Tomato, tomahto...Potato, potahto...Let's just call the whole thing off!
Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think I would put those lyrics to the abortion debate. But, today after reading some of the reactions from both the pro-abortion, anti-choice groups, these lyrics seem to fit right in.
You'd think with a full ban recently legislated in South Dakota, you'd think the pro-life would be rejoicing. Think again.
"As a pro-lifer, I feel guilty saying this, because people are out there all excited, but a ban is actually counterproductive," said Mary Kay Culp, executive director for Kansans for Life. Does that statement seem odd to you, too? Yes, really, she said that.
Now, apparently, pro-lifers feel that they need more time to turn society's thinking around about abortion before going for the jugular on abortion rights. Ah, you've had over 30 years to turn society's head on to the ideals of the pro-life movement, and you say you need more time? What? The posters of aborted babies, protests at abortion clinics and other places that accept abortion practices not helping society to see the pro-life movement in a good light? What's missing here??
Ok, let's look at the other spectrum. The pro-choice, pro-abortion movement. You'd think they'd be outraged at this outright ban in South Dakota and the possibility of a ban in Mississippi. You'd think that, wouldn't ya?
Nope. Their message seems to be going soft, as well. According to the article, a memo circulated by Third Way, a progressive movement, through congress a message to uphold personal liberties while accepting a moral responsibility to reduce the number of abortions. Nothing new there. I believe this was Bill Clinton's stance on abortion when he was president. And my stance, as well.
What I see happening is that both sides are beginning to realize is that being pro-life or pro-choice is all about respecting and valuing life, regardless of its stage. And in the history of both movements, there have been extremes that have devalued life. Now, they see that they are defending life, either that of the mother or that of the child or fetus. Both movements, in essence, are pro-life. They both want to uphold life.
Potato, potahto... whatever. I'm taking my ball and going home. You want to come along? I'm a bit thirsty and I think mom could make us PB & J sandwiches. Sound good?
Showing posts with label pro-choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro-choice. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Determining Value of Life
Let me preface this post by saying that I believe that certain events, though unrelated, happen because they are trying to tell us something. They are signs.
"A long way from the gallow"as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle about the ethical issues surrounding postponement of Michael Morales' execution.
"S. Dakota targets abortion ruling" reported by Indianapolis Star regarding South Dakota's passing a law banning virtual all abortions, with the exception to save the mother's life. This story basically kicked yesterday's story about the ban on partial-birth abortion into dead news space. Although, they are, in a way, similar and both tie in with the death penalty issue.
I believe these two unrelated news stories are really related in a factually abstract way. "Fabstractually" if you will. No, wait. "Factstractually." There's a difference. Fabstractually, would be an abstract fabrication, something George W. Bush would say if he were talking about WMDs in pre-war Iraq.
The death penalty and abortion issues are about the value of life. These issues will be the proving ground for George W. Bush's stance on life. Whose existence is worth continuing? Whether it be a fetus in the womb, a brain-dead woman on life support, an Iraqi insurgent, a combat soldier, or a man convicted of murder on death row, there are philosophical and ethical questions about the value of life that we as a society must face and solidify in our thinking and in our laws.
When does an individual existing become a true, bonafide human? When does an individual's existence cease? Those are existence issues. Sure, a fetus exists. But, when does it achieve rights and responsibilities of a human existence? How do we define a human? When a fetus completely exits the mother's womb? When the fetus is viable outside the womb? When the fetus takes its first breath?
Then, when it takes its first breath, how do we as a society value that life through the years? What is the true value of its life? How do we define the value of a life? How do we react and respond to that life? We do place value on the lives of others daily in our own lives by the way we react and respond to the lives around us.
We devalue people when we offer devaluing comments to them, do mean and spiteful acts against others, and ignore those who most need our attention. In a way, our devaluing is a way to kill the value of another's life and we are extinguishing a bit of that life by every act or negligence we place on that individual.
Does devaluing others' lives by the act of murder, devalue the life of the murderer as well? To the point that the murderer's life is no longer valued by society? That is how our society views it today. Should those who devalued the murderer before he committed his crime be held to be devalued in society as well? Our society places great value in those who can strategically manipulate and devalue others while being able to assert and persuade that they are doing the right thing.
Life as we know it has various levels of value or worth. Many of us see our worth in our paychecks and/or benefit plans at our places of work. Some of us see our worth in our families and how they appreciate our existence and contributions that we make as a member of the family. Some of us see our worth in other social or working groups that make us feel our existence is valued and in some ways justified. In most cases it is what we do that gives us our personal sense of worth, and also a social sense of worth, as well. (And in my case, my true worth far exceeds the amount of my paycheck, as many others could also claim, too.)
Some lives find value, satisfaction, and justification by devaluing other lives. Should we continue to value that individual, even if they devalue us?
When a devaluing person is punished for a crime, what is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime? Is confining a criminal in jail cruel? Is detaining someone without judgment unusual? Is execution by injection cruel? What did they mean when they wrote cruel and unusual punishment in the Constitution?
Then, we have other circumstances where a human life has declined by physical or mental decay. These lives may continue to bring value to others, even if they do nothing but exist. But when do we say that life fails to provide value or worth and should not truly exist?
When should ideals and ideology trump life itself? What is worth losing a life? What is worth taking a life? Is life really worth living?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When does life take a back seat to liberty or the pursuit of happiness? These are the tough questions.
We think it is the courts, and especially the Supreme Court that should answer these questions. No, these are definitions that need to be answered by our legislators both at the state and Federal level. These are definitions that we need to answer to our legislators so they can do their jobs and write (or rewrite) legislation according to our definitions of life that can be applied, enforced, judged and upheld.
"A long way from the gallow"as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle about the ethical issues surrounding postponement of Michael Morales' execution.
"S. Dakota targets abortion ruling" reported by Indianapolis Star regarding South Dakota's passing a law banning virtual all abortions, with the exception to save the mother's life. This story basically kicked yesterday's story about the ban on partial-birth abortion into dead news space. Although, they are, in a way, similar and both tie in with the death penalty issue.
I believe these two unrelated news stories are really related in a factually abstract way. "Fabstractually" if you will. No, wait. "Factstractually." There's a difference. Fabstractually, would be an abstract fabrication, something George W. Bush would say if he were talking about WMDs in pre-war Iraq.
The death penalty and abortion issues are about the value of life. These issues will be the proving ground for George W. Bush's stance on life. Whose existence is worth continuing? Whether it be a fetus in the womb, a brain-dead woman on life support, an Iraqi insurgent, a combat soldier, or a man convicted of murder on death row, there are philosophical and ethical questions about the value of life that we as a society must face and solidify in our thinking and in our laws.
When does an individual existing become a true, bonafide human? When does an individual's existence cease? Those are existence issues. Sure, a fetus exists. But, when does it achieve rights and responsibilities of a human existence? How do we define a human? When a fetus completely exits the mother's womb? When the fetus is viable outside the womb? When the fetus takes its first breath?
Then, when it takes its first breath, how do we as a society value that life through the years? What is the true value of its life? How do we define the value of a life? How do we react and respond to that life? We do place value on the lives of others daily in our own lives by the way we react and respond to the lives around us.
We devalue people when we offer devaluing comments to them, do mean and spiteful acts against others, and ignore those who most need our attention. In a way, our devaluing is a way to kill the value of another's life and we are extinguishing a bit of that life by every act or negligence we place on that individual.
Does devaluing others' lives by the act of murder, devalue the life of the murderer as well? To the point that the murderer's life is no longer valued by society? That is how our society views it today. Should those who devalued the murderer before he committed his crime be held to be devalued in society as well? Our society places great value in those who can strategically manipulate and devalue others while being able to assert and persuade that they are doing the right thing.
Life as we know it has various levels of value or worth. Many of us see our worth in our paychecks and/or benefit plans at our places of work. Some of us see our worth in our families and how they appreciate our existence and contributions that we make as a member of the family. Some of us see our worth in other social or working groups that make us feel our existence is valued and in some ways justified. In most cases it is what we do that gives us our personal sense of worth, and also a social sense of worth, as well. (And in my case, my true worth far exceeds the amount of my paycheck, as many others could also claim, too.)
Some lives find value, satisfaction, and justification by devaluing other lives. Should we continue to value that individual, even if they devalue us?
When a devaluing person is punished for a crime, what is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime? Is confining a criminal in jail cruel? Is detaining someone without judgment unusual? Is execution by injection cruel? What did they mean when they wrote cruel and unusual punishment in the Constitution?
Then, we have other circumstances where a human life has declined by physical or mental decay. These lives may continue to bring value to others, even if they do nothing but exist. But when do we say that life fails to provide value or worth and should not truly exist?
When should ideals and ideology trump life itself? What is worth losing a life? What is worth taking a life? Is life really worth living?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When does life take a back seat to liberty or the pursuit of happiness? These are the tough questions.
We think it is the courts, and especially the Supreme Court that should answer these questions. No, these are definitions that need to be answered by our legislators both at the state and Federal level. These are definitions that we need to answer to our legislators so they can do their jobs and write (or rewrite) legislation according to our definitions of life that can be applied, enforced, judged and upheld.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Why do we find it hard to state the obvious?
Originally penned Thursday, June 30, 2005
Why do we find it so hard to state the obvious? Conservative Republicans are pro-war, pro-death and pro-violence. Regardless of what they tout from their lips, their actions are far from those words of “culture of life” and “pro-life.”
We’ve been through a major terrorist attack before 9/11 on American soil. That was Oklahoma City in April of 1995. We did not declare war like savage beasts in 1995. No, our police forces, FBI, and CIA did the job that they were supposed to do and found the individuals primarily responsible for carrying out this horrendous act, they were tried and found guilty, and paid the consequences for their actions.
Karl Rove touts that the Democrats were insane for thinking that the 9/11 terrorists should be treated the same way the Oklahoma City terrorist bombers were, and that declaring war on several countries is the better option.
Why do we find it so hard to state the obvious? Conservative Republicans are pro-war, pro-death and pro-violence. Regardless of what they tout from their lips, their actions are far from those words of “culture of life” and “pro-life.”
We’ve been through a major terrorist attack before 9/11 on American soil. That was Oklahoma City in April of 1995. We did not declare war like savage beasts in 1995. No, our police forces, FBI, and CIA did the job that they were supposed to do and found the individuals primarily responsible for carrying out this horrendous act, they were tried and found guilty, and paid the consequences for their actions.
Karl Rove touts that the Democrats were insane for thinking that the 9/11 terrorists should be treated the same way the Oklahoma City terrorist bombers were, and that declaring war on several countries is the better option.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Value of Life
Originally penned Friday, June 10, 2005
It seems like the new catch-phrase in political and religious areas seems to be the “culture of life,” especially in the Republican Party and what is termed ‘Christian right’ groups. Current events like the Terry Shiavo case and pro-life stance on abortion rights seem to echo this view of the culture of life. Or maybe they are serving as a camoflauge for the Republican Party’s true ideology behind their front of the culture of life.
Where did the thought of the culture of life originate? Actually, it was Pope John Paul II’s idea. Pope JP II had developed his campaign of the culture of life, reflecting the value of life Jesus gives to all people.
I think the primary push for me to begin blogging is the growing rate of so-called pro-lifers doing anti-life activities. As a Catholic voter, I have a very difficult time voting because neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party truly support all pro-life policies from pre-birth to death. The Republicans seem to support that some lives are way more important than others, especially those with more money or clout. The Democrats, claiming to be pro-choice, has been tagged at anti-life proponents by the opposition because they want to keep abortions legal.
There are a variety of government policies and laws that contradict the culture of life. The main policy currently in place now is the pre-emptive strike against Iraq and the war that has shattered many lives in that country and the soldiers that have lost their lives for a moot cause. This war is not saving any lives and is in fact putting more lives in jeopardy as these people show their animosity toward the US and this unjust war the US declared on their people. These citizens of Iraq did nothing wrong, yet, they are being punished by this war for the apparent actions of their leader Sadam Hussein for hiding WMDs, his mass killings of his own people, and other atrocities. Since the Bush regime did not find these WMDs, they have taken on the theory that this war is a humanitarian war.
What war is ever a humanitarian war? Wars do not usually hurt those in power, it hurts those (many of them innocent of whatever reason the war is being waged) that have to fight it and be in the thick of it. But wars are declared and fought precisely because of the dictates of a leader. In this war, however, the US did something that Geneva Convention does not condone, they took out the leader, too. Sadam Hussein is now out of power and who knows what’s up with that now.
Now, Iraq is in a state of chaos because not only are they rising up against their US-imposed military state, they are battling for their views of what is right for them, with Sunni, Shia, and Kurds each thinking that they ought to lead the country.
In the Bible, Jesus says that what you do to the least of these, you do for me. If the Republican policy to decrease the funding for title 19 and limit Medicaid coverage says anything, it’ll have the least of these (er, Jesus) sick and dying without any way to pay for the expenses of getting them better. That’s ok because the Republicans are also the big anti-drug pushers, so these sick people will have no way to die painlessly. Maybe this is just the way, since Paul was such a big advocate of suffering in the New Testament. Hmmm, if that’s the case, then why aren’t all these Christian-right people wanting to suffer, too?
It seems like the new catch-phrase in political and religious areas seems to be the “culture of life,” especially in the Republican Party and what is termed ‘Christian right’ groups. Current events like the Terry Shiavo case and pro-life stance on abortion rights seem to echo this view of the culture of life. Or maybe they are serving as a camoflauge for the Republican Party’s true ideology behind their front of the culture of life.
Where did the thought of the culture of life originate? Actually, it was Pope John Paul II’s idea. Pope JP II had developed his campaign of the culture of life, reflecting the value of life Jesus gives to all people.
I think the primary push for me to begin blogging is the growing rate of so-called pro-lifers doing anti-life activities. As a Catholic voter, I have a very difficult time voting because neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party truly support all pro-life policies from pre-birth to death. The Republicans seem to support that some lives are way more important than others, especially those with more money or clout. The Democrats, claiming to be pro-choice, has been tagged at anti-life proponents by the opposition because they want to keep abortions legal.
There are a variety of government policies and laws that contradict the culture of life. The main policy currently in place now is the pre-emptive strike against Iraq and the war that has shattered many lives in that country and the soldiers that have lost their lives for a moot cause. This war is not saving any lives and is in fact putting more lives in jeopardy as these people show their animosity toward the US and this unjust war the US declared on their people. These citizens of Iraq did nothing wrong, yet, they are being punished by this war for the apparent actions of their leader Sadam Hussein for hiding WMDs, his mass killings of his own people, and other atrocities. Since the Bush regime did not find these WMDs, they have taken on the theory that this war is a humanitarian war.
What war is ever a humanitarian war? Wars do not usually hurt those in power, it hurts those (many of them innocent of whatever reason the war is being waged) that have to fight it and be in the thick of it. But wars are declared and fought precisely because of the dictates of a leader. In this war, however, the US did something that Geneva Convention does not condone, they took out the leader, too. Sadam Hussein is now out of power and who knows what’s up with that now.
Now, Iraq is in a state of chaos because not only are they rising up against their US-imposed military state, they are battling for their views of what is right for them, with Sunni, Shia, and Kurds each thinking that they ought to lead the country.
In the Bible, Jesus says that what you do to the least of these, you do for me. If the Republican policy to decrease the funding for title 19 and limit Medicaid coverage says anything, it’ll have the least of these (er, Jesus) sick and dying without any way to pay for the expenses of getting them better. That’s ok because the Republicans are also the big anti-drug pushers, so these sick people will have no way to die painlessly. Maybe this is just the way, since Paul was such a big advocate of suffering in the New Testament. Hmmm, if that’s the case, then why aren’t all these Christian-right people wanting to suffer, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
