posted
Today is the last day at my job. I've spent more years at this job than I did at any two schools. Monday I will be somewhere else where I will be working differently.
That means I won't have much time to post on Hatrack. I'll be around, but much less.
As I am leaving I will leave with a scream--tackling two areas that should leave about 30 pages of followup arguments.
Abortion and Gay Marriage.
And I start this with a proposal--tell me in reasonable terms where I made a mistake in my reasoning, and I will consider changing my views.
That should be the proposal on any debate, and especially any Hatrack debate. Other wise its not a debate by an argument. Nobody wins an argument.
Abortion:
I live by several well defined rules. My reason for being against capital punishment in most cases is simple--capital punishment doesn't allow for human error. If you kill someone and find out you are wrong about their guilt, then you can't go back and un-kill them. Nor can you compensate them for being dead.
So that same argument pushes me to be against Abortion.
I don't know where life begins. Is it at conception? Is it two weeks after birth (the belief of some older cultures--Japanese I believe)? Is it at some mystic point in between? I do not know.
So I should be against abortion.
Yet I cannot force other people to pay for my beliefs. It is wrong for me to force a woman to have, or not have, a child. For me to say "I believe that abortion is wrong so you must endure the changes pregnancy forces on your body, and your psyche."
Here I was taught the counter argument. Here those against abortion showed me my belief that others should not pay for my beliefs is fine, but that standing by it in this case, I am making the child pay the ultimate cost for my belief.
Its a tough argument to get ones head around. It means that I have been given a choice. I can support the woman's right to choose pregnancy at the cost of a possible life.
It seems obvious here then. No abortions should ever be allowed. Regardless of rape or incest or threat to the mother's life. The 14 year old rape victim needs to have her child. Counseling may be able to help the victim, but after the abortion, nothing could help the fetus.
Still, it didn't feel right. There was something missing. The Majority of people in this country approve of abortions in those rare cases of rape or incest or threat to the mother's life. Why?
Then I realized the missing peice is the word Possible in the phrase Possible Life.
Some people believe that life begins at conception. I am not convinced. I think its possible, but I don't know it. I do KNOW that the woman involved is alive.
So I have realized that abortion is not a yes or no thing. It depends on the situation. The damage done to the person I know is real versus the damage done to the person that is possibly real.
Who should make that call? Should the mother make that call, or her family? Should the doctor? Should the courts or the government?
At the moment we believe that the mother should be the one to choose. That is what "Pro-Choice" is about. I am not convinced that mothers, or their families, are the right choice. I have reservations about courts and the government also being involved. Doctors? Have a national guideline set up, but one that recognizes that a possible life is not equal to a proven life?
I am willing to consider different ideas.
Gay Marriage.
I have heard five basic arguments against Gay Marriage. One is just pathetic, two are lame and two are very good.
I think I know a sixth, which is misguided.
1) "What's next, marrying a duck?"
This argument is the pathetic one. Its basis is that this is just another step down that slipper slope to liberal excess.
But homosexual relations have nothing to do with loving a duck, or multiple people, or any other type of perversion or kink.
It is not an argument, it is an attempt to scare people onto your side.
It is as strong as the argument--"If you ban Gay Marriages what's next, banning interracial marriages? How about banning marriages between two different religions?"
2) Gay Marriage destroys the idea of marriage.
I still haven't figured out how this works. How can two people in a loving monogamous relationship damage the idea of marriage?
What I've heard has been, "I don't want the schools to be forced to show my kids that two men or two women married have the same relationship as my spouce and I."
What is the alternative? What will you do when you walk down the street with your children and see two men holding hands or would you prefer that such couples don't go out in public?
Gay couples are a fact of life that your children will run into eventually. Some will have children that will play with your children. Denying it won't make it go away.
Further, a divorced couple or a single mother has a much deeper relationship to the sanctity of your marriage, and can bring up disturbing questions, but we don't legislate against them.
I put this under the Lame concept because, well, it sounds bad but says nothing.
3) This is what marriage has historically been.
Lame because its inaccurate.
This is what western culture has assumed marriage has been in the vast majority of the cases for only the past couple of hundred years. The Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Native Americans, the Ancient--well--almost anyone noted and respected homosexuality and couples of the same sex.
What of the multiple marriages mentioned in the Bible, and practiced even up to today in some regions of the world?
Claiming One Man and One Woman are the historic building blocks of all society, then you have a very limited knowledge of history and other societies.
These three arguments are the smoke. They are the reasons people use to cover the real reasons they are against Gay Marriage.
And those reasons are---
4) It is a sin.
If your religious beliefs say that homosexual relations are a sin, then there is nothing I can say to disuade you.
And I wouldn't try.
You believe that gay sex is a sin, fine. Don't have homosexual relations.
I understand your desire not to have the government condone sins.
However, there are people who believe just as firmly that it is not a sin.
The fear that we have is, if you succeed in this where will you stop.
Homosexuality is a sin, you say, so it can not be condoned by the government. Already we see groups moving to have it not condoned by employers--fighting companies like Disney that offer same-sex benefits. Where will it end?
There are bigger sins than for a man sleeping with another man. Why has this become such a big issue? I can think of Ten Commandments that are more basic to Christian tradition but I see no move to strengthen anti-Adultery laws or to weaken Child Abuse statutes that clearly show a bias against honoring ones mother and father.
The more I look at the lengths people go to prove that Homosexuality is a sin, the more I wonder if religion is really the reason people are against it.
5) FAMILY
The reason for all the benefits that governments provide for marriages is to help those involved raise families and increase the nations population.
This is a really good argument.
Family is what is at steak, not marriage.
There are, however, two problems.
1)I went through all of my wedding vows, and all the vows that I have ever heard, and I can not find anywhere where those vows, or that marriage certificate I signed, talks about children.
Few marriage proposals say, "I want you to have my children." They usually go along the lines of "I want to spend my life with you."
Here is a new definition of marriage, or more accurately, an old one, from the 1930's and before.
2)If you define marriage as only a viable relationship where children are created you run into the question of infertile couples or of people fearful of overpopulation who choose not to have children.
Should they be disallowed from marrying?
Should we take the simple step of only allowing marriage benefits after a child is born?
Should they go away as soon as the child leaves the house?
If procreation is the main responsibility of a citizen then shouldn't a man divorce an infertile wife, or one who reaches menopause, in favor of a younger woman?
That doesn't seem fair to the woman. Perhaps the man should find a second wife to marry while he takes care of the first. Oops, now we are saying that this argument, not Gay Marriage, will lead to bigamy.
Some argue that men and women who can't/don't want to have children can still adopt, so they can still get married.
So can Gay couples.
This argument, while supporting traditional family values and supporting a prime concern for children, still doesn't work.
I notice that both this and the abortion arguments center best around families. Is that because there is an emphasis on growing families or is that because its easier to scare people about their families? I am getting side tracked.
I find all those arguments against Gay marriage unconvincing. People go to great lengths to prove the rationale behind what they believe, but I find that rationalization empty.
I think I know the secret truth.
Fear of the different.
It is not religion or government or family reasons that people are against Gay Marriage.
Its culture.
We were raised where homosexuality was not considered acceptable. As such many believe it is not acceptable. They think there must be some good reason for this belief. The lazy assume its history or religion or some such. The dedicate comb their bibles and their philosophies to find it.
The truth is that their culture raised them to believe it was wrong, just as past cultures raised people to believe that men are superior to women or that one race is superior to another.
How do you fight that? With time and truth, time and truth.
Thanks for listening to my rant. Convince me differently.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ditto on what Bob said, there. Also, I'll miss having you around as much. ((Dan_Raven)) Good luck!
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Native Americans, the Ancient--well--almost anyone noted and respected homosexuality and couples of the same sex.
I'd be very careful about your wording, Dan. The Greeks practiced homosexuality, but only after they had a Ganymede myth to justify it to themselves. Previous to Ganymede, homosexual behavior was taboo.
Almost anyone noted and respected-- that's a pretty tall order. Aztecs? Mayas? Incas? Persians? Ainu? Celts? Mongols? As far as I can tell, none of these societies had a culture that accepted homosexual behavior. For a LOOONG time, the Romans made it a point to not inherit homosexuality from Athens.
Which proves nothing about today's society, or what we should do. Just that there's this idea that homosexuality was pervasive and accepted throughout all world cultures and WE'RE the oddballs because our society has shunned it. It is patently not so.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know where life begins. ... So I should be against abortion. ... Yet I cannot force other people to pay for my beliefs. ... Some people believe that life begins at conception. I am not convinced. ... The damage done to the person I know is real versus the damage done to the person that is possibly real. ... At the moment we believe that the mother should be the one to choose.
Dan, I offer you a few questions.
Thinking from a purely scientific point of view, when does life begin? Don't complicate the question and equate personhood with life. Life is something that can be scientifically observed. Something is either dead or alive. When do we observe scientifically that life begins?
If something is observable scientifically, is it then really a question of personal belief? Also, you mentioned also being against the death penalty because it leaves no margin for human error. If we err on the side of caution here, should we not then also err on the side of caution with determining the value of human life unborn?
These questions can then lead to the argument that if a fertilized egg is alive, how does it differ from parasitic life (like cancer) that only insane people have qualms about excising? Obviously, with today's technology that fertilized egg does not require the life of its host. It requires a hospitable space of less than a year, then it is able to go on to pursue its life independently. Most of us would not hesitate to share our house with a person who had such substantial need. We certainly wouldn't consider *killing* the person who asks nothing but our hospitality. Take it a step further, and realize that the host invited the guest in the first place, whether the offer was made with forethought or not. (Excepting, of course, rape.) What kind of people are we if we kill the very guest we invited? And that this is not only commonplace, but encouraged in some circumstances.
I hate being told what I can and cannot do. I don't particularly like imposing my will on others, not even my children. The greatest tool I have with my kids (and my clients, now that I think about it) is the offering of choices. It empowers and grows self esteem. Choices and decisions are so important I hate to limit any of them. We do not, however, offer choices in matters that concern the life and death of others. I don't offer my child a choice of playing in the busy street or in the backyard. I am not offered the choice of withdrawing my money from the bank or holding it up with a gun.
Abortion is not a "choice". It's death. Violent painful death. Of a life that has no voice of its own to protest.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my ramblings on abortion. I agree with you that since we don't know when life begins, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I realize that it is a possible life, but abortion will cause certain death to that possible life. Disallowing a woman to have an abortion may cause emotional suffering, mental anquish, etc., but it's not a certainty. And those don't equal loss of life, anyway. Abortion is certain death for the embryo.
If the mother's life is in danger, I can justify abortion, but not at other times.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thinking from a purely scientific point of view, when does life begin? Don't complicate the question and equate personhood with life. Life is something that can be scientifically observed. Something is either dead or alive. When do we observe scientifically that life begins?
There is no single point that science can point to and say life begins. That's the problem. Sure, a fertilized egg is alive, but so are your skin cells. It's not murder to kill off a few thousand of them.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
When does life begin? Billions of years ago. It's been continuous and evolving.
The "start of life" is a terrible criterion to apply since it has no real meaning outside of a Biological definition, but has been forced into a legal definition.
What proponents of abortion (or even proponents of choice, like myself) should necessarily have to face is that it IS the cessation of life. If you abort, you are ending a life. It should be made explicit in our thinking.
I'm not going to do it unless the circumstances leave me a dark and terrible choice in all directions, and the abortion choice seems less dark and terrible.
(Of course, I realize, I'm not going to actually HAVE an abortion in any case). But I'm sure you all get the point.)
At the same time, I am in total agreement with Dan that I will not impose my decision on others. It is a life, but not an independent life. It is a life, but not yet formed. Etc. If someone wants to end that life, they can without earning my disapproval.
I understand their reasons AND find them understandable.
And I don't want a government to control it.
I also know that there are more spontaneous abortions, and releases of unfertilized eggs than there are purposeful abortions. God (or genetics) built us this way. Our bodies are wasteful of life all on their own.
Abortion is.
And it will happen whether or not the women engaged in the behavior have safe and adequate medical care. So I'd rather they had safe and adequate medical care. Becausae otherwise we lose them and the life inside them.
Oh well...I wasn't going to open up this debate again. But Dan wants 39 pages of follow-on posts, so let's get working folks!!!
posted
The great thing about Hatrack is that I do see your reasoning Bob. I've come to understand that people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion.
Maybe this is where the religious part of the debate comes into play. I've been wondering why it is that people who are pro-life are always associated with conservative Christians. Maybe it's because I'm not actually wondering when life begins, but when does a soul come into play. I don't think my skin cells have a soul and I don't think either sperm or eggs have a soul. I honestly don't know whether a fertilized egg has one or not or when it does get one.
Oh well, there goes my purely secular argument. Curse you Bob! Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: At the same time, I am in total agreement with Dan that I will not impose my decision on others. It is a life, but not an independent life. It is a life, but not yet formed. Etc. If someone wants to end that life, they can without earning my disapproval.
I think an abortion is in many cases an attempt to align choices already made with desired consequences. It's not a choice that can be made in a vacuum, and it's not just a simple matter of being free to choose whatever you want to do. It's a choice that is constrained by other choices already made, and doesn't come with complete freedom. People should be free to choose, but they must also be responsible for choices they have already made.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Souls are delivered on alternate Thursdays between the hours of 12 and 2. Those arriving without proper documentation have to wait until the next scheduled distribution time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
afr, responsible to whom? In this most personal of choices, I believe the person is responsible to themself. If they believe in God, they have made themselves responsible to God too.
But who else?
Are you saying that they have a responsibility to society or the state?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no single point that science can point to and say life begins. That's the problem. Sure, a fertilized egg is alive, but so are your skin cells. It's not murder to kill off a few thousand of them.
Skin cells, left to themselves, will never become independant of their host. A fertilized egg, left to its own devices, in most cases, will. And yes, science can tell whether something is dead or alive.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: In this most personal of choices, I believe the person is responsible to themself. If they believe in God, they have made themselves responsible to God too.
But who else?
The fetus. If one believes that it is a human life, than a responsibility is owed to it as well.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is a life, but not an independent life. It is a life, but not yet formed. Etc. If someone wants to end that life, they can without earning my disapproval.
What about severely handicapped people? They are not independent. They cannot survive long without outside assistance. What about a newborn? It's not yet fully formed. Brain cells continue to multiply for two years after birth, just as the body continues to grow for the next 18 to 25 years.
We don't let mothers of severely handicapped people or pre-adults kill their offspring simply because they happened to give them life.
quote:I also know that there are more spontaneous abortions, and releases of unfertilized eggs than there are purposeful abortions.
People die in accidents all the time. Does this justify murder? What happens in the course of natural events is beyond our control or responsibility. When we deliberately end a human life for the sake of personal convenience, it is within our control and we must take responsibility.
What it comes down to is this: We've decided as a nation that it is okay for certain people to die at the hand of their mother. Let's call it what it is. I have far greater respect for the abortionist who acknowledges the full extent of what they do, than someone who minimizes it as "just a few cells", "a choice only a woman can make", "better for everyone, considering the circumstances".
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with that too, z. If they don't believe it is a human life until viable...then are they NOT responsible to it?
Somehow, I think that this debate over responsibility will just return us to the existing debate over "when does <it> become <he/she>?"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So jeni, if the rate of miscarriage is over 50% for a stage of pregnancy in a population you stop opposing abortion for that stage of pregnancy in that population?
I do not think this is a strong objection.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I also understand that for someone who does NOT agree that the fetus IS a person that the situations you describe are not relevant to their decision.
And I'm not comfortable deciding this "as a country" because we are not capable of agreeing on the basics of "when."
I have my preferences and my opinion, but I don't think we've got a right to impose my opinion on others in this case.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, actually, my point was that the rate of miscarriage has no relevence in an argument about abortion. Miscarriage happens. Car accidents happen. People die in both. We do our best to keep either from happening, but sometimes it just does. Car accidents have no relevence in a discussion of murder. Miscarriage has no relevence in a discussion about abortion.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I should have made myself more clear. Yes, there are definitions for life (fuzzy ones, but still). I meant more in the context of reproduction. There is no scientifically agreed-upon point at which life begins. For that matter, withing the context of reproduction, I don't think there is a scientific definition of life. A fertilized egg, left on its own, will not grow into independent life.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Miro, a fertilized egg doesn't just happen spontaneously. If fertilized the old fashioned way it will, in most cases, grow to become an independent person.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, do you think you have a right to impose your opinion about unnatural death on others? How about the death penalty? What about murder? Drive by shootings? Euthanasia?
We impose our beliefs about life and death all the time in law. We say it's not okay to drive drunk because it can kill. We say it's not okay to drive without a seatbelt, because it can kill. We have laws about ignoring a person in mortal peril, because we've said it's not okay to just let people die. Policemen pick up drunks from the street and put them in mandatory rehab -- at a real cost to society -- because we care about the lives of others. We euthanize stray pets, to the distress of many caring people. With abortion it is no different. We are deciding the willful ending of a life. Only with abortion, we're ending a human life. It is very much our business as a society.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Again, I believe in freedom of choice, but I don't agree that just any choice can be made at any time. You make choices, there are consequences, and you are now responsible for dealing with those consequences. I see abortion as a refusal to accept the consequences of previous choices and be responsible for them. It's a bastardization (kind of a strong word, sorry) of one's freedom to choose—because in it, the person is attempting to create favorable consequences for earlier choices and shrug off responsibility for the consequences already in effect. It is "immoral" in the sense that the person is not accepting responsibility. I also believe that this kind of thinking undermines a strong society. We need to learn how to make choices that deliver desirable consequences, not rely on our "freedom" to rearrange our lives after we have made the wrong choices.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Jeni, much to everyone's surprise, I'm sure. Part of government is *about* imposing the will of the majority upon others. The only reason we have to delineate rights in the Constitution is because there are people who either don't agree with those rights or would act out as if they didn't.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government does follow the will of the majority up until the point that it infringes upon the rights of the minority.
What abortion boils down to is this... When does a fertilized egg become a human life with a soul (if you believe in souls, which is why this becomes a debate of the religious vs the non religious)? Does a woman have the right to decide her own reproductive future?
If abortion were outlawed tomorrow, it wouldn't stop. Women would go to back alley abortionists, OD on pills, gut themselves with coat hangers. Women will commit suicide rather than be forced to carry to term a child they do not want.
I'm not willing to make that kind of choice for someone. Whether I believe abortion is wrong or not, it is not my decision. It's not my body. It's not my life.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, You once commented that I was your nemesis because you envied my punning. I can reassure you that your skills at communicating via the written word and your rational evaluation of concepts far exceeds mine. I admire you and I find myself in concert with you on so many issues. You are a fine human and I hope that one day I will have the pleasure of meeting you in person. I hope you will still find time to share your wit and wisdom with us because I, for one, would truly regret your absence.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the more interesting things about the recent political events (to my mind) is how previously silent voices of both sides spoke up. I think that is a crucial and important thing in our society - there is no democracy without multiple voices speaking up. I hope the conversation continues and that both sides remember that neither is the anti-christ.
Dan, best of luck to you in your new job! Let us know how it goes!
Now, to the debate:
Gay Marriage: No opinion as to the pertinence of the proposed partners sexuality. I do think that as a society with the string of "monogamous marriages" that characterize at least one-half of the nation, and the increasing tendency for couples to cohabit before or rather than marry, and some of the more interesting combinations of households, that maybe the question needs to focus more on the following:
-what types and of what duration shall legal contracts for "marriage" be permitted -how does the couple provide for the child until the child reaches adulthood
Regarding Abortion: I saw a bumper sticker once. It said - "Against abortion? Don't have one."
I am confused by the segment of society that says on hand they don't want government to legislate people's lives, but on the other hand they want a government that defines those most crucial aspects of private life. I don't think you can have it both ways.
And finally, keep the dialogue going. As was once said - I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. (Paraphrase.) This is one of the hallmarks of Hatrack - usually, as an on-line community, we do really well at holding this principle up and following it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
it will, in most cases, grow to become an independent person.
