Inspired by Tax day, the upcoming presidential election, and by recently watching HBO's John Adams miniseries, I would like to start off a series of posts on politics, government, and society.
My goal is that many of you will comment and engage in the discussion, especially those of you who never comment :-)
One of the biggest problems I see with politics (and many other things), is that people are woefully uninformed. Most of us muddle through our lives with blinders firmly affixed, looking occasionally to the evening news and some 9-second sound bites as the basis for our understanding of political issues. Maybe it is apathy or cynicism, or maybe we are all just incredibly lazy; but as a result, many candidates are elected into office by psychology rather than platform. The media certainly adds to the difficulty of our ability to parse what is real and what is the dangling of a shiny object in front of our eyes meant to distract us like the redirecting of a toddler. (Look no further than the recent hullabaloo in the media over Obama’s “bitter” remarks for proof of this.) We live in a society that fosters the need for politicians to consult advisors and strategists to create the image of a leader that will appease the masses and win elections. Every detail from catchy bumper-sticker slogans and boisterous, albeit vacuous stump speeches, down to hair and makeup is carefully planned out and precisely delivered to secure your vote. How do we get past this superficial bullshittery?
Well, the solution certainly doesn’t involve reading this blog!
I don’t pretend to have The Answer but I imagine it would start with discussing some actual issues.
First up, always a crowd pleaser: Abortion.
Our 3 major presidential candidates differ predictably in their stance on this issue along party lines. Both democratic candidates oppose overturning Roe v. Wade,
So, where do you stand on this issue and more importantly, why?
(Does anyone hear Michael Buffer in the background?)
26 Comments:
I don't really understand the quandary about abortion.
1. A zygote is alive, it is an individual, and it is 'human'. (A zygote is an individual ---- dependent on the mother for survival ------ but an individual nonetheless.)
2. All of our founding documents were engineered to protect individual rights (esp. the right to life).
A 1 yr old child is dependent on his parents as well --- is geography the factor which should determine whether a life has value? Should a mother be able to kill her 2yr old in the privacy of her home if she no longer wants it? Why not --- its her kid ----- its her home ------- a 2 yr old is not an adult ------- shouldn't she have a right to privacy??
If the people want abortion to be 'legal' ------ they should have the nuts to create/adopt a constitutional amendment which codifies it !! It is childish to justify abortion as a matter of 'privacy'. We amended the fucker for alcohol ------ why not for abortion?
The reason a constitutional amendment regarding abortion has not happened is because it can't. There is no way to justify / sanction the termination of an 'innocent' (the death penalty is a punishment) life. How could you possible set parameters -- if its half the way out of the womb you can kill it ---- if its 3/4 of the way out its murder??
It is easy for most folks to endorse abortion because - hell - a zygote doesn't look very 'human' at all. Is appearance to be the measure of humanity? Consider people disfigured / disabled by injury or disease --- should we be able to kill them as well --- it would make our lives easier -- not to have to be bothered caring for them --- isn't that the core of the issue --- ensuring maximum convenience for all of Dr. Spock's children?
LD,
Your pointing out that our founding documents were engineered to protect individual rights is not an argument that holds water.
There always has been a contradiction in what our founding documents said and what actually happens.
At the time our Declaration of Independence was written and Constitution was ratified both slavery and capital punishment was the law of the land. Where was the protection of life and liberty there?
I think that we like to delude ourselves and wave the flag for the "sanctity of human life" it makes us feel better; but it is total bullshit!
Are only non-felons lives worthy of protection?
Are only American lives sacred? There are millions of dead Indians, Germans, Japanese, and Iraqis, to mention a few, who would disagree.
BTW Hillary has promised to do just what you suggest, codify Roe v. Wade.
'Hillary has promised to do just what you suggest, codify Roe v. Wade.'
If she definitely promised ..... then I guess I don't have to worry about any codification :) Come on ... a promise from a Clinton is like a 3 dollar bill.
'There always has been a contradiction in what our founding documents said and what actually happens.'
I'm not seeing the contradictions; --- blacks were defined to have less worth than whites (blacks were not 'men' according to the original documents).
The death penalty is / was the prescribed punishment for a taking a life. The life of the 'killer' was protected until such time as he was judged to be a killer.
'Are only American lives sacred? There are millions of dead Indians, Germans, Japanese, and Iraqis, to mention a few, who would disagree.'
The constitution is not a suicide pact. The founders realized that wars would occur, and they developed a framework for their execution (the declaration of war, war powers, etc).
The constitution is not a suicide pact. The founders realized that wars would occur, and they developed a framework for their execution (the declaration of war, war powers, etc).
Oh, I agree, but my point is that to hide behind the "sanctity of life" rational is hypocritical.
Trying to impose a blanket 1-size-fits-all morality to our society will always fail.
'Trying to impose a blanket 1-size-fits-all morality to our society will always fail.'
Society=
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community
the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations
In order to form a 'society' you must have standards, rules, laws, etc. The will of the aggregate is imposed on the individual members -- thats just how it is --- no getting around it. In a democratic society everyone can participate in developing the 'standards', but once they are set, all members must adhere to the standards.
There you go again with the cut and paste bit from your dictionary!
I am well aware of the definition of society, thank you very much. :)
Allow me to clarify: Trying to impose an absolutist morality i.e. All human life is sacred will always fail. Since, as I am sure you are WELL aware there is no reference next to Society in your dictionary that says see: Utopia.
Perhaps you and I should remain quiet for a bit and let other kids have a turn ;)
'absolutist morality i.e. All human life is sacred'
Well --- since others appear to be too timid to join in ......
It seems to me that a bunch of folks elected to form a collective, and then decided on some rules (laws) for their new society. We are governed by laws, not any notion of morality. The laws are created by the representatives of the people, not the church.
As far as all life being 'sacred' -- I would use the term 'valued' ... after all the US is not a theocracy ----- this is supported in the framers' writings, but it does not mean that the collective cannot punish someone who is judged to have committed a crime. We go to great lengths to ensure that the accused are given every opportunity to make their defense. It takes on average 25yrs to actually execute someone after he is convicted --- a testament to our concern for (value we place on) the individual.
Id says:
In order to form a 'society' you must have standards, rules, laws, etc. The will of the aggregate is imposed on the individual members -- thats just how it is --- no getting around it.
Well, that's not true, at least not in all cases. The Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect the rights of the individual against "the will of the aggregate." The aggregate cannot use its powerful vote to remove certain freedoms.
That's one of the main arguments in Roe v. Wade, which, apparently, you haven't actually read.
The Opinion of the Court includes this clear statement:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.... [H]owever ... the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I must admit, I have never read the entire opinion given by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. I had read several condensed summaries that tried to illuminate the salient legal points. So I took it upon myself to remedy that today. It is quite a read, and quite fascinating to be sure. (counting the opinion, concurring opinion and dissenting opinion it is just about 30 pages excluding end notes and citations)If you are so inclined you can find the opinions in their entirety here.
Justice Stewart wrote in his concurring opinion (he is quoting Justice Harlan here):
The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.
[emphasis obviously is mine]
This raises an interesting point. To what purpose is the state's interest in proscribing abortion?
If you are for prohibition of abortion, what do you feel is the underlying interest the state has for imposing these restrictions?
'The State' AKA the elected officials who govern --- have an interest in getting reelected. In order to 'get theirs' for another term they need to set policy (write laws) which is consistent with the will of the majority (yes EX, the majority).
Vin - I'll throw in my 2 cents (well maybe about a half cent). I feel that abortion should be legal but used very sparingly. It should not be used (as it so often is these days) as a form of birth control. With that being said - how do we go about deciding the "sparingly" part?
Ray M.
Ray,
Probably the best way to go is to make it illegal, but provide loopholes -- like a 'medical necessity' exception. Make the definition of the exception broad enough to allow termination in most cases.
Hey Ray, Thanks for weighing-in.
I don't think we can "decide" the sparingly part. The best we can do is push for the elimination of the abstinence-only program that is the Government's official policy and funded in our public schools with tax dollars.
According to this study the overwhelming majority (93%) of abortions were sought for reasons that fall into the "unplanned or unwanted" category.
Responsible education about the proper use of birth control methods available, may help to decrease their frequency. But don't look for this to radically change the numbers.
Would you have the government go further in its actions to impose restrictions to get to "sparingly"?
Lou, one of the big problems, OK 2 big problems I have with your proposal are:
1. Making abortion illegal will prevent "law-abiding" young women from enjoying the same rights as a not-so-law abiding citizen. The result will most certainly be a de-evolution in the quality of women's health as the number of "I looked it up on google and am about to open up an abortion boutique in my garage" centers spring up to meet the swelling (pun intentional)demand fro abortions. Statistics show that 3/4 of all abortions world-wide happen in countries where it is "illegal".
2.- What precedent are you setting here. We passed this...well....it's kind of a law....but...we will be looking the other way most of the time (wink wink)? Don't you think this will serve to devalue the integrity of ALL our laws. It would become tough for the average Delta to parse which laws are "mandatory" and which are "manufacturer's suggested retail laws".
Education? Come on --- most 'students' can't even find the US on a world map. The public education system is a failure (a subject for another blog).
Dr. Spock's children want to have what they want when they want it --- they don't care about anything but satisfying their immediate desires. They know full well (they have been taught) that 'someone else' will pay (be responsible) for any mistakes that they make. How do you deal with that?
Vin,
I agree w/ your last comment --- but I don't see a clean solution. Maybe Chief will come up w/ something ;)
Let's ignore the privacy aspect of the issue. Who decided that a zygote
( is an individual? I do not see how a speck of genetic material can be called an individual. It may have the potential to be one, but so what?
Pretty soon, any cell could be a potential person.
What about all the zygotes
(and larger clumps of cells) that are spontaneously aborted, either naturally on because of birth control pills? Are we making the pill illegal too?
Abortion is the worst and most expensive form of birth control, but if there is anything this planet needs, it is more and better birth control.
Art,
1.- About time!
2.- No one decided, in fact the Supreme Court explicitly decided that rights are not conferred on an individual until birth. (save certain exemptions in the case of prenatal injury in the realm of actionable legal proceedings- gotta love the lawyers!)
3.- Since the determination of when exactly you can arbitrarily delineate when a zygote->embryo->fetus->tax deduction becomes a "human being" is a hotly contended and ambiguous area. I DON'T want to forget the "privacy aspect". To me the real issue lies here and transcends the ambiguous stance of the SC.
I think it is of the utmost relevance to answer the question about what the state's interest is in proscribing abortion rights.
From a heathen, nihilistic, frame of reference I can make the case that there is no morality except relatively so. And appliying that paradigm, abortion does not pose a determent to the success of society, impede on the collective's interest and thusly is, in fact, entirely a non issue.
Art,
I almost forgot,
but if there is anything this planet needs, it is more and better birth control.
To steal from Orwell, We all equally need birth control, some of us need it more equally than others!
:-)
Art,
'but if there is anything this planet needs, it is more and better birth control.'
I agree to a point .... A Clint Eastwood line from Dirty Harry comes to mind: "there's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot".
Vince,
I was not out to disparage privacy, just to point out it is ridiculous to call a lump of cells an individual.
Personally, I do not think you have an individual until they develop a personality. :-)
Art,
I guess that means we should be able to abort at any age. It does have certain merits ;)
Art,
I'm not sure I can agree with the "ridiculous" comment. It is not so clear cut and to assume it so is to espouse the same kind of blind hubris that the religious zealots do.
A fetus by medical definition is a gestational "product" after the 8th week. This is certainly more than a lump of cells! There is differentiation to the point of all structures present in you and me are apparent in the fetus. It certainly satisfies the biological criteria for being alive and is most assuredly human. The trouble with writing it off out of hand is you leave unanswered the question of when it "becomes a human being". In my opinion this is not such a simple answer.
Your "personality test" would result in the Legal culling of (in my estimation) about 11% of our population- Retroactive Abortions, as it were - not that that is an entirely bad idea; to steal Lou's quote "...so long as the right people get aborted" hehehe
Get out of my brain Lou!
I want to say "Potato, Potato", but it does not seem to work in written form.
Po-tay-to, po-tot-to?
To what are you applying this?
Post a Comment