Abortion is probably the most heatedly discussed issue in American politics today. That doesn't mean it is the most important, just the most heatedly discussed.
The majority of what passes for "discussion" falters badly for a simple reason - the opposing sides are arguing different issues. Those who tend to oppose abortion (I am avoiding self-serving titles like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" like the plague here) do so from the position that whatever is in the mother's womb is a human and is therefore entitled to all of the protections, legal and moral, any other human is entitled to. Those who tend to favor abortion (at least in some circumstances) do so from the position that only the mother, from the perspective of her own conscience and values, can make such a difficult and momentous decision.
In other words, the anti-abortion camp says basically "abortion shouldn't be permitted because of this, this, and this." Their opponents say in return "but these are very difficult questions that reasonable people could disagree about. Why does YOUR view get to take precedence over MINE when my body is the one involved?" The positions can even debate each other directly because they aren't directly opposed in any true sense. It would be like one person arguing that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever, and another wanting to discuss what criteria are being used to determine the "best".
Since this is my blog, let me set forth what I think should be the paradigm for discussing this issue. Here are the key questions, in my opinion:
1. When does human life begin?
2. Once human life has begun, at what point is it entitled to certain fundamental rights?
3. Should the rights of the mother count? If they do, how do they compare to the rights of what is inside of her?
I'm not offering any answers just yet. I think the road to correct answers begins with the asking of proper questions.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Darker Days
Note: I originally wrote this in 2005. I just found it and still like it. Here it is.
Someone sked me once what I thought the most powerful weapon in the world was. I am not an expert in weapons. I gave it some thought and decided that the idea is the most powerful weapon. Ideas, after all, control the hands that hold the weapons. But ideas are difficult to control.
I think we (in the U.S. anyway) live in a society where various forces are constantly battling to control our ideas. This is scary when you consider how limited (either by lack of education, lack of interest, or lack of ability) a lot of our population is in processing the information we are pelted with on a daily basis. Throw in technology's improved ability to "spread the word" and the idea becomes much less unwieldly.
Up until a few centuries ago, Joe and Jane could just get together with a bunch of their neighbors, pick up their farm implements, and take on the government by force. Their chances of success weren't all that great, but at least they had a chance assuming they could muster up enough bodies for the effort. Those days are over. Military technology is such that now a very small number of people can keep a very, very large number of people under their collective boot through sheer force. It is vital that concepts of individual liberty, acceptance of minority views, and toleration of dissent remain alive and well in our collective conciousness. If they don't, it may well become tempting to simply resort to naked force in order to quell the suggestions of those with whom we disagree. Once the day arrives when those who control access to technological force decide to establish their authority over those who do not, that authority will become practically perpetual. No longer will their be any hint of open discourse, no give-and-take of ideas, no interaction of opposites that ultimately drive us towards truth. "Truth" will be what "they" say it is. And once the rest of us are told something enough times, over and over, we will eventually believe it.So, I'm satisfied that my answer to the question was a good one. The harder, and more important, question may well be WHICH idea.
Someone sked me once what I thought the most powerful weapon in the world was. I am not an expert in weapons. I gave it some thought and decided that the idea is the most powerful weapon. Ideas, after all, control the hands that hold the weapons. But ideas are difficult to control.
I think we (in the U.S. anyway) live in a society where various forces are constantly battling to control our ideas. This is scary when you consider how limited (either by lack of education, lack of interest, or lack of ability) a lot of our population is in processing the information we are pelted with on a daily basis. Throw in technology's improved ability to "spread the word" and the idea becomes much less unwieldly.
Up until a few centuries ago, Joe and Jane could just get together with a bunch of their neighbors, pick up their farm implements, and take on the government by force. Their chances of success weren't all that great, but at least they had a chance assuming they could muster up enough bodies for the effort. Those days are over. Military technology is such that now a very small number of people can keep a very, very large number of people under their collective boot through sheer force. It is vital that concepts of individual liberty, acceptance of minority views, and toleration of dissent remain alive and well in our collective conciousness. If they don't, it may well become tempting to simply resort to naked force in order to quell the suggestions of those with whom we disagree. Once the day arrives when those who control access to technological force decide to establish their authority over those who do not, that authority will become practically perpetual. No longer will their be any hint of open discourse, no give-and-take of ideas, no interaction of opposites that ultimately drive us towards truth. "Truth" will be what "they" say it is. And once the rest of us are told something enough times, over and over, we will eventually believe it.So, I'm satisfied that my answer to the question was a good one. The harder, and more important, question may well be WHICH idea.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Why We Need Campaign Finance Reform
Donating money to some campaign is the equivalent of exercising our right to free speech, isn't it? Not so much. Freedom of speech, classically, is wedded to the notion of the "marketplace of ideas". Freedom of speech is necessary to allow varying viewpoints to "compete" with one another so that one of them can "win". Ok, so it doesn't work as tidily as that in the real world, but that is the premise.
Does money do anything to improve the "quality" of the speech? Do those candidates and causes that can raise the most money have the best message? Clearly not. More likely, they simply have a better chance of winning a given election. Money does not impact the quality of the ideas being offered. It simply increases the VOLUME at which they are offered. In effect, we tend to vote for that which is the loudest, not that which has the most merit. Freedome of speech has nothing to do with volume.
Now that we have gotten around that issue (now all that we need is a Constitutional amendment!), let's take a serious look at campaign financing. I recall an election in Missouri where one side was complaining because one of the main financial backers of a specific issue was based in New York state. Why in the world should anyone, or anything, in New York get to donate money to impact an election in Missouri? Why do PACs set up to support Party Member X get to donate money to support Party Member Y? Money is so vital to our election system. It isn't necessarily outcome-determinative, but it is getting close. We end up with leaders who are skilled at raising money. The problem is that that skill doesn't have so much to do with governing. Another problem is that the winners are beholden to the backers who got them there. Anyone who claims that there isn't an expected quid pro quo for financial support is either lying or is frankly too stupid to vote.
Elections, at least on the national level, should be entirely funded by the government. Let people volunteer if they want. But all of the advertising, travel, staff expenses, etc. should be on a budget that everyone shares. Certainly, logistics would have to be worked out so that the Save the Red Coyote Party doesn't get the same dollars that major parties do, but that shouldn't be too hard. This approach would focus the campiagns on issues and ideas, and not on fund-raising.
We will never get it. Those with the power to make such changes are themselves indebted to the current system.
Does money do anything to improve the "quality" of the speech? Do those candidates and causes that can raise the most money have the best message? Clearly not. More likely, they simply have a better chance of winning a given election. Money does not impact the quality of the ideas being offered. It simply increases the VOLUME at which they are offered. In effect, we tend to vote for that which is the loudest, not that which has the most merit. Freedome of speech has nothing to do with volume.
Now that we have gotten around that issue (now all that we need is a Constitutional amendment!), let's take a serious look at campaign financing. I recall an election in Missouri where one side was complaining because one of the main financial backers of a specific issue was based in New York state. Why in the world should anyone, or anything, in New York get to donate money to impact an election in Missouri? Why do PACs set up to support Party Member X get to donate money to support Party Member Y? Money is so vital to our election system. It isn't necessarily outcome-determinative, but it is getting close. We end up with leaders who are skilled at raising money. The problem is that that skill doesn't have so much to do with governing. Another problem is that the winners are beholden to the backers who got them there. Anyone who claims that there isn't an expected quid pro quo for financial support is either lying or is frankly too stupid to vote.
Elections, at least on the national level, should be entirely funded by the government. Let people volunteer if they want. But all of the advertising, travel, staff expenses, etc. should be on a budget that everyone shares. Certainly, logistics would have to be worked out so that the Save the Red Coyote Party doesn't get the same dollars that major parties do, but that shouldn't be too hard. This approach would focus the campiagns on issues and ideas, and not on fund-raising.
We will never get it. Those with the power to make such changes are themselves indebted to the current system.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Bible Stuff
Religion is tricky stuff. To some extent or another, everyone ponders the weighty issues of "God". There is a fine line between seeking insight and tromping all over someone else's safe haven.
Christians, of course, revere The Bible. Different churches have different views about how it should be interpeted. There are different translations and some canons include books that others do not.
Taking a literal approach to biblical interpretation can provide the security of certainty. The chances are high that two different people reading the same verse will gather the same meaning. Metaphors and symbolism can create chaos. Meaning, seemingly, is in the mind of the beholder.
The Bible should be easy, right? Or........ not. The problem with literal interpretation of The Bible is that if you are in for a dime, you have to be in for a dollar. You can't just pick and choose what is intended to be read literally and what is not. That would be begging the question. If everything is read literally, you hit the problem of inconsistencies. For instance, right off the figurative bat, there are two accounts of the creation of man in Genesis. They are not consistent. There is also the problem of the use of "days" as a measure of time before the creation of the sun and the moon. I see these as literary signs that say "don't take this literally". If literalism was the intent, then there shouldn't be any inconsistencies. So, we find ourselves dealing with, yes, metaphors and symbolism.
Perhaps certainty is not the purpose of Biblical writing. It was written to keep us thinking, asking, and discussing. The problem with certainty is that, once we reach it, we stop thinking. Then we forget how we became certain in the first place. Apparently, the writers of the Bible don't want that to happen.
Christians, of course, revere The Bible. Different churches have different views about how it should be interpeted. There are different translations and some canons include books that others do not.
Taking a literal approach to biblical interpretation can provide the security of certainty. The chances are high that two different people reading the same verse will gather the same meaning. Metaphors and symbolism can create chaos. Meaning, seemingly, is in the mind of the beholder.
The Bible should be easy, right? Or........ not. The problem with literal interpretation of The Bible is that if you are in for a dime, you have to be in for a dollar. You can't just pick and choose what is intended to be read literally and what is not. That would be begging the question. If everything is read literally, you hit the problem of inconsistencies. For instance, right off the figurative bat, there are two accounts of the creation of man in Genesis. They are not consistent. There is also the problem of the use of "days" as a measure of time before the creation of the sun and the moon. I see these as literary signs that say "don't take this literally". If literalism was the intent, then there shouldn't be any inconsistencies. So, we find ourselves dealing with, yes, metaphors and symbolism.
Perhaps certainty is not the purpose of Biblical writing. It was written to keep us thinking, asking, and discussing. The problem with certainty is that, once we reach it, we stop thinking. Then we forget how we became certain in the first place. Apparently, the writers of the Bible don't want that to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)