|
FirmhandKY -> RE: The fundie agenda,now part of the debate. (9/3/2008 4:45:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
Firm,
While I recognize valid points on the nature of beliefs, I think that the point at which I must draw the line for myself rests at that point where someone else's beliefs become foisted on me.
I know that philosophy covered this to some extent, and I understand that, as in the example that you gave about abortion, it is the belief of much of the Christian Right that they are forced to tolerate state-sanctioned murder... if you bring this down to an individual level, to me, and to the ownership of ones own body, no person who does not want to have an abortion is forced to have one.
On the other hand, if legislation is passed making birth control and abortion illegal, as is being considered now, then if a woman were in a relationship where she chose to have sex outside of marriage, and that was concomitant with her ethical and religious beliefs (and it is, in fact, an aspect of several non-Christian religions that I could name), that individual woman could be -denied- the right to obtain birth control... which would either deny her the right to celebrate hers and her partner's sexuality in accordance with HER spiritual beliefs, or, if she had sexual intercourse anyway, according to her spiritual beliefs, and then, if she were to get pregnant with an unwanted child, she would be FORCED to carry that pregnancy to term. No Christian would be dragged kicking and screaming to an abortionist, but if this hypothetical woman, practicing religious beliefs different from the ones setting the laws, were to choose to have a relationship with a man that abides by -her- spiritual tenets, she could be forced, by rule of law of a religion that she does not ascribe to, to bear a child that she had not planned for and did not want.
Now, if a person considers abortion to be murder, then she does not have to commit the act... but perhaps you can explain to me how it is ethical and right for someone with completely different beliefs to be forced to follow that same process, when her own religious beliefs do -not- consider abortion to be murder, and do not consider a baby to have any rights until it is capable of existing outside the womb on its own.
Let's take this a step further, and ask whether, in the case of the Christian Right's belief that abortion is murder, a woman who is dying or who was raped should also have to continue that pregnancy -- because that is the stand of the woman who is on the ticket with McCain as VP... that an unfinished human, who is not yet contributing -anything- to hir community is -more- valuable than the life and sanity of the mother who is carrying hir. See, to me, this is a severe ethical boundary -- where existing life is diminished in favor of a life that is still nothing but un-finished potential. Having lost a baby at term -- a girl who only lived for 15 minutes -- I can honestly say that I cannot look upon a fetus as a "sure thing"... certainly not enough so to sacrifice a living, contributing woman's life or sanity over it.
It seems to me, that in the weighing of such matters, the greater good is to allow individual choice in such matters, so that ones choice does not impede the decision-making process of another. After all, even according to Christian scripture it is not for humans to judge one another -- according to your own scriptures, God alone is supposed to judge according to that person's choices during life. If free will is removed from the equation by forced legislative morality, then what role does the gift of free will obtain?
I look forward to your thoughts.
Calla Firestorm
Calla,
It's become a long thread, with multiple discussions going on, so I hope my reply doesn't get lost. After this reply I intend to withdraw from this particular thread as the focus is too diffuse for real conversation.
In direct reply to your comments:
You have hit upon the very core of the argument I think, and the disagreement between the two sides. As in my discussion with philo, we are agreed that we have a disagreement about basic beliefs.
The point you raise is one of public policy, and how to rationalize competing and conflicting moral codes. I think that Bill Clinton best summed up how most Americans wish the issues to be resolved: Abortion should be legal, available ... and rare.
Most people do not realize that "freedom of religion" is not a right without restrictions, and that the good of public policy can overcome the free exercise of religious rights and beliefs. A couple of good examples of where there is conflict between the two:
1. The original Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) believed in polygamy, and this brought them into conflict with the cultural norms and laws at the time. Public policy in the US forbids the practice (still does today, although it was a stronger cultural norm in times past).
The Church changed it's policy to conform with public policy.
2. Christian Scientist and others do not generally believe in providing modern medical care in some instances to their members, even children.
There are public policy rules and codes in which members of such religious groups may be forced to accept modern medical care despite their beliefs, because public policy establishes certain parameters that over-ride their religious beliefs.
So the important aspect of this is that "public policy" is established in the political arena, and is based on the moral codes and beliefs of the general public (or on the moral codes of the lawmakers, at least).
The question becomes "which rights are more important", and, as I have said, from the pro-life side of the house, it's a pretty clear moral choice, if you believe that life starts at conception: murder vesus a religious belief that you do not have to be inconvenienced by an unwanted pregnancy.
If, on the other hand, you do not believe that a fetus is defined as a human being, it becomes much simpler and easy to see that the right to live your life as you see fit, without the life changing introduction of an unwanted child, is the more important right.
Since this isn't actually a debate about abortion per se, I'm not going to develop either line of argument further. I will just say that I can clearly see the dichotomy of beliefs, and why each side is convinced of their righteousness.
That doesn't help resolve the issue however.
So, back to the establishment of public policy ... the political.
My point has been that the "liberal" side of the argument insists that their moral code ("religious beliefs") should take precedence (as it has over the last few decades) and be public policy because their moral code is superior to the Christian moral code. They attempt to maintain their position by denigrating and marginalizing Christian beliefs, yet do not recognize that - at least in this area - that it conflicts with some of the basic espoused beliefs of "liberalism" i.e. freedom of religion, and the belief that anyone's beliefs should be respected.
The belief that an individual woman's right to an abortion is a superior right to the right of the unborn child to live isn't "better" than a Christians belief that an unborn child's right to life over an individual woman's right to an abortion ... it's simply different.
You may think that the right to an abortion is a higher right, but that is simply because you follow the moral precepts of "liberalism".
So how does the pro-life side of the house change public policy? By education. By discussing, and converting the majority of the publics beliefs' on the subject through public engagement, advertisement (propaganda, if you will), by making their case.
All avenues which the "liberals" attempt to prevent in their marginalization of Christian beliefs.
As I said in the beginning, I think most Americans are pretty pragmatic about the issue a la Bill Clinton. I'll expand that thought just a bit, and reference some other hot-button issues such as euthanasia as well.
I don't think there is a way to cleanly "square the circle" on this particular issue, or on many issues. What I do think is that abortion (as well as euthanasia and other difficult moral choices) should be "difficult" to make. These decision are about life and death, and making them difficult (but not impossible) forces more consideration than taking out the trash out at night.
How do you do that? Long discussion topic, but I don't think you can do it simply by edict or law. These are immensely personal decisions, and they should carry personal repercussions which forces an individual to carefully consider their actions. Some of this through consideration of matters of law, some of these through consideration of the societal standards, some of these through consideration of personal consequences.
In fact, I think we are pretty much at equilibrium on the issue right now, although the issue isn't "settled", and likely never will be.
It's a messy equilibrium, that neither side is particularly happy with ... but politics can be defined as the art of compromise, in which no one is totally content with the outcome.
Firm
|
|
|
|
