Day One Hundred Thirteen:
I have regularly [I hesitate to say "always"] refrained from ever speaking in terms of political or social oneness, predominantly because I know now more than ever that forcing people to think similarly will only bring dischord and resentment. In particular, I gave up trying to rule the world, not only because once upon a time I made the mistake of admitting publicly that--deep down--my idea of a perfect utopia at the time ultimately involved a good number of socially corrupt procedures [read Piers Anthony's Triple Detente and perhaps Aldous Huxley's Brave New World for some insight into what I was thinking, though it's changed to "business as usual" since then]... but also because I just don't care enough about what other people are doing in their personal time to try to inflict my ideas of how they should live onto them against their will.
Returning to the Daedalus complex: I see a lot of people who seem to value some invisible notion of 'status' in determining their own self-worth, particularly when dealing with celebrities [who themselves are simply normal people that a lot of other people happen to know about]... either celebrities envying each other or non-celebs envying celebrities, without considering the problems that the others undoubtedly have. It's not always about money--more often than not, I see people fighting over principles, of all things... and principles that don't really matter except on an immediate scale.
The one major issue I will finally discuss is the one about which I most thought I would never change my stance... abortion.
I touch this issue because I feel it's yet again other people trying to declare what's best for the world, when by and large the results will be so negligibly defineable to any one individual--particularly one who has never directly had to deal with the question of aborting a child. I recognize the irony in making a blanket statement about what direction is "best" in this issue, but it's primarily record right now, because I recognize its historical significance... perhaps some years from now, abortion won't even register in society's mind, much the way slavery isn't today.
My original stance on abortion was that it should be up to the mother to decide, even if the decision is ultimately selfish and irresponsible... that people who aren't going to be involved in the unaborted baby's life shouldn't have a say in whether it lives or dies.
Then the question came up in casual discussion as to whether I would get one if it ever came up...
When it occurred to me that only the "morning after pill," or natural miscarriage, would abort a baby without surgery, I quickly realized how pointless it was to argue. Demanding the right to have an abortion seemed much more like demanding the right to drink gasoline... certainly it may be a "right," but why fight for it? Adoption seems the much less painful method, and at least an adoptive family would benefit, even if that's not a guarantee. I certainly wouldn't risk the surgery [and its costs] just to theoretically convenience myself... it's irresponsible on so many levels.
Granted, there are those who strive to uphold some invisible notion of 'status'--particularly the religious types who would feel as though they would lose face after the knowledge of having a child out of wedlock became public--who value that status more than even their own lives... honestly, it's not up to me to decide that for them. I don't value human life that I'm going to fight to save every one, especially at the expense of others' rights. Maybe that makes me "evil" in a way, but I'm being realistic here--I can't save the world on my own, but I never wanted to do it in the first place. Live and let live... or die, if they choose.
Discussion is locked because I strongly feel there's no further way to open my mind about abortion from this point--either a baby dies or it doesn't, there's not much else to it than that. Other issues have annoyingly debateable grey areas, but death is hardly a grey area.
Somewhat relatedly, the MGM bill--a bill submitted to Congress in February designed to end circumcision in infant boys--struck me as being quite a bit similar to the issue of abortion, just with significantly fewer dead babies. The purpose seems just as radical, to outright ban an entire practice over a bit of principle, but after reading through it, I honestly have to admit I don't disagree with anything proposed in the bill. Initially, I proposed "for medical emergency and religious custom" as being necessary, but there is a clause for medical emergency--which at least validates some of my faith in humanity--and there's apparently movements within the Jewish community to abolish circumcision as a practice, which I found surprising yet refreshing. It may simply be the idea of banning something entirely that I initially found disagreeable, but being informed is certainly a good move, and even if the bill doesn't get passed, that people like me will find out about it and be inadvertently forced to take a stance on it is still progress.
Of course, I have to wonder again how much is merely principle, even if it is a movement to stop something that's ultimately a needless risk, just to give some future grown men a sense of being "whole." Personally, I've never encountered a circumsized male who had any real complaints about it, but it does seem pointless to continue doing something permanently scarring without evident benefit. Regardless, it's something that ultimately doesn't affect me unless I have a son of my own, when I--now informed--would at least say, "Don't bother doing it."
I'm curious to see where the MGM bill goes, which is why it's also on the record. I haven't paid attention to where abortion is on the societal tier, but I'm not terribly inclined to find out.
Returning to the Daedalus complex: I see a lot of people who seem to value some invisible notion of 'status' in determining their own self-worth, particularly when dealing with celebrities [who themselves are simply normal people that a lot of other people happen to know about]... either celebrities envying each other or non-celebs envying celebrities, without considering the problems that the others undoubtedly have. It's not always about money--more often than not, I see people fighting over principles, of all things... and principles that don't really matter except on an immediate scale.
The one major issue I will finally discuss is the one about which I most thought I would never change my stance... abortion.
I touch this issue because I feel it's yet again other people trying to declare what's best for the world, when by and large the results will be so negligibly defineable to any one individual--particularly one who has never directly had to deal with the question of aborting a child. I recognize the irony in making a blanket statement about what direction is "best" in this issue, but it's primarily record right now, because I recognize its historical significance... perhaps some years from now, abortion won't even register in society's mind, much the way slavery isn't today.
My original stance on abortion was that it should be up to the mother to decide, even if the decision is ultimately selfish and irresponsible... that people who aren't going to be involved in the unaborted baby's life shouldn't have a say in whether it lives or dies.
Then the question came up in casual discussion as to whether I would get one if it ever came up...
When it occurred to me that only the "morning after pill," or natural miscarriage, would abort a baby without surgery, I quickly realized how pointless it was to argue. Demanding the right to have an abortion seemed much more like demanding the right to drink gasoline... certainly it may be a "right," but why fight for it? Adoption seems the much less painful method, and at least an adoptive family would benefit, even if that's not a guarantee. I certainly wouldn't risk the surgery [and its costs] just to theoretically convenience myself... it's irresponsible on so many levels.
Granted, there are those who strive to uphold some invisible notion of 'status'--particularly the religious types who would feel as though they would lose face after the knowledge of having a child out of wedlock became public--who value that status more than even their own lives... honestly, it's not up to me to decide that for them. I don't value human life that I'm going to fight to save every one, especially at the expense of others' rights. Maybe that makes me "evil" in a way, but I'm being realistic here--I can't save the world on my own, but I never wanted to do it in the first place. Live and let live... or die, if they choose.
Discussion is locked because I strongly feel there's no further way to open my mind about abortion from this point--either a baby dies or it doesn't, there's not much else to it than that. Other issues have annoyingly debateable grey areas, but death is hardly a grey area.
Somewhat relatedly, the MGM bill--a bill submitted to Congress in February designed to end circumcision in infant boys--struck me as being quite a bit similar to the issue of abortion, just with significantly fewer dead babies. The purpose seems just as radical, to outright ban an entire practice over a bit of principle, but after reading through it, I honestly have to admit I don't disagree with anything proposed in the bill. Initially, I proposed "for medical emergency and religious custom" as being necessary, but there is a clause for medical emergency--which at least validates some of my faith in humanity--and there's apparently movements within the Jewish community to abolish circumcision as a practice, which I found surprising yet refreshing. It may simply be the idea of banning something entirely that I initially found disagreeable, but being informed is certainly a good move, and even if the bill doesn't get passed, that people like me will find out about it and be inadvertently forced to take a stance on it is still progress.
Of course, I have to wonder again how much is merely principle, even if it is a movement to stop something that's ultimately a needless risk, just to give some future grown men a sense of being "whole." Personally, I've never encountered a circumsized male who had any real complaints about it, but it does seem pointless to continue doing something permanently scarring without evident benefit. Regardless, it's something that ultimately doesn't affect me unless I have a son of my own, when I--now informed--would at least say, "Don't bother doing it."
I'm curious to see where the MGM bill goes, which is why it's also on the record. I haven't paid attention to where abortion is on the societal tier, but I'm not terribly inclined to find out.