre-emptive war on another nation. But because I would like to believe that even he is not that moronic, it is probably more that he has decided that he is willing to sacrifice whatever number of innocent victims it takes to achieve victory in Iraq (for whatever reasons). Some soldiers may kill an innocent victim, some may not. He is willing to take that risk.
Kerry, in a similar manner, endorses women’s right to choose. Some women may get an abortion; some may not. He is willing to take that risk, so that women who are put into that circumstance are still able to decide whether they are ready to become a parent or not. But again, I personally prefer a President who has not caused (indirectly) the death of many innocent beings who have already walked this earth to a President who has not caused (indirectly) the death of fetus and embryos.
I hope you aren’t personally offended about how I see the world. I always think it is a good idea to reach out and try to understand the other side. I personally am gaining a lot from this.
I’m not personally offended at all. On the contrary, I greatly appreciate your even-handed, well thought-out response, Sato.
I don’t think I have to tell you that it’s refreshing to read a more progressive viewpoint that is tempered and articulate, as opposed to the callous name-calling, judgementalism, and just plain immaturity running rampant on the internet over the course of the past day (and before, too). I feel like I’m in kindergarten again sometimes when I read some of the responses of democratic affiliates to the election outcome.
To the issue at hand, though:
I don’t think there is anything absolute about human morality and ethics, as the world is and will be forever changing.
This is the clincher, right here. This is the bedrock on which each of our individual arguments is founded, and holds the key to our viewpoints. I believe there are absolute, non-situationally-dependent standards of right and wrong, good and evil. The application of those standards necessarily owes a lot of consideration to the situation at hand (this is why we have judges and juries), but the standards themselves are incontrovertible. I don’t see how one can have a real argument about morality and ethics without standards that are grounded to some degree, at least not to the point of convincing someone of the validity of your viewpoint, since without that base it’s all situational, i.e. what seems right. Your viewpoints, experiences, and values differ from mine and we arbritrarily decide what is right and wrong. I don’t think I have to tell you the ultimate outcome of that way of thinking if you follow it to its inevitable conclusion. But that’s exactly what we’ve done with abortion. I believe we’ve justified organized murder based on situational ethics.
However, it seemed to me that the author of this article is saying that abortion is unequivocally wrong because there are these laws regarding animal rights, and therefore these laws should also apply to the fetus.
I think I read the article a little differently. From my viewpoint the author already believes that abortion is wrong and makes his case against voting for a candidate based on that one stance. In doing so, he uses the animal rights laws as an example of just how far situational ethics and the devaluing of human life have made inroads in our society. In other words, connections he draws to the animal rights laws don’t undergird his argument so much as prop it up, but the core issue can stand on its own.
* * * continued in next comment * * *
* * * continued from previous comment * * *
There are many different perspectives that are inherited in this world, and I think it would be best if we all respect each other’s personal views. And when change is needed, it is better to subtly and patiently influence the world by having discussions and debates rather than forcing governmental restrictions upon it.
This I agree with. Debate and discussion are essential. But so is decision. The de-emphasis of the latter is a very prevalent view in academia nowadays, to the point where talking about the issue is held in higher regard than acting on the issue. It takes a lot more courage to adopt a particular stance and invest in it than it does to dawdle among the plethora of opinions out there.
Also, with the last sentence in that paragraph, it seems like you’re implying that you feel governmental restrictions are being foisted on your…opinions? I don’t see that happening at all. You have the right to think and believe however you see fit in this country. Always have. Just don’t expect everyone else to inevitably stand up and applaud your viewpoint. The popular definition of the concept of tolerance nowadays seems to imply we should not only let others have their differing opinions and values, but we should also endorse and condone them. This growing popular opinion is a real threat to freedom of speech and thought in this country. It’s always been wrong to encroach on someone’s liberties as outlined by the constitution, but now to even disagree or label a situation or action as “right” or “wrong” draws charges of ignorance and narrow-mindedness. To paraphrase a political writer (whose name escapes me), my stance remains at: I may hate what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
And I just wanted to say that I personally prefer a candidate who hasn’t killed 100,000 innocent victims over someone who wants the government to force women to have and raise children even when they prefer not to.
Your point about risk-taking and the positions of the presidential candidates is well-made. Kudos. But when you draw such a comparison, you necessarily, to some degree, place the consequences of their respective risk-taking on the same moral plane. In other words, if you call Bush’s actions murder, then Kerry’s actions (yes, actions–you have to be proactive to protect a “right”) must be labeled the same. Otherwise it’s apples to oranges, again. Now which would you rather have? A president who risked the lives of Iraqi civilians in the name of freedom from an oppresive regime, or a president who allows the murder of unborn babies in the name of convenience? It’s not a hard ethical choice for me about which man to support, all the more since I don’t hold Bush personally responsible for the Iraqis’ deaths.
Thanks for the discussion, Sato. I was actually kind of looking forward to someone taking issue with the article.
I appreciate the compliment, although I don’t think I deserve it.
I believe there are absolute, non-situationally-dependent standards of right and wrong, good and evil.
You’re right; I think this may be where most of our differences in opinions come from. Can you give me some examples of morals that you believe to be absolute? And where do these morals come from, if it has never been dependent upon one’s personal situation?
I don’t think I have to tell you the ultimate outcome of that way of thinking if you follow it to its inevitable conclusion.
Err… actually, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I believe you do. The inevitable conclusion that I come up with is that there is simply a difference in opinions that may or may not be adaptable to the current society that one is living in, aka environment. As a result, consequences follow that may or may not change one’s behavior. But I don’t know if that is what you are thinking.
I believe we’ve justified organized murder based on situational ethics.
Do you believe that taking a life of another is wrong in any situation?
In other words, connections he draws to the animal rights laws don’t undergird his argument so much as prop it up, but the core issue can stand on its own.
But then wouldn’t it have been better to explain why abortion is wrong before propping it up instead of simply assuming that the readers will accept the said belief at face-value? Because for many people, abortion isn’t something seen as wrong in the first place, hence the rest of his supporting argument would be disregarded as such.
It takes a lot more courage to adopt a particular stance and invest in it than it does to dawdle among the plethora of opinions out there.
Do you think it takes more courage to adopt a stance, learn something that is new and contrary to your initial beliefs, and yet sticking to it whatever the circumstances, or adopting a stance, learning something that is new and contrary, and admitting that he/she has made a mistake and do something different to adjust with it accordingly?
Also, with the last sentence in that paragraph, it seems like you’re implying that you feel governmental restrictions are being foisted on your…opinions?
Not opinions, but on behaviors. For example, Prohibitionists Movement didn’t work very well because at the time in the early 1930’s (and probably even now) people saw drinking alcohol as their given right, even if it meant that they are slowly killing themselves. I see Abortion issues in the same light. At this point in time in this particular country, people believe that they have the right to decide what they can do with an unborn fetus that they may or may not be viewed as a living human being. Hence, forcing governmental regulations about prohibiting abortion would probably result in a disaster. Even if it were successfully carried out, I fear that mothers’ attitude toward their babies will gradually change. Instead of seeing them as something they chose to have, these children will become something (a punishment?) that were forced upon them by government. I fear that the burden will fall upon these unwanted children.
It’s always been wrong to encroach on someone’s liberties as outlined by the constitution, but now to even disagree or label a situation or action as “right” or “wrong” draws charges of ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
What if someone were to say that it is “wrong” for a government to decide what a women should do with her own fetus? In your opinion, is that ignorant or narrow-minded to you? Or is that simply a difference in opinion?
But when you draw such a comparison, you necessarily, to some degree, place the consequences of their respective risk-taking on the same moral plane. In other words, if you call Bush’s actions murder, then Kerry’s actions (yes, actions–you have to be proactive to protect a “right”) must be labeled the same.
I’m not sure I understand this. For example, would I not be able to say, “I personally prefer a candidate who eats apples over a candidate who throws oranges at people in wheelchairs?” Again, I think it’s not as much a comparison as it is weighing the different issues that are significant to a particular individual.
since I don’t hold Bush personally responsible for the Iraqis’ deaths.
Which makes me curious, whom do you personally hold responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis?
Thanks for the discussion, Sato. I was actually kind of looking forward to someone taking issue with the article.
No, thank you. The last time I debated over livejournal with a friend was probably sometime in early 2001 so this is refreshing.
Can you give me some examples of morals that you believe to be absolute? And where do these morals come from, if it has never been dependent upon one’s personal situation?
I believe that murder is always wrong. I believe in honoring one’s parents. I believe lying and deceit of any kind is wrong. I believe homosexuality is wrong. And so on and so forth. Do I uphold these all the time and exbihit my belief in them unswervingly? Of course not. I’m an imperfect human. But I strive to as much as I can–not as an end in themselves, not for “moral achievement” as some sort of yardstick of success, but because I believe that true human nature is expressed through adherance to God’s plan as laid out in the Bible (the source of my morals, as a Christian). To me they aren’t arbitrary rules, they’re expressions of how humanity was originally designed to relate to God and to each other, and as such aren’t just some stolid code of ethics, as the charge is so often leveled against them, but life-giving and affirming of our humanity.
The inevitable conclusion that I come up with is that there is simply a difference in opinions that may or may not be adaptable to the current society that one is living in, aka environment. As a result, consequences follow that may or may not change one’s behavior. But I don’t know if that is what you are thinking.
The thought that springs to mind when I think about a society grounded in situational ethics is, “Where does it stop?” If you remove absolutes, then the corrupt CEO has just as much right to disenfranchise his employees as anything else, if it seems right to him. The serial killer has just as much right to his actions if they seem right in his eyes. You may say society will never go as far as that, but ideologically what’s stopping us if situational ethics become the dominant code (and they’ve already begun)? How can you encroach on someone’s liberties by putting them in jail, etc, if they were only acting according to their own conscience? Murder may be unequivocally wrong to you, but it may be “right” to the murderer, and what right do you have to infringe on his freedoms if his actions stem from “his” truth? Without absolutes, we’re in an ethical quagmire.
I am and have been speaking about conclusions that might never been reached with lesser matters and discussions on the street and in coffeehouses, because the vast majority of us are decent, considerate people who wouldn’t hurt a fly, but when the focus shifts to situations in courts of law and such, it’s their duty to plumb these questions to their full extent, and to set the precedents that eventually permeate popular consciousness. They’re where it starts.
Do you believe that taking a life of another is wrong in any situation?
No, I don’t. I believe in capital punishment for the crime of murder, exercised with the utmost prudence and every single effort conceivable to ensure the course of action is the right one to take. There’s a biblical precedent for this that is still relevant and valid for today.
But then wouldn’t it have been better to explain why abortion is wrong before propping it up instead of simply assuming that the readers will accept the said belief at face-value?
It would seem his intent isn’t to prove that abortion is wrong, but to comment on the process of examining a candidate’s views and how to vote one’s conscience. There are many other pieces of literature out there that deal primarily with the heinousness of abortion.
Do you think it takes more courage to adopt a stance, learn something that is new and contrary to your initial beliefs, and yet sticking to it whatever the circumstances, or adopting a stance, learning something that is new and contrary, and admitting that he/she has made a mistake and do something different to adjust with it accordingly?
It takes more courage to admit one is wrong and change, certainly. It implies a vulnerability and fallability that is something we instinctively resist displaying. What I meant in my response by “invest in it” includes the process of examining differing worldviews and comparing their worth to the one you’ve chosen. It’s crucial. The “head-in-the-sand” stubborn, uninquisitive approach to clinging one’s worldview is foreign to me.
That said, what I have a problem with are the “do-it-yourself,” buffet-style dogmas that are overwhelmingly prevalent nowadays. People take a little from this belief system, a little from that, and piece it all together into something that is “right for them.” Not only does this use personal experience to define one’s belief system, rather than allowing ideology to shape the way we view our experiences (a far more consistent way to live), but it undermines the very worth and intregrity of the pieces of belief adopted to be combined with the others into some personal melange.
At this point in time in this particular country, people believe that they have the right to decide what they can do with an unborn fetus that they may or may not be viewed as a living human being. Hence, forcing governmental regulations about prohibiting abortion would probably result in a disaster.
This is another point where you and I diverge. You’re arguing this from the point of view of the woman, who feels like the government is encroaching on her rights to her body. I’m arguing it from the standpoint of the unborn baby, who, as a genetically unique human being, has a right to live, in whatever environment he exists. When we come down to it, it’s not her body, it’s another human being–dependent on her body, yes (but what young child isn’t dependent on external support?), but unique, and that human being has rights that are separate from hers. Yes, it’s inconvenient to bear the child. But in the vast majority of cases where abortion is considered, men and women were irresponsible and careless in the act of conception in the first place. Don’t want to have a child? Condoms. Birth control. Abstinence. There are many alternatives out there. I refuse to believe that these women are the helpless victims of governmental encroachment when they’ve been irresponsible to begin with and the government is simply fulfilling one of its key roles, protecting life. Do I sound insensitive towards women in this position? Perhaps. But the man in this situation is just as responsible for his half of the matter as the woman is. We don’t get off, not by a long shot.
For example, would I not be able to say, “I personally prefer a candidate who eats apples over a candidate who throws oranges at people in wheelchairs?”
When you use the same terms and phraseology to describe the two issues at hand back-to-back, it seems awfully like you’re comparing the two matters directly. But I see where you’re coming from and appreciate your clarification in simply deciding which of the two matters is significant to you and independently weighing the viewpoints’ merits.
Which makes me curious, whom do you personally hold responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis?
That’s a hard question and not one I have a ready answer for without studying the ethics of wartime and reconciling those, if I can, with my worldview. I’m not sure I hold anyone responsible at this point, other than simply saying that they’re unfortunate casualities of war. I wish I had a better answer for you.
To me they aren’t arbitrary rules, they’re expressions of how humanity was originally designed to relate to God and to each other, and as such aren’t just some stolid code of ethics, as the charge is so often leveled against them, but life-giving and affirming of our humanity.
Given that you have just said, “to me” in the beginning of your sentence, it seems that you acknowledge the fact that these values are your personal opinions about morality. Now, do you believe that these opinions you have about these particular issues are “more right” than anyone else’s thoughts on the same matter? Do you regard those who do not share the same view about morality as you as being misguided, confused, or ignorant? For example, there are those who believe in the same God as you do, but have come to embrace the idea of homosexuality. On the other hand, there are those who share the same Christian faith as you, and yet still believe that inter-racial marriage is a sin. Do you believe that you have a more intimate, closer relationship with God than these people? Do you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, and everyone who has come to interpret it differently are deviating from God’s original plan? Do you believe that you are “right” and they are “wrong?” Do you believe that our government should incorporate your personal beliefs into laws since the moral values you believe in are absolute and unchanging?
The thought that springs to mind when I think about a society grounded in situational ethics is, “Where does it stop?”
I think it usually stops where the society during that time feels the most comfortable stopping it.
If you remove absolutes, then the corrupt CEO has just as much right to disenfranchise his employees as anything else, if it seems right to him.
Just for clarification, when you mention “right” in the first part of sentence, you mean “something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature” and the “right” in the latter part of sentence refers to the definition of “confirming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality.” I just like to make that distinction first because it confused me for a second.
If a CEO or a serial killer feels that their behavior is morally right, they must have a reason. But if his/her behavior is unacceptable in a given culture, and the reasoning for the action is unjustified in that culture, then he will be reprimanded, and thus learn that what he believed to be right is actually wrong in that given society. However, if a given society decides to view these CEO or serial killer’s behaviors as acceptable, the society must have a reason. Perhaps the times have changed so much that it is more adaptable for a society to accept these values we now consider wrong. For example, if fear, paranoia, and suspicion start to dominate our culture, pre-emptive murder may eventually become acceptable. And perhaps we are already heading that way. After all, we have recently started a pre-emptive war under false accusations because of our own fears. Either way, as so long as we as a society continue to ask ourselves why something is right or wrong, and not believing what someone or something said is right or wrong without questioning it, we will be able to adapt with the times, and hence survive.
I believe in capital punishment for the crime of murder, exercised with the utmost prudence and every single effort conceivable to ensure the course of action is the right one to take. There’s a biblical precedent for this that is still relevant and valid for today.
But isn’t that situational ethics? It seems to me that you are saying that taking a life of another is always wrong, except in the cases where 1. the victim has taken a life of another victim and 2. if it is done prudently. So the situation requires for there to be another victim, and that system is just and right. (Well, right as it could possibly be, which is subjective also, of course.)
It would seem his intent isn’t to prove that abortion is wrong, but to comment on the process of examining a candidate’s views and how to vote one’s conscience.
But if his intention is to examine a candidate’s views and to encourage voting for one’s conscience by arguing that fetus should be treated like all animals, it would seem he has then failed his objective since the reasoning of his argument is flawed.
What I meant in my response by “invest in it” includes the process of examining differing worldviews and comparing their worth to the one you’ve chosen.
I agree that worldviews are important and crucial. I wish people are more open to worldviews.
Not only does this use personal experience to define one’s belief system, rather than allowing ideology to shape the way we view our experiences (a far more consistent way to live), but it undermines the very worth and intregrity of the pieces of belief adopted to be combined with the others into some personal melange.
I don’t understand this. Any one ideology is encountered through personal experience. You would not be a Christian if you did know anyone else who were Christian, and did not know that such religion exists. Therefore, your personal experience of knowing Christianity is what has defined your belief system. Others may encounter few different ideologies during their life experiences. Depending upon their environment, they may choose to believe in certain aspects of these different ideologies, subscribing to those that are relevant to their current lives. I don’t exactly see how taking in multiple ideologies to gain a perspective of the world undermines the worth and integrity of the ideals they were derived from.
I’m arguing it from the standpoint of the unborn baby, who, as a genetically unique human being, has a right to live, in whatever environment he exists.
Setting aside the debate of whether a fetus should be considered a living human being or simply a mother’s part of the flesh, the point that needs to be considered carefully is that if you believe that government should prohibit the mothers from getting rid of what they believe to be a part of themselves, then the government becomes responsible for the fetus’ lives when it is born. They are the result of the government’s interference in mother’s choice. Hence, the government should also be responsible for the quality of these babies’ lives as they are raised. After all, they would not be there if it wasn’t for the government. So unless the government is planning to mother all of these babies that were unwanted by mothers who only saw them as parts of her flesh, and guarantee their safety and quality of life (until they are of age,) it has no right to tell the mothers what to do.
Don’t want to have a child? Condoms. Birth control. Abstinence. There are many alternatives out there.
You can want to have sex and yet not want to have a child. They are not the same thing, and they do not have a cause and effect relationship since pregnancy does not occur 100% of the time when having unprotected sex. Hence although abstinence may prevent pregnancy, it also does not address the fact that people want to have sex. Condoms and birth control, on the other hand, address both these issues, but are not fool-proof. There are accidents. So, instead of labeling women and men as irresponsible and careless, or just plain dumb, and using pregnancy as some sort of punishment (which in turn will affect the child who will most likely be blamed for the situation and acted upon accordingly), we should simply increase sex education.
Sorry these replies were late, but I was a bit busy the last few days. But you seemed to have kept yourself busy in Elyse’s livejournal post, so I guess it’s alright, right?
In the interests of winding down this discussion, I’ll keep my replies as concise as I can, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree on a lot of matters. Thanks for keeping it going, Sato. It’s been really insightful, and the extent to which you think through things does you enormous credit. It’s almost a shame that Stereolab concert was sold out over the summer–it would have been great to carry on in person.
Do you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, and everyone who has come to interpret it differently are deviating from God’s original plan?
It seems, in this paragraph, like you’re trying to pin the charge of arrogance on me because I have certain convictions about what’s right and what’s wrong that stem from the Bible, the foundation of my belief system. I don’t think that having convictions about right and wrong demonstrates arrogance or narrow-mindedness. You, no doubt, have things that you know to be right and true; does having those make you more enlightened and thus on a superior spiritual/intellectual plane than others?
I don’t have everything even remotely figured out; I’m still trying to figure out how my belief system interfaces with the world around me. I’ve investigated other belief systems and ways of interpreting life, admittedly probably not nearly as in-depth as you have, and Christianity is the most consistent, non-contradictory, most adept way of describing the world that I’ve found.
Do you believe that our government should incorporate your personal beliefs into laws since the moral values you believe in are absolute and unchanging?
Nope, not at all. Moral enforcement isn’t the government’s realm; never should have been.
But isn’t that situational ethics? It seems to me that you are saying that taking a life of another is always wrong, except […]
No, it’s not, since my ethics come from the Bible, and it spells out the absolutes that way. In other words, the Bible is the absolute authority and consistent from situation to situation in and of itself.
I will admit you have me in a bit of a contradiction here, seeing as how I stipulated above that moral enforcement isn’t the government’s realm, and capital punishment, a “moral” concept, can really only reasonably be carried out by the government. So that’s something for me to investigate further.
I don’t understand this. Any one ideology is encountered through personal experience.
An ideology is encountered, fleshed-out, as it were, through personal experience, yes, but my ideology is defined outside of personal experience. Christianity exists outside of my personal interpretation of it. I chose Christianity, fully-formed and defined, and now interpret the world as best I can through the lens of that ideology, ever-seeking to increase my understanding of the core concepts as it brings the world more into focus for me.
I don’t exactly see how taking in multiple ideologies to gain a perspective of the world undermines the worth and integrity of the ideals they were derived from.
Ideologies are belief systems. Emphasis on the system. A system is a network of interlocking parts. Taking one part from here and one part from there can compromise the function of a particular part, and can sometimes bring other parts that contradict those that are already there. Let’s say you believe in some of the tenets of Islam, but you wanted to also believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. Would that not debase and devalue the worth of both pieces of belief to be brought together into such an ideology? You may disagree, but to my mind it would.
They are the result of the government’s interference in mother’s choice.
I fully recognize the consequences that can arise by making abortion illegal again. But even if a child is brought into this world and is uncared for and neglected (a heinous possibility), isn’t even a chance at life for the child better than being deprived of life altogether? The baby’s right to live is paramount here, and supersedes the logistical inconveniences (great though they are) that surround it.
It also does not address the fact that people want to have sex.
I know people want to have sex. But, as I’m sure you’ll agree, people should have sex fully understanding and accepting the possibilities that can arise. I mean, heck, conception is one of the primary functions, if not the primary function, of sex in the first place. So I totally agree that we should emphasize sex education, in homes first, and secondarily in schools. People need to know, and people need to be responsible. But the life of a child shouldn’t be used to cover for people’s irresponsibility.
It’s been fun, Sato. I’ll address any additional concerns you have as best I can, but I want to try to wrap this up. Hope you’re having a great Saturday evening.