![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
judecorp[I'm leaving comments on this one because I want to read the feedback, but I want to begin with the disclaimer that I may not respond to all of the comments, or any of them, for that matter. I just really want other people's opinions.]
It has been made very clear to my that our president is pro-life, or anti-choice, or anti-abortion, or whatever you want to call it. Some people who also eschew this standpoint have argued that it is wrong for one person (i.e. the mother) to decide the fate of another person, an innocent bystander in the whole process (i.e. the fetus). Great pains are often taken to promote the fact that the fetus is a living individual that has rights, and that those rights must be upheld, supported, and advocated for, even when (or especially when) it cannot speak for itself. It has been said that a person (mother) who chooses to kill another person (abort a fetus) is selfish, and cruel, and a murderer, and not taking responsibility for her actions. It has also been argued that this should be illegal.
It has also been made very clear to me that our president is pro-war, or anti-peace, or whatever you want to call it. Some people who also eschew this standpoint have argued that it is sometimes acceptable for one person (i.e. the attacker) to decide the fate of another person, an innocent bystander in the whole process (i.e. a civilian who is killed by unfriendly fire). Great pains are often taken to promote the fact that the person who is killed is part of the problem, is a necessary casualty, is a shame but one that is forgivable, perhaps even by God. It has been said that a person (aggressor) who chooses to kill another person (bomb a building) is heroic, and brave, and blessed, and engaging in the most honorable of duties. It is not illegal.
How do these two standpoints, often shared by the same person, line up? How can they co-exist rationally? How can one be pro-life in the case of a fetus but pro-death in the case of military aggression? I'd really like to know your insights. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this.
It has been made very clear to my that our president is pro-life, or anti-choice, or anti-abortion, or whatever you want to call it. Some people who also eschew this standpoint have argued that it is wrong for one person (i.e. the mother) to decide the fate of another person, an innocent bystander in the whole process (i.e. the fetus). Great pains are often taken to promote the fact that the fetus is a living individual that has rights, and that those rights must be upheld, supported, and advocated for, even when (or especially when) it cannot speak for itself. It has been said that a person (mother) who chooses to kill another person (abort a fetus) is selfish, and cruel, and a murderer, and not taking responsibility for her actions. It has also been argued that this should be illegal.
It has also been made very clear to me that our president is pro-war, or anti-peace, or whatever you want to call it. Some people who also eschew this standpoint have argued that it is sometimes acceptable for one person (i.e. the attacker) to decide the fate of another person, an innocent bystander in the whole process (i.e. a civilian who is killed by unfriendly fire). Great pains are often taken to promote the fact that the person who is killed is part of the problem, is a necessary casualty, is a shame but one that is forgivable, perhaps even by God. It has been said that a person (aggressor) who chooses to kill another person (bomb a building) is heroic, and brave, and blessed, and engaging in the most honorable of duties. It is not illegal.
How do these two standpoints, often shared by the same person, line up? How can they co-exist rationally? How can one be pro-life in the case of a fetus but pro-death in the case of military aggression? I'd really like to know your insights. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 05:06 pm (UTC)I honestly think some of the justification comes from the magnitude of it all. Those random ppl over in Iraq? We didn't know them: they're faceless, nameless casualties. Whereas the abortion clinic is killing our neighbour's little sweet baby John or Sally or Sue. If we saw the name of each person who died needlessly in war, I think (or I would hope) it would make us give pause. But we don't... they are unknown pawns in a horrific game played by "leaders".
hm. which reminds me of the play I directed in HS: One for the Road by Harold Pinter. It was actually written in response to war in Turkey.. a boy is killed (and his parents tortured) because he spat on a few soldiers. Ah the humanity. But I actually had a couple palying chess above the scene, playing it all out. It was a game for them -- but real people were the ones affected.
wow, look, I managed not to respond to your post at all, really!
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 05:42 pm (UTC)The corrolation I remember is that people who oppose abortion also tend to favor the death penalty. (Remember, the aforementioned abortion-opposing President is from Texas, where executing convicted criminals is practically an industry.) The reasoning I remember basically came back to control: the ability for society to dictate death of a criminal or outcome of a pregnancy.
In that light, it makes complete sense that an anti-abortion President would also support military action against an opponent he views as an enemy of peace.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 06:31 am (UTC)Im a little late with the replies but....
Date: 2003-03-27 05:58 pm (UTC)a lunatic waving a machine gun tomorrow?
I see it like a chemistry experiment. Under the right conditions even a pressurized can of hairspray can be dangerous. Under the right conditions (i.e. the influence of a crazed lunatic dictator) any innocent civilian can be dangerous. I don't agree with killing anyone or anything however, when looking at the big picture more "innocent civilians" could be killed all over the world if something isn't done.
In comparison to the innocent victims of war to the innocent fetus. Innocent civilians have had a chance (maybe not much of one) but a chance none the less. They have taken their first breath, seen the sky, experienced some form of life in the world. An unborn child killed by an abortion has had none of these. No chance, No hope, NOTHING. if you ask me...their is no comparison to be made.
Re: Im a little late with the replies but....
Date: 2003-03-28 05:47 am (UTC)I think it's incredibly cynical and sad to see all people as potential evil-doers (I'm oversimplfying you here, I realize). I tend to do the opposite - to see all people as potential minions of good... so I certainly wouldn't want to blow a bunch of them up who haven't done anything. (Well, actually, I don't want to blow anyone up, good or bad, because I'm a pacifist, but still...)
Is it better to have seen and experienced the good life has to offer and then die, or to never know what you're missing because you haven't even been conscious? - That's a philosophical debate for another day.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 05:24 pm (UTC)I feel so conflicted right now.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 05:27 pm (UTC)Personally I always liked the old joking reason "It's more fun to wait till their older to kill them"
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 05:38 pm (UTC)Ditto with capital punishment. We're ostensibly defending society from those who would harm it in an irreparable fashion. (Nevermind the fact that it costs more, is at best arbitrarily applied and at worst racially biased, and is irreversible and has been and will continue to be applied to the innocent). They harm us and our interests, we harm them.
I don't buy it. But this is the way it seems that people justify it.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 07:29 pm (UTC):-)
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 05:39 pm (UTC)Consider: if a person comes at you with a weapon intending to use it to kill you, you are allowed to strike back with deadly force, and if you kill him, it's not murder. Yet, if that same person is unarmed, then deadly force may not be permissible in self-defence and if you kill him in those circumstances, it is murder. There are many defences to murder in law to reflect the basic idea that killing and murder are distinct concepts.
The Sixth Commandment is often misquoted as "Thou shalt not kill." A more accurate translation would be "Thou shalt not murder." Considering the amount of blood shed in the Bible, especially the number of capital crimes in the Old Testament, it would be a contradiction indeed if the Sixth Commandment was as it is popularly translated.
The distinction is one of acceptable justification. Killing in war by a soldier is done so on the orders of his superior (unless it is patently illegal as defined by international law - see Nuremberg Tribunals) and is therefore justified. The leader that orders war often provides justifications as to why he is waging war, and whether or not those justifications are acceptable or not will probably determine whether he can be accused of war crimes or not. Aborting a fetus... well, to the pro-lifers there is no circumstance save for endangering the life of the mother that can justify it, so abortion to them is murder.
In this way, there is no contradiction in the mind of the pro-life, pro-war leader. He believes there is no justification for the ending of the life of a fetus, so abortion is murder. He believes there is a justification for waging war, so war is not.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:43 pm (UTC)jude, you may want to do some reading on just war theory. it's something i've been meaning to familiarize myself with for a while, so i can't really offer anything on that other than to point you in that direction.
in my mind, war (ideally, if there is such a thing) is generally seen as something that is engaged in as a defense and/or protection of a group of people. it is not about the individual, but the society as a whole. to simplify the current situation, i think the "justification" of this war in bush's mind is that he sees the risk to americans (the threat of attack by saddam) as great enough to warrant doing whatever is necessary to remove him from power, even if that means potentially killing innocent civilians.
certainly he doesn't believe that any innocent civilians deserve to die, and i think that we (the US) are doing all we can to encourage the iraqi troops (who are, in many cases, probably not even saddam supporters) to surrender and avoid being killed.
i am pro-life, anti-death penalty, and although i certainly wouldn't consider myself "pro-war", i do believe that there are situations in which it is a necessary evil (no comment on the current situation).
although i am against murder in general (duh), i would not hesitate to kill someone if by doing so i would be saving the lives of many others. i know it doesn't seem to totally make sense - because how do you decide when it's ok and when it's not? i guess the best example i can think of is hitler - were people supposed to just keep letting him and his army commit genocide because it's wrong to kill?
i totally see your point, but i think whereas it is much more of a black and white issue for you (killing is bad), it isn't quite so for some of us (killing is bad unless you're saving other people in the process).
*whew*
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 12:05 am (UTC)suicidehomicide bombers who receive funding from Saddam Hussein. Those latter groups, as opposed to our military, specifically target civilians.As for "pro-war" "anti-peace" etc: we have to be careful not to get loose and fast with words and concepts... oversimplification of complex issues is the bain of progress and understanding.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 06:19 am (UTC)I'm just wondering why there aren't tons of pro-life individuals screaming about "saving the innocents" in this case.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-20 07:40 am (UTC)Because, as you and I have already indicated, there is not a concerted, purposeful intent to kill innocents. Regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue, pretty much everyone one can agree that is indeed the intent of the doctor and patient to "kill"/remove the fetus. This is also similar to that fact that (no matter what state one lives in and their stance on capital punishment), there remains a difference between murder and manslaughter, and their respective punishments.
This clear issue of intent is why you don't see protesters marching in the streets demanding that the military save the innocents. (in fact, many pro-action pundits will argue that we are taking this action specifically to save the innocents... from Saddam).
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:24 pm (UTC)He does not support a consistent life ethic. While I don't exactly agree with Catholics, at least they have the same stance on the subject of the dignity of life. Anti-war. Anti-death penalty. Anti-abortion. At least they don't support the slaughter of civilians the way Dubya does.
That jack-ass.
(And yes, I have strange Moderate views about abortion. So sue me.) =)
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 10:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-22 05:25 am (UTC)boobsbooks?*cough*
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:26 pm (UTC)I am personally pro-choice, and unable to say that I am either pro-war or anti-war, so I'm certainly not attacking anyone's viewpoint. =) Just bringing up the flipside question. If you'd rather that question not be debated in your LJ at this point, then feel free to delete this comment. I won't be offended. =)
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 06:30 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-20 06:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 06:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 08:04 am (UTC)And keep in mind that pro-choice alludes to the choice of the patient/parent. The fetus has no choice, and its fate must rely upon the decision of the patient/parent. As for choice of the Iraqi population, there is no "choice" in a state run by a totalitarian dictator who names Stalin as his greatest political influence. It is the goal of US policy to change that.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-20 08:12 am (UTC)So does that mean the US is responsible for all poverty-ridden nations, b/c we don't give them enough aid? I guess that sort of attitude, that the US is in charge of the entire world's success, is what makes us think we can 'fix' other countries and should get involved? If that's the case, I'd love to see us work on countries where there is no direct economic gain for the US... that we can be sure that our interests are purely for the good of the other nation.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 09:06 am (UTC)I'd love to see us work on countries where there is no direct economic gain for the US... that we can be sure that our interests are purely for the good of the other nation.
I'm sorry, please enlighten me about the economic gain we incurred due to our incursion in Kosovo. It seems to be slipping my mind right now, can you help? I'll tell ya though, what I'm not forgetting is that President Clinton had to sidestep the UN, skirt the UN's vaunted security council, and cajole the other NATO countries to take an interest and enter the region with the United States. Economic gain? Germany only became in involved because it felt the number of refugees entering its country was threatening Germany's fragile economy. And even then, the German government only offered a handful of F-4 sorties.
What was our economic gain in Somalia, and what role did the UN play in preventive, humanitarian actions?
I, along with many other people, think we should be more involved in Rawanda... and quite frankly, I fail to see any economic advantage to be had there. Again, where is the UN? What did the UN ever do about Afghanistan?
The UN's Security Council is something like 2-17 when comes to addressing the world's hot spots over the last 40 years. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the world's remaining hegemony (the US) to solve the problems that other countries, NGO's, and coalitions refuse to address... regardless of whether there be any perceived possibility of economic gain by critics.
If you want to rail against countries whose government who meddle in other nations for economic gain, try turning your sights to Paris and its policies concerning France's West African quasi-colonies.
no subject
Re:
Date: 2003-03-20 09:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 06:26 am (UTC)There's lots of room for "wiggle" in the pro-choice stance because there is debate about when "life" begins. For some, life begins at conception, for others, at birth - and then there are those who fall at any random point in between (a heartbeat, for example, or other complex organ systems). With that in mind, it's fairly easy for me to imagine someone who is pro-choice up to the point where they believe life begins, and also pro-life in terms of war.
Aside from that, there are a lot of people (myself included, though I /am/ trying to keep me out of this) who are pro-choice legally, but pro-life for themselves. I don't think I could ever, ever in a million years, abort life inside of me - but I know for a fact that I do not want to take that option away from other women.
It comes down to this, for me: I hold myself up to a more stringent (for me) ethic than I do the rest of the world. My personal moral and ethical code was developed by me, is right for me, works for me. It is not /my/ place to develop a moral or ethical code for an entire group of people, or a country, or a planet. Everyone, to me, needs to develop his/her own code and act accordingly.
To get out of some of the "hotter" topics like abortion and war - I could never, and would never, kill an animal. I can't even imagine it, the idea of pointing a gun or an arrow at an animal and choosing to end that animal's life. However, I don't think hunting should be illegal, because I think there are people who hunt responsibly and ethically.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 09:45 am (UTC)Like you, I don't know that I, especially having had a child, could ever choose to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy in myself. But also like you, I fully support someone else's right to choose that for themself, within the legal guidelines. And the 'line where life begins' point is a very good one, about which I hadn't thought. Thank you for the thought fodder. =)
From my point of view, one's opinions on abortion and war are not so closely tied as they are in your point of view. Abortion is, as a general issue, not a matter of national security, or a matter of championing the right of all people in the world to life freely and in peace. I think that different 'rules' do, and must, apply in different situations. There are many, many points to consider, many sides to the arguments for and against abortion, for and against the use of force to settle a conflict. The points to consider do not overlap in their entirety for the two issues, however.
I think I have to agree with a few others who have said that one of the key issues appears to be choice. Those who are pro-life say that the fetus has no choice in the matter. If one accepts that the fetus is 'alive' in the first three months of pregnancy, then one must agree that a life is terminated with no opportunity to choose to live or not. In contrast, those who repress the freedom of others make the choice to do so, and when peaceful measures fail, waging war to remove those individuals from power does not conflict with 'having no choice in the matter'.
A few more than two cents from me...
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 07:56 pm (UTC)I can see how this would make a difference. I suppose a lot of my feelings come from my own personal morals, and not from a legislative or leadership point of view. I am not running a country, so I don't have to think about national security or whatever when I'm deciding what I should do. However, I freely admit that my personal pacifism is extreme. For example, I would not take someone's life to save my own, either. *shrug*
In contrast, those who repress the freedom of others make the choice to do so, and when peaceful measures fail, waging war to remove those individuals from power does not conflict with 'having no choice in the matter'.
In war, there are lots of people who are killed who have nothing to do with it. Who is sticking up for them? Who is shouting about their losses? And why, for that matter, do we only care about people when we want to attack that country? What about all of the innocent people who have died in Israel or Palestine? Why aren't we yelling at them?
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:35 pm (UTC)I still haven't really been able to wrap my head around Bush's logic either.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 06:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 08:26 am (UTC)There is a difference between stating fact and stating intent.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 07:29 pm (UTC)(how hypocritical do I think our country is, not that I want to get bombed by Iraq or anything)
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 06:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 08:08 am (UTC)And I'd also like to add that I hope the Nader voters are now happy. Anyone who said, "Things have to get worse before they get better," well, they're worse. And they are most likely going to get lots worse. Assuming this war is short and our rebuilding attempt in Iraq half-assed and short (both, I think, reasonable assumptions), the cost is likely to be in the $115 - 300 billion range. In the first Gulf War, our allies picked up 80% of the $100 billion cost of the war. In this war, we have no real allies (I heard on the news last night that Powell welcomed Cameroon into our "coalition"), and so the entire cost will be borne by us.
Now, this cost has explicitly NOT been factored into the ridiculous budget passed by Congress last month. The budget which is already predicting a $290 billion defecit for this fiscal year. So double that, when you include costs for this war. That means even less money for everything.
And the House is likely to pass Bush's $1.7 trillion dollar tax cut virtually unchanged, though we can probably count on the Senate to lop a couple hundred billion off of that. This fits Reagan's strategy of "starving the beast," passing such huge tax cuts that it became fiscally impossible to preserve social programs.
As lame as a candidate that Al Gore was, none of this would have happened were he President. I feel very comfortable heaping a lot of blame on the Nader voters, most of which KNEW and didn't care that a 3rd party candidate simply cannot win major office in the US. That's not because of corrupt parties or politicians or even the media, it's because of Duverger's Law.
So thanks, Nader Raiders. Go back to not voting in 2004.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 08:32 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-20 08:46 am (UTC)But research shows that increased turnout doesn't matter. It seems to be the case that the US population, currently, is pretty much very evenly divided between likely Democratic and Republican voters. Unless turnout were increased differentially somehow, higher turnout wouldn't change electoral results.
Interesting, huh? I can provide citations if you're interested in checking this out.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-20 10:53 am (UTC)Either way, the election depends upon the candidate who mobilizes the most voters in given precints ... therefore, the goal is to encourage as many people as possible to vote for their candidate, and hope that the other candidate(s) aren't nearly as successful. Right?
no subject
Date: 2003-03-21 05:31 am (UTC)Right.
But, mobilizing your likely supporters is costly and difficult. What's more, your efforts will be picked up on by the opposition, who will redouble her efforts in your targeted district/state/whatever.
What is vastly easier and less expensive is to try to DEmobilize your opponent's supporters - to make them disgusted and frustrated and stay home on election day. This is the purpose of negative advertising, and is why such ads are so ubiquitous. Everybody hates them - candidates, the media, the public...but they work so well.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 09:50 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-20 11:08 am (UTC)I believe the specifics were not that they were closing early, but that there was discrepency on how much later they would remain open. Because people were not moving fast enough through the polling booths, the officials requested that the polls stay open late. To that effect, a cone was placed at the end of the line during the normal poll closing time, so everybody who had been waiting in line before closing time could stay after closing time to vote. Word got out that poll was staying open late, and people tried to get in line behind the cone. No dice.
People tend to take their time while moving through the line at Krogers. It frustrates me, but I know that as long as get in line (or even enter the store) before closing time, I will be able to leave with my purchase. I think we can agree that if I show up at the store after closing time, I am not entitled to enter, even if there are still people waiting inside to be processed.
That said, it should be noted the polls in question were run by Democratic county party officials.
no subject
The Recovering Catholic's Guide to Life.
Date: 2003-03-20 09:50 am (UTC)My personal stance on abortion and whether or not I'd probably ever have one: Absolutely not. At least that's my opinion right now, knowing I'm not having to make that decision for real. My opinion on every woman's right to choose: Yes, without a doubt. She's entitled to options, despite what the old, white guys in Washington say.
My personal stance on capital punishment: Not keen on it. As much as I can't stand people who kill, rape, and torture innocent people, I don't feel that it's our call as to whether or not they deserve to live. Lock 'em up, throw away the key.
War? Hate it. Why can't people solve their conflicts with civility? How exactly does physical violence and death solve anything? It doesn't. It creates more hatred and more violence.
Of course, I realize that my beliefs are in conflict. BUT...The difference for me is that the situations require different levels of evaluation. For example, a war doesn't just affect the governmental leaders who can't make compromises. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that George Bush will never set foot on the warfield, or come close to being in harm's way. It affects hundreds and thousands of people who were not in on the UN meetings and phone calls from the President. These are ordinary citizens who would just like to live their lives.
Of course, there are times when those thousands are in danger by lack of action on someone's part. Then, I have to agree that other measures need to be taken. What measures? Not sure. Stalking and kidnapping Saddam Hussein?
In a more personal matter, like abortion, it's harder for me to say what's absolutely right. The trouble with government making decisions regarding someone else's body is that the deciding politicians aren't having to live with the consequences. Yes, every life is valuable, so why would someone give birth to another human being, without knowing what the quality of that child's life will be? I hate to say this, but there are scores of children in the child welfare system who don't get the life they deserve. Being bounced from home to home, being left at the mercy of relatives or foster parents who aren't properly screened before taking them in - Look at the three kids left at their aunt's house a few months ago. One of them starved to death and was thrown in a trunk. The other two were locked in the basement without food and water, and made to live in their own fecal matter. I'm not saying that their lives aren't precious, but I am saying that sometimes allowing a child to live a life of horrific suffering and abuse is less merciful than death.
....
I don't know. I don't believe that any one person should have control over another's fate. It seems that the ability to live is a much bigger concept than we as humans should have power over. But there are times when the safety of the greater good or the misery of the innocent warrants difficult decisions on our part.