Who gets to decide?
The point I made earlier is that different people have very different views of what is right and wrong when it comes to sex and reproduction. Who should we allow to make this decision for everybody? Catholics? Protestants? Muslims? Free-spirited hippies? Atheists? All of these groups may choose different answers, and if we're going to legislate the issue, then we have to choose ONE to represent everybody. Does that seem fair? How would you feel if you're in the minority group?
The right for a woman to choose what happens to her own body.
This means that a woman gets to choose her sexual and reproductive destiny. It means, she can choose whether or not to take birth control pills, whether or not to have sex with a man without a condom, whether she chooses to take the morning after pill, or whether she chooses to have an abortion.
My belief is that an question this complex should be answered by the woman. And I will support my claim with the question of the shoe being on the other foot.
If you are trying to be responsible with family planning, using birth control or condoms, how would you feel if condoms and birth control became illegal? How would you feel, having to choose between having sex or responsibly controlling the size of your family?
Or, you could look at the other extreme? What if you lived in an intensely over-populated country, and it became so bad that the government mandate was that you could only have one child, and if you became pregnant again, you must get an abortion?
The point is, no matter what the government mandate is, you would probably feel like your personal freedom is being violated, because you can't make decisions about your own body, and the future of your family.
People who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. It's not that we're trying to subvert potential mothers into aborting their fetuses. It's that we believe in personal freedom. In having the ability to choose what happens to and in your own body. And I don't believe that any government should ever take such freedoms away.
What are the consequences of making abortion illegal?
I believe that criminalizing abortion would have similar effects as prohibition did. It will legitimize a black market, which is always substantially more dangerous than a regulated free market.
What this means is this. Once a woman realizes she is pregnant, depending on her circumstances, she may feel completely helpless. Whatever her reasons are, economic, abuse, rape, etc. - if she feels helpless and trapped, she might think abortion is her only option. And if it is illegal, that might drive her to a back alley to some guy with a coat hanger, or intentionally falling down the stairs. The point is, rather than safely ending the pregnancy, she puts her life in danger. This has been demonstrated through history.
Also, the people who are Pro-Life often fail to weigh societal factors. (Which is understandable if you see abortion as murder.) But without ways to control pregnancies, other issues arise. Over-population, starvation, poverty - these are all exacerbated by unwanted pregnancies. Where one person might look at the situation and say, "It is objectively a good decision to end this pregnancy and wait until you are in a more stable economic standing," a different person may say, "Well, it's a human life, and human life trumps economic troubles."
At some point, we're going to have to step back and realize that we're overpopulating our planet. We're going to run out of farm land, and people are already starving. When deer are over populated, we hunt them to thin out their numbers. But, we see humanity as immune to overpopulation. Does every fetus deserve life, even if we can't sustain the population we already have? Isn't a slow, agonizing death of starvation worse than a swift, painless removal of a non-conscious clump of cells? If we want to care about life, wouldn't it be better to focus on those lives that are already suffering in this world?
If we're going to say that every fetus has a right to life, are we also prepared to legislate that we will make sure that all children have government subsidized access to food, water, shelter, and health care if the parent is unfit to provide it?
I think that if we're going to write legislation to make sure than all the unborn have a chance to live, then we shouldn't abandon them once they're born. And this isn't an attack, but an objective observation - most pro-life people are also opposed to any sort of "socialist" welfare program to help the poor and they're opposed to "socialized" health care. So, once they're alive, they don't care if they're suffering and unable to support themselves.
Many women might look at the world today, the suffering, the over population - or she might look at the family's future, her inability to support the child, the uncertainty of whether the child will have food to eat - and decide that it's not the best time to have a baby.
My point is that what one person calls murder, the next might call being responsible. This is certainly NOT a black and white issue. And I certainly don't feel like any of us are in the position to tell everyone else how they should live their lives, what they should do with their bodies, or to judge them for the decisions they make.
If you are pro-life, you obviously care about life. So, embrace life. Work to make the world a better place for those who are already suffering. Consider being a foster parent or adopting those who are without homes.
But also try to be empathetic of the agonizing decision being made by women who choose to get abortions. It is not flippant. And try to be supportive of them, rather than judgmental and condescending, when you haven't walked in her shoes.
In conclusion, I've come to the decision to be pro-choice by weighing these factors: 1) I want to live in a society where people have control over their own bodies and their own reproductive destiny. I don't want the government telling me what to do with my body, and I can't imagine telling someone else what to do with theirs. 2) I believe that criminalizing abortion would lead to an increase in societal problems, such as overpopulation, poverty, and women dying from coat hanger, back alley abortions.
I will reserve "Abortion 6" for any rebuttals to arguments that are raised as a result of posting this blog, or of any arguments I failed to post in the writing of this blog.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Abortion 4: An infinite continuum of grey
So, now we reach abortion itself. There are several components that complicate this issue for me, which make it impossible for me to see the issue as black and white. And it is my inability to see it as clear and definably wrong that cause me to conclude that it must be left up to the judgment of the individual.
1) A continuum of moral greys
Is condom use immoral? Contraceptives? The morning after pill? First trimester abortion? Second? Third?
The Catholic church, as far as I know, still thinks that the use of condoms and contraceptives go against the will of God. I've heard the argument that Abortion simply eliminates the negative consequences of sexual choices. Well, don't condoms and contraceptives do the same thing?
For one, we'll have to approach this with the mindset that not all sex is evil. Let's propose a situation where there is a newly married couple. The husband is unemployed, recently laid off from his job. The wife works only part time. They're struggling every day to make ends meet. Neither of them have health insurance, because they can't afford it. They can barely pay rent and buy food.
It's foolish to say that they shouldn't have sex. They're married. But they're obviously not in a position where they can and should start raising children. They can't even support themselves. Does your moral compass say that they can use condoms? Birth control pills?
Now, let's say they're using condoms, and one breaks. Is it immoral for them to use the morning after pill?
Let's say 3 weeks later, they find out that the wife is pregnant. At this point, is it moral for them to abort the baby? When they know that they can't afford food to keep the baby healthy during the pregnancy? When they know that they can't afford to go to the hospital and pay the bills to have the baby delivered, because they don't have health insurance - and what insurance will sign them up now, even if they could afford it?
"Put the kid up for adoption!" Well, the adoption "market" is already over-saturated. This baby being born will mean another orphan in Ethiopia will get passed up for a newborn white baby. Is that really better?
At this point, the fetus is a few cells clumped together, does its chance at life matter more than an orphan that is already starving and dying alone?
It's not an easy decision, and it will be agonizing for the two parents. But the point is this - 1) It's not an easy, black and white decision. It will have life-altering consequences for many people. 2) Different people will handle this situation very differently. A person who doesn't believe that condom use is moral might already have two kids, or more. Another might have the kid when the condom breaks. Another might use the morning after pill. Another might go so far as an early stage abortion. And as you get later and later in the pregnancy, fewer and fewer feel comfortable making that decision. It's not black and white, it is a gradual continuum of grey.
2) When does life begin?
This is the question. At what point does this collection of cells become a life? Does such a thing have a soul?
Few people see a sperm as a half a soul swimming toward its other half, to be blissfully joined as God intended. That's why most people are okay with condom use. That's why masturbation isn't the murder of billions of potential souls.
So, is a life really created when a sperm and an egg meet? Instantly, there's a new life? It's a one celled organism, right? It's comparable to a bacteria. We don't feel bad when we Lysol the kitchen counters. But we're going to say that this specific cell has a life and a soul because it has the potential to grow into a human?
A lot of the idea of this question being black and white comes from people with religious upbringing. Because they can look at a one celled organism and say, "This has a soul." But for non-religious people, it's just a cell. A cell with great potential, yes, but just a cell. It doesn't have consciousness and thought. And if we're going to make a blanket legislation that all people have to abide by, we have to reach a consensus that people of all religious backgrounds - from Christians, to Muslims, to free-spirited hippies, to athesits - can agree on. And so, we can't do it based on the mystical spiritual idea of a soul. We have to decide when this clump of cells is a human being.
It's something that people of different upbringings will see in very different ways. Once again, a Catholic may see using a condom as preventing the will of God. Another person may say that it's perfectly moral to use a condom and prevent a pregnancy, but then once a pregnancy occurs, you MUST have the baby, regardless of the negative consequences on the family, the baby, and society as a whole. Some people will see a clump of cells as just that - a clump of cells. And they see removing that clump of cells as exactly the same thing as using a birth control pill. Both prevent a human life from eventually forming. And, once again, most people would pale at the idea of a third trimester abortion.
My point is that the idea of when a human life begins varies quite greatly depending on your world view, your religious beliefs, etc. It depends on how you see and define what a human is. Whether you believe in the soul. And, therefore we cannot legislate this decision without oppressing the beliefs of anyone else who believes that life begins sooner or later.
We'll discuss more the implications and consequences of such legislation in the next section.
1) A continuum of moral greys
Is condom use immoral? Contraceptives? The morning after pill? First trimester abortion? Second? Third?
The Catholic church, as far as I know, still thinks that the use of condoms and contraceptives go against the will of God. I've heard the argument that Abortion simply eliminates the negative consequences of sexual choices. Well, don't condoms and contraceptives do the same thing?
For one, we'll have to approach this with the mindset that not all sex is evil. Let's propose a situation where there is a newly married couple. The husband is unemployed, recently laid off from his job. The wife works only part time. They're struggling every day to make ends meet. Neither of them have health insurance, because they can't afford it. They can barely pay rent and buy food.
It's foolish to say that they shouldn't have sex. They're married. But they're obviously not in a position where they can and should start raising children. They can't even support themselves. Does your moral compass say that they can use condoms? Birth control pills?
Now, let's say they're using condoms, and one breaks. Is it immoral for them to use the morning after pill?
Let's say 3 weeks later, they find out that the wife is pregnant. At this point, is it moral for them to abort the baby? When they know that they can't afford food to keep the baby healthy during the pregnancy? When they know that they can't afford to go to the hospital and pay the bills to have the baby delivered, because they don't have health insurance - and what insurance will sign them up now, even if they could afford it?
"Put the kid up for adoption!" Well, the adoption "market" is already over-saturated. This baby being born will mean another orphan in Ethiopia will get passed up for a newborn white baby. Is that really better?
At this point, the fetus is a few cells clumped together, does its chance at life matter more than an orphan that is already starving and dying alone?
It's not an easy decision, and it will be agonizing for the two parents. But the point is this - 1) It's not an easy, black and white decision. It will have life-altering consequences for many people. 2) Different people will handle this situation very differently. A person who doesn't believe that condom use is moral might already have two kids, or more. Another might have the kid when the condom breaks. Another might use the morning after pill. Another might go so far as an early stage abortion. And as you get later and later in the pregnancy, fewer and fewer feel comfortable making that decision. It's not black and white, it is a gradual continuum of grey.
2) When does life begin?
This is the question. At what point does this collection of cells become a life? Does such a thing have a soul?
Few people see a sperm as a half a soul swimming toward its other half, to be blissfully joined as God intended. That's why most people are okay with condom use. That's why masturbation isn't the murder of billions of potential souls.
So, is a life really created when a sperm and an egg meet? Instantly, there's a new life? It's a one celled organism, right? It's comparable to a bacteria. We don't feel bad when we Lysol the kitchen counters. But we're going to say that this specific cell has a life and a soul because it has the potential to grow into a human?
A lot of the idea of this question being black and white comes from people with religious upbringing. Because they can look at a one celled organism and say, "This has a soul." But for non-religious people, it's just a cell. A cell with great potential, yes, but just a cell. It doesn't have consciousness and thought. And if we're going to make a blanket legislation that all people have to abide by, we have to reach a consensus that people of all religious backgrounds - from Christians, to Muslims, to free-spirited hippies, to athesits - can agree on. And so, we can't do it based on the mystical spiritual idea of a soul. We have to decide when this clump of cells is a human being.
It's something that people of different upbringings will see in very different ways. Once again, a Catholic may see using a condom as preventing the will of God. Another person may say that it's perfectly moral to use a condom and prevent a pregnancy, but then once a pregnancy occurs, you MUST have the baby, regardless of the negative consequences on the family, the baby, and society as a whole. Some people will see a clump of cells as just that - a clump of cells. And they see removing that clump of cells as exactly the same thing as using a birth control pill. Both prevent a human life from eventually forming. And, once again, most people would pale at the idea of a third trimester abortion.
My point is that the idea of when a human life begins varies quite greatly depending on your world view, your religious beliefs, etc. It depends on how you see and define what a human is. Whether you believe in the soul. And, therefore we cannot legislate this decision without oppressing the beliefs of anyone else who believes that life begins sooner or later.
We'll discuss more the implications and consequences of such legislation in the next section.
Abortion 3: Legislations examined
So, as I promised, I'm going to make some confessions in this post. There are a great many things that I believe should be legalized. Many of these things are actions that I will never partake in. But I will explain why I don't necessarily support the action itself, I support the legalization of the action.
1. Marijuana.
What is the difference between a legal drug and an illegal drug? If you really think about it, what is the difference? Why do we say that alcohol is legal, that you can buy a great number of pharmaceuticals over the counter or with a prescription, that cigarettes, a known carcinogen, are legal, but we single out a few to say are illegal? Marijuana has no more negative side effects than alcohol, is less addictive and less cancerous than smoking cigarettes, and yet it is singled out to be made illegal. Why?
On top of that, let's look at the consequences. We spend probably in the millions to hunt down druggies and dealers and spend millions more to keep them in jail. On top of that, we give legitimacy to the black market. You don't see people getting shot over alcohol or cigarettes, but it's easy to imagine for the illegal drugs. Don't the negative side effects outweigh the good?
Oh, and what about the positive side effects for legalizing the drug? It could be regulated and controlled, keeping the product safe for consumers. Sales could lead to increased tax revenue.
The main thing is this: I'm opposed to making cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, or deep fried ice cream illegal, too. All things have some sort of side effect that could kill you if not used in moderation. And it's not our place to make such decisions for all people. A person should have absolute control over what he puts into his body, as long as it doesn't endanger those around him.
2. Prostitution
The world's oldest profession, right? It's obviously not going away. People have a strong, biological need for sex. People get lonely. And not everyone believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong. So, what is our justification for making prostitution illegal? Outside of the religious view of sex - how does such a service really differ from a massage, other than the fact that we say it does?
Someone once made the point that getting paid for sex is illegal prostitution. But if you get paid for sex, and film it and sell it, then it's pornography. And that's fine! Why the double standard?
My main concern with prostitution being illegal is, once again, the consequences. We're basically giving pimps and sex-traffickers their jobs. We're legitimizing the black market. We're making it so that prostitutes can't go to the police if they're raped or abused, because they'll just be arrested for their prostitution as well. If it were legal, it could be regulated, clean, and controlled.
3) Gay marriage
I think people should be able to love and marry whoever they want. This is obviously discriminatory to me. And the only justification for the belief in its immorality must be pulled from religious text. This simply has no place in a secular government like ours, because, as I've explained before, it oppresses the beliefs of the non-religious.
Not too long ago, interracial marriages were also illegal. It was illegal based on the belief of that time that it was immoral. I hope all people can now see such legislation as blatant discrimination. And I hope that sometime in the near future, all people will look back on the criminalization of gay marriage with the same sentiment.
Even if your religion teaches you that homosexuality is immoral, that doesn't give you a basis to legislate that belief. Let me ask again - how would you feel if a different group made your marriage illegal? What makes you think that your religious group should have the right to do that to others?
I say all this to try to give you a sense of how I reach conclusions on legislating moral issues. It's not that I would ever hire a prostitute, or that I would try to seek my own gay marriage (I'm already married to a woman), but I look at who it's affecting, I look at the positive and negative side effects. And more often than not, I come to the conclusion that legislation on moral issues either discriminates against differing beliefs, or it causes more harm than good.
1. Marijuana.
What is the difference between a legal drug and an illegal drug? If you really think about it, what is the difference? Why do we say that alcohol is legal, that you can buy a great number of pharmaceuticals over the counter or with a prescription, that cigarettes, a known carcinogen, are legal, but we single out a few to say are illegal? Marijuana has no more negative side effects than alcohol, is less addictive and less cancerous than smoking cigarettes, and yet it is singled out to be made illegal. Why?
On top of that, let's look at the consequences. We spend probably in the millions to hunt down druggies and dealers and spend millions more to keep them in jail. On top of that, we give legitimacy to the black market. You don't see people getting shot over alcohol or cigarettes, but it's easy to imagine for the illegal drugs. Don't the negative side effects outweigh the good?
Oh, and what about the positive side effects for legalizing the drug? It could be regulated and controlled, keeping the product safe for consumers. Sales could lead to increased tax revenue.
The main thing is this: I'm opposed to making cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, or deep fried ice cream illegal, too. All things have some sort of side effect that could kill you if not used in moderation. And it's not our place to make such decisions for all people. A person should have absolute control over what he puts into his body, as long as it doesn't endanger those around him.
2. Prostitution
The world's oldest profession, right? It's obviously not going away. People have a strong, biological need for sex. People get lonely. And not everyone believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong. So, what is our justification for making prostitution illegal? Outside of the religious view of sex - how does such a service really differ from a massage, other than the fact that we say it does?
Someone once made the point that getting paid for sex is illegal prostitution. But if you get paid for sex, and film it and sell it, then it's pornography. And that's fine! Why the double standard?
My main concern with prostitution being illegal is, once again, the consequences. We're basically giving pimps and sex-traffickers their jobs. We're legitimizing the black market. We're making it so that prostitutes can't go to the police if they're raped or abused, because they'll just be arrested for their prostitution as well. If it were legal, it could be regulated, clean, and controlled.
3) Gay marriage
I think people should be able to love and marry whoever they want. This is obviously discriminatory to me. And the only justification for the belief in its immorality must be pulled from religious text. This simply has no place in a secular government like ours, because, as I've explained before, it oppresses the beliefs of the non-religious.
Not too long ago, interracial marriages were also illegal. It was illegal based on the belief of that time that it was immoral. I hope all people can now see such legislation as blatant discrimination. And I hope that sometime in the near future, all people will look back on the criminalization of gay marriage with the same sentiment.
Even if your religion teaches you that homosexuality is immoral, that doesn't give you a basis to legislate that belief. Let me ask again - how would you feel if a different group made your marriage illegal? What makes you think that your religious group should have the right to do that to others?
I say all this to try to give you a sense of how I reach conclusions on legislating moral issues. It's not that I would ever hire a prostitute, or that I would try to seek my own gay marriage (I'm already married to a woman), but I look at who it's affecting, I look at the positive and negative side effects. And more often than not, I come to the conclusion that legislation on moral issues either discriminates against differing beliefs, or it causes more harm than good.
Abortion 2: Why I don't support legislating morality
Legislating your morality, in case you haven't heard the term, is this: You believe something is morally wrong, because that's how you were raised, that's what your particular religion told you, or whatever. And so, you try to make legislation that makes this belief that you hold into a law that governs the hundreds of millions of people across this country.
It always happens with the best of intentions. But, at the core of it, it is fundamentally pushing your beliefs on people who don't necessarily believe the same.
I'm going to explain some of the reasons I oppose legislating this way. And in the next post, you'll see some of the things that I now believe should be legal, and why.
1. Vote as if you were the underdog.
Because someday you will be. A lot of times it's hard for white, Christian Americans to imagine what it's like to be the minority, but it's a good mental exercise here. If you're voting to make gay marriage illegal because of your religious beliefs, then think about this: What if some other religion were the majority, and they made straight marriage illegal? How would you feel, being denied the right to marry the person you love? Try to think about every vote from the perspective of the person it will be affecting.
Once again, when personal freedoms are limited based on one group's beliefs, all of freedom suffers. And because you can get away with it now, because you're the majority, is no excuse. Think always about how you would like to be treated if you were the minority. What if your particular belief, or life choice, were illegal? What if you were the "moral villain" because your beliefs differed from the ruling party? How would you feel? Remember the golden rule? Treat other people like you would like to be treated. It doesn't mean you have to agree with their beliefs. But defend their right to have that belief.
2) Think about the consequences
My favorite example here is prohibition. Some people thought that alcohol was the cause of all sorts of evil. So, rather than abstaining themselves, or showing a good example of moderation, they made legislation that made it illegal. Was the country a pious and holy place after that? No. Let's look at some consequences.
Organized crime. Al Capone. Murder. The crime rate doubled. The homicide rate jumped. A huge amount of tax money was spent on trying to enforce these laws, and fighting the resulting organized crime.
It was a huge mess. People went on drinking, but drinking unregulated bootleg or alcohol supplied by the bloody black market. People died. It was a failure. And it did very very little to make our country a better place, like the original legislators intended.
And yet we don't learn from this example. We still try to push legislation that can't be enforced on people who don't believe in the same morality that the legislation pushes. And all it really does is give power to the black market, waste our government resources, and make people do their deeds in fear.
So, I like to look at an issue this way. Are people going to stop doing this action if it's made illegal, or will it just push the action into black market territory? And if people are not going to stop the action because of the legislation, what consequences will this legislation cause?
In the next section I'll talk about many specific examples, looked at under this set of filters. 1) Is this legislation discriminatory, and would I vote differently if I were the minority? and 2) Will this legislation simply provide more negative consequences than it solves?
It always happens with the best of intentions. But, at the core of it, it is fundamentally pushing your beliefs on people who don't necessarily believe the same.
I'm going to explain some of the reasons I oppose legislating this way. And in the next post, you'll see some of the things that I now believe should be legal, and why.
1. Vote as if you were the underdog.
Because someday you will be. A lot of times it's hard for white, Christian Americans to imagine what it's like to be the minority, but it's a good mental exercise here. If you're voting to make gay marriage illegal because of your religious beliefs, then think about this: What if some other religion were the majority, and they made straight marriage illegal? How would you feel, being denied the right to marry the person you love? Try to think about every vote from the perspective of the person it will be affecting.
Once again, when personal freedoms are limited based on one group's beliefs, all of freedom suffers. And because you can get away with it now, because you're the majority, is no excuse. Think always about how you would like to be treated if you were the minority. What if your particular belief, or life choice, were illegal? What if you were the "moral villain" because your beliefs differed from the ruling party? How would you feel? Remember the golden rule? Treat other people like you would like to be treated. It doesn't mean you have to agree with their beliefs. But defend their right to have that belief.
2) Think about the consequences
My favorite example here is prohibition. Some people thought that alcohol was the cause of all sorts of evil. So, rather than abstaining themselves, or showing a good example of moderation, they made legislation that made it illegal. Was the country a pious and holy place after that? No. Let's look at some consequences.
Organized crime. Al Capone. Murder. The crime rate doubled. The homicide rate jumped. A huge amount of tax money was spent on trying to enforce these laws, and fighting the resulting organized crime.
It was a huge mess. People went on drinking, but drinking unregulated bootleg or alcohol supplied by the bloody black market. People died. It was a failure. And it did very very little to make our country a better place, like the original legislators intended.
And yet we don't learn from this example. We still try to push legislation that can't be enforced on people who don't believe in the same morality that the legislation pushes. And all it really does is give power to the black market, waste our government resources, and make people do their deeds in fear.
So, I like to look at an issue this way. Are people going to stop doing this action if it's made illegal, or will it just push the action into black market territory? And if people are not going to stop the action because of the legislation, what consequences will this legislation cause?
In the next section I'll talk about many specific examples, looked at under this set of filters. 1) Is this legislation discriminatory, and would I vote differently if I were the minority? and 2) Will this legislation simply provide more negative consequences than it solves?
Abortion 1: The purpose of government
In order to understand how I reach my conclusions about abortion, you have to understand how I see the government. I think there are certain things for which we need the government, in which it is a particularly useful voice and arm of the people as a whole, in which it is our collective bargainer and protector. But then there are certain areas in which the government is best being as small and limited as possible. You may disagree with me about where government should flourish and where it should shrink, and that is why we have different political parties, and an endless ongoing debate about government. The point is that my conclusions about abortion stem directly from my view of what government should and shouldn't do. So, I will give a brief overview now.
The government should protect us.
This means many things. It means that it should maintain a military, so that we are not overrun from the outside (not necessarily to the imperialistic extent that we have now, but to some reasonable extent.) It means that it provides a necessary counter-balance to growing corporate power, which could enslave workers just as easily as any government if it weren't for some sort of regulation (think sweat shops). It means that it provides protections such as the FDA, to make sure our food and water supply is tested before it reaches us. In these types of situations, the government acts as a spokesperson for all of us. "We don't want rat feces in our hamburgers!" we cry. So, the government takes our collective financial power, through taxes, and forms a system to protect us. It's safety in numbers. It gives us stability and security, by providing protections we couldn't supply as individuals.
The government provides services.
It is my belief that some things we need as a society just don't make sense as a for-profit business. We don't want to have to pay directly for police, for example, because we want poor people to be able to call for help. We don't want to have to pay directly for schools, because we want poor people to be able to get an education. Infrastructure, roads, libraries, etc., etc., etc.
The government can and should pay for all of these services, because, once again, they're things we all want our society to have, and we want everyone to have free access to them. We don't want to have to stop and balance our checkbook before calling the police. We want them to be there when we need them. We would feel guilty if a poor person died because they couldn't afford to call for help. So, we, as a society, put these services in place.
I will also add a note that some things don't work as for-profit businesses, because it creates an immediate conflict of interest. My favorite example of this is the health care industry. To be short, if an insurance company loses money when they have to pay out for your treatment, and makes money when you don't get treatment - how great of treatment do you think they want to provide for you? It is an inherent conflict of interest. And they will find ways to deny coverage or cut corners, because that's what they must do to make a profit. It simply should not exist as a for-profit system, and it should be replaced by a government system, one that, like our police, can treat all people fairly, regardless of their financial status.
If you think that such programs are "socialist," they may be to some extent. But I believe, as a small business owner, that capitalism can best thrive when there is a safety net. People are less afraid to make a leap and take a chance when they know that if their business venture fails, they can still go to the doctor or call the police. But that is a discussion for another day.
Here is what government should NOT do:
Government should NOT tell us how to live.
Government is here to protect and serve. And one of the strongest things it exists to protect is our personal freedom. It should not tell us what to believe, who to love, what to do with our bodies, what to eat, what to smoke, what to drink, etc. As much as possible, I believe that government should stay out of the day to day lives of its people. Because, as I said in my post on The Separation of Church and State, any time we push our specific beliefs and moral agenda on other people, we run the risk of others doing it to us. We weaken the strength of freedom itself, and put ourselves at risk of others oppressing our beliefs. Therefore, I believe that if any subject at all is a "grey area" it should be left up to the discretion of the individual. And this belief has led me to believe that a great many things should be legalized - not necessarily because I like the activity itself, but because I like having the freedom to choose for myself what is right and wrong, and I want to extend that freedom to others. I don't believe that the government should be a parent, a babysitter, or a clergyman. I believe the government should be a blind protector of freedom.
The government should protect us.
This means many things. It means that it should maintain a military, so that we are not overrun from the outside (not necessarily to the imperialistic extent that we have now, but to some reasonable extent.) It means that it provides a necessary counter-balance to growing corporate power, which could enslave workers just as easily as any government if it weren't for some sort of regulation (think sweat shops). It means that it provides protections such as the FDA, to make sure our food and water supply is tested before it reaches us. In these types of situations, the government acts as a spokesperson for all of us. "We don't want rat feces in our hamburgers!" we cry. So, the government takes our collective financial power, through taxes, and forms a system to protect us. It's safety in numbers. It gives us stability and security, by providing protections we couldn't supply as individuals.
The government provides services.
It is my belief that some things we need as a society just don't make sense as a for-profit business. We don't want to have to pay directly for police, for example, because we want poor people to be able to call for help. We don't want to have to pay directly for schools, because we want poor people to be able to get an education. Infrastructure, roads, libraries, etc., etc., etc.
The government can and should pay for all of these services, because, once again, they're things we all want our society to have, and we want everyone to have free access to them. We don't want to have to stop and balance our checkbook before calling the police. We want them to be there when we need them. We would feel guilty if a poor person died because they couldn't afford to call for help. So, we, as a society, put these services in place.
I will also add a note that some things don't work as for-profit businesses, because it creates an immediate conflict of interest. My favorite example of this is the health care industry. To be short, if an insurance company loses money when they have to pay out for your treatment, and makes money when you don't get treatment - how great of treatment do you think they want to provide for you? It is an inherent conflict of interest. And they will find ways to deny coverage or cut corners, because that's what they must do to make a profit. It simply should not exist as a for-profit system, and it should be replaced by a government system, one that, like our police, can treat all people fairly, regardless of their financial status.
If you think that such programs are "socialist," they may be to some extent. But I believe, as a small business owner, that capitalism can best thrive when there is a safety net. People are less afraid to make a leap and take a chance when they know that if their business venture fails, they can still go to the doctor or call the police. But that is a discussion for another day.
Here is what government should NOT do:
Government should NOT tell us how to live.
Government is here to protect and serve. And one of the strongest things it exists to protect is our personal freedom. It should not tell us what to believe, who to love, what to do with our bodies, what to eat, what to smoke, what to drink, etc. As much as possible, I believe that government should stay out of the day to day lives of its people. Because, as I said in my post on The Separation of Church and State, any time we push our specific beliefs and moral agenda on other people, we run the risk of others doing it to us. We weaken the strength of freedom itself, and put ourselves at risk of others oppressing our beliefs. Therefore, I believe that if any subject at all is a "grey area" it should be left up to the discretion of the individual. And this belief has led me to believe that a great many things should be legalized - not necessarily because I like the activity itself, but because I like having the freedom to choose for myself what is right and wrong, and I want to extend that freedom to others. I don't believe that the government should be a parent, a babysitter, or a clergyman. I believe the government should be a blind protector of freedom.
Abortion Introduction
In the next several posts, I'm going to be explaining my views on abortion. This is not an easy discussion for me to approach, because I do not see the issue as black and white. If you see abortion as the murder of a human being with a soul, it's impossible for me to change your mind. And I'm not going to try to change your mind. What I am going to try to do is explain how someone else can see it differently, so that you can gain understanding.
If you are a person who believes strongly in the the other direction - that a woman has a right to make decisions about what happens to her own body and that is final - please try to understand how the other side can see it. That abortion is simply a selfish way to remove the negative consequences of sexual choices by ending a life.
What I ask is that we all approach this subject with an open mind and respect.
If you believe that abortion is immoral, I'm not going to ask you to change your mind, to have abortions of your own, or perform abortions, or recommend abortions. I would perhaps like you to come to the realization that pro-choice doesn't equal pro-death. That we're all pro life, in different ways. That it isn't helpful to vilify the opposing belief.
What I am going to explain is my stance that you can disapprove of something without trying to make everyone else in the country follow your belief. I'm going to be echoing some of the statements I made in previous posts about The Separation of Church and State. My stance is that abortion is a continuum of shades of grey. That shades of grey should always be left up to the discretion of the individual. And that forcing other people to follow your personal convictions through legislating morality really limits all of our freedom to have our own beliefs.
So, take a deep breath, get a fresh cup of coffee. Let's begin.
If you are a person who believes strongly in the the other direction - that a woman has a right to make decisions about what happens to her own body and that is final - please try to understand how the other side can see it. That abortion is simply a selfish way to remove the negative consequences of sexual choices by ending a life.
What I ask is that we all approach this subject with an open mind and respect.
If you believe that abortion is immoral, I'm not going to ask you to change your mind, to have abortions of your own, or perform abortions, or recommend abortions. I would perhaps like you to come to the realization that pro-choice doesn't equal pro-death. That we're all pro life, in different ways. That it isn't helpful to vilify the opposing belief.
What I am going to explain is my stance that you can disapprove of something without trying to make everyone else in the country follow your belief. I'm going to be echoing some of the statements I made in previous posts about The Separation of Church and State. My stance is that abortion is a continuum of shades of grey. That shades of grey should always be left up to the discretion of the individual. And that forcing other people to follow your personal convictions through legislating morality really limits all of our freedom to have our own beliefs.
So, take a deep breath, get a fresh cup of coffee. Let's begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)