This is long
Hey everybody, I was looking for an opportunity to have an interesting [and civil] discussion. This is the only place I know where to go where I can reach people who will disagree with me. However, being the internet, I expect it to get ugly quickly and somebody will call somebody else Hitler and well, that's just how it goes, I guess. Also, I don't know if any of you people are even still alive.
I like freedom. It doesn’t matter if it is the very simple little things like what movie to watch or dinner to order, or if it is one of the very big and grand things like the opportunity to say that Congress is run by incompetent apes and not go to jail for saying so publicly. That attitude governs a lot of my socio-political opinions. There are some inconsistencies in my political philosophy, of course. For instance, I got pretty riled up a few years ago when over the FCC when they made it easier to concentrate media brands, effectively endorsing the limit of the corporations to buy and sell as they see fit at the expense of the independence of broadcasting vehicles. While this is quite clearly a market fetter, it is a tradeoff that between freedoms that, really, causes picking sides to make hypocrites of us all.
The two big “pop” social issues that have made a habit of doing that to us the most lately are abortion and gay marriage. Both of these can easily make apparent hypocrites out of us, regardless of which side we chose. Religion frequently gets pulled into the discussion, which is its own very thick branch of the freedom tree. Everyone has their own basis by which their values and opinions are formed, and frequently it is religion. Sometimes that really means parents or friends or school (which all occupy such a place in their own right), but somewhere in everyone’s mind, there is something that you compare your choices against and choose the better. I guess there are also those selfish people that ask how it benefits them only, too, and they are dangerous in a political system like ours. Those people exist everywhere, even in the groups for whom religions is vocalized to be the primary motivation.
The issue of gay marriage has these selfish people on both sides of the fence. (Abortion does too, but gay marriage is a simpler problem to discuss, so I will start there.) Most simply, both sides want the world at large to look like their own view of it, except homosexuals have a direct benefit from the allowance of gay marriage while opponents do not have any direct benefit, other than that reinforcement of their worldview. Marriage has two components, which muddy this discussion. At its heart, marriage is a lifelong and public commitment of devotion between a man and a woman. It is sanctioned by the Church (in the most general sense of the word) as an important step to building a family and sanctioned by the State as an important step in building a society. The benefits granted by the state are largely financial and the benefits granted from the church are largely personal. The church condones the act of commitment and endorses its manifestation in a sexual relationship. There is nothing preventing a man and woman from enjoying that same relationship without a church’s approval. There is nothing stopping any two people from this, publicly or privately. The state’s role, however, is entirely up to it.
The institution of marriage is seen as a positive social phenomenon and thus the state and society at large encourage it among their members. If a more communal approach to family (à la A Brave New World) becomes the prevailing vehicle for society, then the state can and should discourage marriage as we know it. Those pushing a religious opinion would then be the objecting minorities, like homosexuals are now. Ultimately, there is no fundamental human right to a state sanctioned contract with another person endorsing cohabitation, commitment and a sexual relationship. There is also no Biblical principle that I am aware of compelling believers to object to a state that does not sanction marriage in the traditional form. Therefore, civil marriage, the contractual obligation, is strictly a societal construct and should reflect the will of its members. If that will leads to a traditional, man-woman marriage, then so be it. Likewise, there is no moral weight to a decision if the state allows homosexual marriage with or without normal marriage. The Biblical imperative is not to engage in those acts, like you would not engage is business on the Sabbath. The unbelieving world is not subject to Biblical Laws. The secular role of marriage is solely at the discretion of the people to include and exclude whomever they choose in an effort to encourage whatever behavior they choose. Homosexuals and their supporters have equal rights to promote their worldview as their opponents - but not more so.
Abortion is more complicated. There are more substantial moral implications involved not present in the question of definition of marriage, stemming from the fact that under ideal circumstances, life is destroyed. There is a fundamental right defending life in ways in stark contrast to the lack of such for marriage. The Constitution defines citizenship based on the conditions of being born, but that may no define the legal aspects of just being. Even if it did, would it morally define them? Murder is the intentional act of killing with malice aforethought. Is abortion murder? It is certainly killing and always premeditated. That seems awfully straightforward. The act itself may not necessarily be malicious in the sense that the mother wants to do harm specifically to the baby, but it does come necessarily from a selfish place emotionally that her rights supersede those of the baby.
There are counterarguments, of course, like the mother does not want to give birth to a child she cannot care for or the unusual cases of health or product of rape or incest. These proceed in moral questionability, being unable to care for a child does not preclude other possible solutions that would not result in loss of life. The health of the mother again raises questions about the relative merits of one person’s rights versus another’s. Incest is awfully exceptional and rape is the most defensible because it is a result of situations not of the mother’s choosing in ways that, for instance, a drug or alcohol induced liaison does not.
The willful destruction of property, however, is not the same sort of behavior that a society can permit without endorsement, like alcohol consumption or irresponsible credit card use (or even other than ideal marriage conditions). It becomes even more difficult for morally upright people regardless of spiritual orientation to idly tolerate this behavior, as the weakest are those in most need of protection. There are direct commands from Christ, for example, about helping both children and the weak.
This then leads to the question, at what point does the baby become distinct? Even the most ardent Christian would argue that menstruation and its coincident loss of egg is akin to manslaughter. The current legal point is viability, which is as arbitrary as it is scientific; the point of viability is variable with technology and what separates the helplessness of a 2 month old fetus in the womb versus a two month old infant out of one? Is a 2 moth old infant capable of survival without a guardian? According to the viability argument, at what point is a child self-sufficient? Drawn to its rawest form, distinction between lifeless gametes and living organism comes at fertilization. Self-replication, unique chromosomal traits, need for resources, response to stimulus, cellular construction make it identifiable and separate from the two constituent parents. Why should any other point in the development of a fetus be chosen, other than for the express purpose for arbitrary convenience to permit abortion?
The political motivations convolute this discussion. Frequently, the subject of birth control becomes inextricably entangled with the subject of abortion, because abortion is the pinnacle of it. The role of birth control and responsibility is a gender-political question that really makes this discussion relevant. Men can escape an unplanned pregnancy in ways that women cannot, but are typically not considered as responsible for birth control. Women then bear not only the need to keep track of the proper use but also the financial responsibilities involved in order to ensure a pregnancy free sexual encounter. Is that a right that should be protected? What is the basis for demanding a pregnancy free sexual encounter? Pregnancy is, of course, a major consequence of sex, like a fatal car accident is in driving a car. We have built in mitigators to control the undesirable outcomes, but at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that a particular car ride will not result in a fatal accident. It is implicit in accepting that possible outcome that you get into a car.
While, of course, there are opponents to abortion that do so out of genuine compassion for human life, there are also those who do so out of a false sense of self-righteousness. This is the sort of selfishness that says, “I am a Christians; therefore, that must be the best way to be. I do not think there should be abortions, so let’s make abortions illegal.” This is the kind of attitude that encourages unnecessary capital punishment and unnecessary wars. There are, however, times and places for those institutions. Are there times and places for abortions then, too? Probably. In the same way that there are times and places for other sorts of killing. Self-defense is the most striking example. In the case of abortion, though, how to make that choice? At what point is the severity of circumstance sufficient to overwhelm the apparent moral uncertainty? I don’t know. It seems like it out to be evaluated on a case by case basis by a medical professional.
Now, in that case, how do you treat it legally? If we have decided that it is murder, then it is easy. The conditions in the previous category are extraordinary and should not drive policy discussions, and those extremes should be accepted as that - extreme. If we decide that abortion is not murder, which as a society we largely have, creating the permissible boundaries becomes very complicated and arbitrary. After getting to this point, I am not sure how to draw those boundaries in a way that maintains internal logic or morality.
Identifying the killing of a fetus as a murder then restricts the freedom of the mother, right? Absolutely. The counterpoint to freedom, though, is that actions have consequences and responsibility is required. My freedom does not extend into your property. If I have a lovely beach view through your empty lot and you build a house that obstructs it, it is not within my rights to clear a path to restore it. I have to accept the consequences of a possibly obstructed view when I buy my lot. It is that very sense of individual freedoms that defends the ability of individuals, together, to determine how society progresses. Really, though, would you have it any other way?
I like freedom. It doesn’t matter if it is the very simple little things like what movie to watch or dinner to order, or if it is one of the very big and grand things like the opportunity to say that Congress is run by incompetent apes and not go to jail for saying so publicly. That attitude governs a lot of my socio-political opinions. There are some inconsistencies in my political philosophy, of course. For instance, I got pretty riled up a few years ago when over the FCC when they made it easier to concentrate media brands, effectively endorsing the limit of the corporations to buy and sell as they see fit at the expense of the independence of broadcasting vehicles. While this is quite clearly a market fetter, it is a tradeoff that between freedoms that, really, causes picking sides to make hypocrites of us all.
The two big “pop” social issues that have made a habit of doing that to us the most lately are abortion and gay marriage. Both of these can easily make apparent hypocrites out of us, regardless of which side we chose. Religion frequently gets pulled into the discussion, which is its own very thick branch of the freedom tree. Everyone has their own basis by which their values and opinions are formed, and frequently it is religion. Sometimes that really means parents or friends or school (which all occupy such a place in their own right), but somewhere in everyone’s mind, there is something that you compare your choices against and choose the better. I guess there are also those selfish people that ask how it benefits them only, too, and they are dangerous in a political system like ours. Those people exist everywhere, even in the groups for whom religions is vocalized to be the primary motivation.
The issue of gay marriage has these selfish people on both sides of the fence. (Abortion does too, but gay marriage is a simpler problem to discuss, so I will start there.) Most simply, both sides want the world at large to look like their own view of it, except homosexuals have a direct benefit from the allowance of gay marriage while opponents do not have any direct benefit, other than that reinforcement of their worldview. Marriage has two components, which muddy this discussion. At its heart, marriage is a lifelong and public commitment of devotion between a man and a woman. It is sanctioned by the Church (in the most general sense of the word) as an important step to building a family and sanctioned by the State as an important step in building a society. The benefits granted by the state are largely financial and the benefits granted from the church are largely personal. The church condones the act of commitment and endorses its manifestation in a sexual relationship. There is nothing preventing a man and woman from enjoying that same relationship without a church’s approval. There is nothing stopping any two people from this, publicly or privately. The state’s role, however, is entirely up to it.
The institution of marriage is seen as a positive social phenomenon and thus the state and society at large encourage it among their members. If a more communal approach to family (à la A Brave New World) becomes the prevailing vehicle for society, then the state can and should discourage marriage as we know it. Those pushing a religious opinion would then be the objecting minorities, like homosexuals are now. Ultimately, there is no fundamental human right to a state sanctioned contract with another person endorsing cohabitation, commitment and a sexual relationship. There is also no Biblical principle that I am aware of compelling believers to object to a state that does not sanction marriage in the traditional form. Therefore, civil marriage, the contractual obligation, is strictly a societal construct and should reflect the will of its members. If that will leads to a traditional, man-woman marriage, then so be it. Likewise, there is no moral weight to a decision if the state allows homosexual marriage with or without normal marriage. The Biblical imperative is not to engage in those acts, like you would not engage is business on the Sabbath. The unbelieving world is not subject to Biblical Laws. The secular role of marriage is solely at the discretion of the people to include and exclude whomever they choose in an effort to encourage whatever behavior they choose. Homosexuals and their supporters have equal rights to promote their worldview as their opponents - but not more so.
Abortion is more complicated. There are more substantial moral implications involved not present in the question of definition of marriage, stemming from the fact that under ideal circumstances, life is destroyed. There is a fundamental right defending life in ways in stark contrast to the lack of such for marriage. The Constitution defines citizenship based on the conditions of being born, but that may no define the legal aspects of just being. Even if it did, would it morally define them? Murder is the intentional act of killing with malice aforethought. Is abortion murder? It is certainly killing and always premeditated. That seems awfully straightforward. The act itself may not necessarily be malicious in the sense that the mother wants to do harm specifically to the baby, but it does come necessarily from a selfish place emotionally that her rights supersede those of the baby.
There are counterarguments, of course, like the mother does not want to give birth to a child she cannot care for or the unusual cases of health or product of rape or incest. These proceed in moral questionability, being unable to care for a child does not preclude other possible solutions that would not result in loss of life. The health of the mother again raises questions about the relative merits of one person’s rights versus another’s. Incest is awfully exceptional and rape is the most defensible because it is a result of situations not of the mother’s choosing in ways that, for instance, a drug or alcohol induced liaison does not.
The willful destruction of property, however, is not the same sort of behavior that a society can permit without endorsement, like alcohol consumption or irresponsible credit card use (or even other than ideal marriage conditions). It becomes even more difficult for morally upright people regardless of spiritual orientation to idly tolerate this behavior, as the weakest are those in most need of protection. There are direct commands from Christ, for example, about helping both children and the weak.
This then leads to the question, at what point does the baby become distinct? Even the most ardent Christian would argue that menstruation and its coincident loss of egg is akin to manslaughter. The current legal point is viability, which is as arbitrary as it is scientific; the point of viability is variable with technology and what separates the helplessness of a 2 month old fetus in the womb versus a two month old infant out of one? Is a 2 moth old infant capable of survival without a guardian? According to the viability argument, at what point is a child self-sufficient? Drawn to its rawest form, distinction between lifeless gametes and living organism comes at fertilization. Self-replication, unique chromosomal traits, need for resources, response to stimulus, cellular construction make it identifiable and separate from the two constituent parents. Why should any other point in the development of a fetus be chosen, other than for the express purpose for arbitrary convenience to permit abortion?
The political motivations convolute this discussion. Frequently, the subject of birth control becomes inextricably entangled with the subject of abortion, because abortion is the pinnacle of it. The role of birth control and responsibility is a gender-political question that really makes this discussion relevant. Men can escape an unplanned pregnancy in ways that women cannot, but are typically not considered as responsible for birth control. Women then bear not only the need to keep track of the proper use but also the financial responsibilities involved in order to ensure a pregnancy free sexual encounter. Is that a right that should be protected? What is the basis for demanding a pregnancy free sexual encounter? Pregnancy is, of course, a major consequence of sex, like a fatal car accident is in driving a car. We have built in mitigators to control the undesirable outcomes, but at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that a particular car ride will not result in a fatal accident. It is implicit in accepting that possible outcome that you get into a car.
While, of course, there are opponents to abortion that do so out of genuine compassion for human life, there are also those who do so out of a false sense of self-righteousness. This is the sort of selfishness that says, “I am a Christians; therefore, that must be the best way to be. I do not think there should be abortions, so let’s make abortions illegal.” This is the kind of attitude that encourages unnecessary capital punishment and unnecessary wars. There are, however, times and places for those institutions. Are there times and places for abortions then, too? Probably. In the same way that there are times and places for other sorts of killing. Self-defense is the most striking example. In the case of abortion, though, how to make that choice? At what point is the severity of circumstance sufficient to overwhelm the apparent moral uncertainty? I don’t know. It seems like it out to be evaluated on a case by case basis by a medical professional.
Now, in that case, how do you treat it legally? If we have decided that it is murder, then it is easy. The conditions in the previous category are extraordinary and should not drive policy discussions, and those extremes should be accepted as that - extreme. If we decide that abortion is not murder, which as a society we largely have, creating the permissible boundaries becomes very complicated and arbitrary. After getting to this point, I am not sure how to draw those boundaries in a way that maintains internal logic or morality.
Identifying the killing of a fetus as a murder then restricts the freedom of the mother, right? Absolutely. The counterpoint to freedom, though, is that actions have consequences and responsibility is required. My freedom does not extend into your property. If I have a lovely beach view through your empty lot and you build a house that obstructs it, it is not within my rights to clear a path to restore it. I have to accept the consequences of a possibly obstructed view when I buy my lot. It is that very sense of individual freedoms that defends the ability of individuals, together, to determine how society progresses. Really, though, would you have it any other way?