Continuum: From Left To Right

Welcome!

2006-03-16T18:36:00.000-08:00

I am hoping to revive this blog. It brought me great joy and I hope it shall again. With your help, it shall. The idea for Continuum: From Left to Right was to provide a forum for people from all points on the political spectrum to express their opinions on various topics in a manner that was open to any point of view and expressed in a respectful manner. If anyone who is familiar with the format of the recently closed Discuss-It.net site would like to revive the spirit of that blog, leave a comment and let's talk about it.

As I say above, this isn't my site, it's yours.

Celebrate Women!

2005-03-10T18:57:00.000-08:00

Jude Nagurney Camwell, at Iddybud, posts a very interesting poem by Rachel Raza, a Muslim woman. She takes up the cause of Muslim women throughout the Middle-East in a powerful fashion. I heartily commend it to you. Please read it. My comments are somewhat colored by my recent comment conversations with Ms. Camwell about the relative merits of the military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am all for lifting up and equalizing the position of women regardless of where in the world they live or in what culture. Muslim women, especially in the less developed countries and where politics and religion join to suppress any aspiration other than servitude, are in a similar situation as Japanese women, although the situation for women in Japan are, I believe improving. They are in a similar situation as women in this country were prior to such advances as the opening of institutions of higher learning to women, the franchise, the opening of professions to women and the loosening of sexual mores. I celebrate them altogether. I would not be me, however, if I found nothing within this poem with which to take exception.

The first stanza, while not mourning the Taliban's removal, certainly takes exception to the way in which women's oppressors were removed. Perhaps she has some alternate method of their removal that, well, a poem did not seem the proper vehical for proposing or which did not find a place within the poem's topic. The poet closes the first stanza with the demand, EDUCATE ME. Reading this made me think, "Educate her, indeed!" Interesting that, under the Taliban, the mere suggestion by a woman, the mere request to become educated, would have gotten her a public beating and no token beating at that. It would have been the last request of that sort that she made. Does this woman really not understand that those bombs are the only reason that she may now demand to be educated? I am not surprised that Muslim women might see the Burqa as protection. Going without the Burqa, under the Taliban, would have gotten her dead. Apparently some Muslim men have such poor self-control that the mere glimps of female flesh inflames their passions so much that they are forced either to beat the woman or rape her--no oppression there, none at all.

It may be objected that my blaming the Taliban for these things is misleading. It is true that many of the things that Ms. Raza protests about the mistreatment of Muslim women are endemic, not only to Afghanistan under the Taliban, but to many Muslim cultures. This is certainly true. However, what made the Taliban particularly egregious is that they would enforce these rules absolutely. For example, if a woman's husband were a particularly progressive sort, permitting his wife to be educated, if the Taliban found out about this, BOTH the woman AND her husband would be punished. They simply would force the oppression of women to be, well, enforced.

It may be suggested, as an alternative to bombs, that the Ghandi method might have been employed from within the Muslim culture of Afghanistan. Women might have risen up and demanded their rights and taken whatever punishment came their way for what the Taliban and male Muslims in general would surely have seen as impudence or worse. It is questionable, of course, whether such a tactic would have worked under such an oppressive regime. The image that comes to my mind is of women peacefully and silently marching on schools to be educated only to be beaten with rods, even as the natives of India were beaten by British troops in the movie, Ghandi, for peacefully and unarmed approaching the salt factory to take what was so obviously their right: Salt. Would the Taliban and misogynistic Muslim men really beat bloody and to death hundreds of thousands of Muslim women for the crime of wanting to learn? Both the law and the culture, of course, would not only permit such barbarity, it would demand it but would such brutality continue to every last woman in Afghanistan? I profess ignorance.

According to the movie, Ghandi, that one occurence was the straw that broke the camel's back. As the Sheen journalist character called in to his News outlet, "Whatever moral ascendency the West may have once had has been lost." So, judging from the movie, one might have reason for hope for such a tactic carried out by Muslim women, even under the Taliban. However, there are distinct differences between Imperial Britain and the Muslim culture that call such hope into question. The reason that the tactic worked in India is that Britain, for all of her racism and prejudice, knew that brutally murdering unarmed citizens that they were there, presumably, to protect and help, was morally wrong.

They did what they did in the misbegotten attempt to protect their economic monopoly and thus, their control over India. I suspect that, even had word of the atrocity not reached the general population back in England, the occupation was over at that point. Those committing the atrocities knew that they were committing atrocities. The sort of culture that spawns Governments such as the Taliban have no such awareness. To them, beating and even killing uppity women is not only permitted but demanded by their culture and Law. If hundreds of thousands, or even millions of women had risen up in peaceful protest within Taliban era Afghanistan, it is quite possible that there would be no compunction whatsoever about beating every last one to death.

What such action would have done, however, assuming that word of it got out to the general world population, is to so inflame public opinion that much of the world would have risen up and, threatened to bomb the country back to well before the stone-age unless the Taliban immediately stepped down. In this way, it may be that the Taliban might have been deposed without dropping a bomb. The cost to life, in Afghanistan, might easily have been as high, or higher than during the war to depose the Taliban.

Cause and Effect or Mere Coincidence?

2005-03-02T22:38:00.000-08:00

After 9/11, the US quickly and, as it turned out, accurately pinned the attacks on Usama bin Ladin and al Qaeda. They demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan, where UBL had been training radical militant Islamists to carry out attacks against the West, deliver him over to the US for prosecution. The Taliban, quite reasonably, I thought at the time, demanded to see the evidence against UBL. After all, here in America, if someone commits a crime in state A and is subsequently found to be in living in State B, the accused has a right to a hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant his extradition. What is true between States of the US, I reasoned, is at least reasonable to hold among Countries. The US declined the invitation, causing me to think that the evidence was not so certain as President Bush was making out. In any case, the US took the Taliban's refusal to extradite as an act of war under the new Bush doctrine that nations that give safe harbor and or aid to Terrorists are as guilty as the Terrorists whom they harbor. Long made short, with broad international support, we sent in CIA and special forces and air support to assist anti-Taliban forces within Afghanistan and the Taliban was quickly removed. UBL, however, eluded capture and, to this day, remains a fugitive.

On October 9th, 2004, Afghani men and women elected Hamid Karzai, their choice of national leadership in the first direct Presidential constitutional election in Afghanistan's history. Their display of ink-stained fingers, proof of their having voted, was an inspiration to the world. This is the first exhibit in Bush's other doctrine: that Democracy is contagious even in Muslim nations.

Afghanistan is the first domino.

Not that this next occurrence resulted from US action, although the US did play an indirect part in the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, but the theory that democracy is contagious does not require that the US play any role. The revolution began as a result of the most recent Presidential elections in the Ukraine, the first round of which took place on October 31, 2004, over which there were many, credible allegations of election irregularities, including the poisoning of one of the candidates. The first round of voting was close enough to require a second round. Initially, the second round was given to the outgoing President’s favored candidate, Yanukovych but, again there were complaints of voting fraud. People rose up in support of the opposition candidate, Yuschenko, and gathered, in freezing weather, in Kiev to protest the results. The popular, peaceful uprising, publicized worldwide on television, lead to the official rejection of the revote results and a new vote under a new elections board. The result is that Yuschenko was elected and the power of the people of the Ukraine won a victory over corrupt Government. Aside from vocal support by the Bush administration, the US played no direct role.

Domino two has fallen.

Now a historical note. On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush gave a controversial inaugural speech. It was controversial, primarily because in it the President declared it to be the United States policy to work for and support the growth of Democracy throughout the world. He said, in part:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth. Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause

...

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
As we shall later see, it seems that the world was listening. And, it seems, people have dared to believe our President. I will have more to say on that later.

On March 19, 2003, with far less international support than we had for the Afghanistan action, the US led an attack on Iraq with air and ground troops. The immediate objective, the removal of the Saddam led Ba'athist government, controversially celebrated on an Air Craft Carrier with a banner proclaiming, "Mission Accomplished", was brought to pass in three weeks. Unfortunately, chaos that the coalition forces failed to quell, in the form of violent looting, ensued. This was followed by an, apparently pre-prepared, insurgency—one that has caused the death of some 1,500 US military forces, and has left some 10,000 US soldiers wounded, not to mention perhaps several hundred thousand Iraqis dead—that continues to the present day.

Nevertheless, on January 30, 2005, elections were held under threat of death by insurgents. While the openness of these elections is questionable and it is clear that certain groups of Iraqis, due to calls by Sunni religious leaders to boycott the elections and threats by insurgents, were under represented, the sight of some 8 million Iraqis, again with ink-stained fingers, voting for a governing council that would select a Prime Minister and construct a Constitution was, if anything, even more inspiring than the Afghanistan elections held months before. The elections were seen to be so successful that even Sunni leaders, who had called for the boycott, reconsidered that decision and requested to be included in the governing council, a request that has been complied with.

Witness domino number three has fallen.

On February 10, 2005, local elections were held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with others to be held elsewhere in the country on March 3, 2005 and later in April 21, 2005. These are municipal elections, there will be elections to fill seats in 178 councils. There are questions of just how much power these councils will have and, as with any election, there are questions about how fair the elections in Riyadh were. Women were not allowed to run for Office, nor did women vote. There is no question yet of competitors for the national Government. All of this is to say that Democracy has a long way to go in Saudi Arabia, but can anyone seriously question that President Bush’s policies in Afghanistan and Iraq and his stance against oppressive governments and for Democracy have not influenced the decision to hold even these limited elections in there?

Domino four has, however weakly, fallen as well.

On February 14, 2005, former Prime Minster of Lebanon, Rafik Al-Hariri, was assassinated. Although there is no proof, yet, it is widely supposed that this was the work of Syria. This act has outraged a great many Lebanese who, like Ukrainians before them, have risen up in protest and applied such popular and, thanks to television coverage, international pressure that, on February 28, 2005, the Syrian backed Government of Lebanon stepped down—a move that surprised virtually everyone. Apparently, the Government felt that it could not count on the Syrian troops, that have occupied Lebanon since the 70’s, to quell the uprising or they felt that any such repression would bring reprisals from the US and the International community. Perhaps the Lebanese people were listening when President Bush promised to stand by them in their fight against oppression.

In a display of people power, domino number five has fallen.

Within the last few days, Syria has promised to remove its troops from Lebanon, a promise that has been made before and reneged upon. The US has been joined by, of all nations, France as well as Egypt and Saudi Arabia in urging—some might say threatening—Syria to keep its promise this time. Time alone will tell whether Syria believed President Bush.

Not a domino, yet.

As recently as January 2005, Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, turned a deaf ear to calls for Democratic reforms in his country. On February 27, 2005, Mr. Mubarak reversed himself, ordering a change to his Country’s Constitution allowing competitive elections, the first challenge to his 23 year reign. Although the reforms fall far short of real Democracy—it is unlikely that Mubarak’s Presidency is in any danger of falling—it is a step in the right direction. It is clear that pressure will need to continue to be brought to bear upon him so that genuinely Democratic elections may take place. Clearly, however, Mubarak has been paying attention to Democracy’s march and it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that President Bush’s second Inaugural Address played some part in this event. There can be little doubt that the world takes Bush at his word or there would be little reason to suppose that this small step in the direction of Democracy would have taken place.

Yet another domino has fallen.

In the title of this piece, I asked: “Cause and Effect or Mere Coincidence?” There should be little doubt in any reader’s mind how I answer the question. Democracy is clearly on the march, in fits and starts, feebly in places it is true but it is marching none the less. I clearly believe that President Bush has played a key part in moving that march along.

Update: Doh! I completely forgot the elections in Palestine. It is still questionable whether Abbas will be able to rein in the more militant terrorist groups or whether continued attacks upon Israel will destroy the possitive things that have been occurring in the region since Arafat's death. Nevertheless, The Palestinians have partaken in the Democratic process, chosen their own leader and positive steps toward peace have been taken by Palestinians and Israel, both.

Yet another Domino has fallen.

Update: Is another Domino being set up? According to this article, women in Kuwait are demanding the vote. Kuwait is already a democracy but only half of the adult population are allowed to vote. So, does Bush's promise to stand by those seeking democratic reforms have anything to do with this? Well, at least one of the protest signs was in English, a language even a Texan can understand.

Is Kuwait a tottering Domino? You decide!

The question is, what do you think?

Our Next Topic for Discussion

2005-02-22T15:25:00.000-08:00

National Security seems to have attracted no takers as a topic of discussion so I'll try something else. Everyone, no doubt, has heard of the case of Terri Shiavo, the Florida woman who had a heart attack in 1990 and has since been declared to be in a persistent vegitative state. The woman's husband says that his wife did not want to have her life maintained under such conditions; her family, on the other hand, disputes the husbands claim. In fact, the family goes further, claiming, as this most recent article reports, that Terri "is able to communicate and could improve with therapy". Today there was more legal wrangling. Terri's husband won a decision from the Florida State appeals court permitting feeding tubes to be removed. Just hours later, the family rejoiced at the announcement of a 24 hour stay by the Pinellas County Circuit Court.

Personally, in the absence of a "Living Will" or a "Do Not Revive" request on the part of the patient, signed freely and in his or her right mind, the state should err on the side of life rather than death. Furthermore, we're not talking about removing equipment that is artificially maintaining Terri's life; we're talking about removing food and causing her to starve to death. To my mind, this is barbaric and indefensible. I leave it to someone else to defend it.

Together, we are smarter than any one of us alone so what do you think?

As always, there are ground rules for our discussions, which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Ward Churchill, Free Speech, and Academic Freedom

2005-02-09T13:50:00.000-08:00

There has, as yet, been no interest in discussing Homeland Security. Perhaps that's not edgy enough. Very well, how about a discussion revolving around the question:

Should the University of Colorado fire Ward Churchill?

If you don't know who Ward Churchill is or why there are many folks who think that he should be fired (and many who do not) allow me to give a quick overview. Ward Churchill is presently a tenured Professor in U of C, Boulder's Department of Ethnic Studies. He also wrote an Essay on 9/12/2001 entitled "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens in which he enumerates what he views as the United States's crimes against the rest of the world in general and against the Muslim world in particular in order to show that the attacks of 9/11 were both justified and inevitable. In this essay, he says that the Pentagon is obviously a military target and thus the attack against it was absolutely justified. He also said that, while the occupants of the Twin Towers were "civilians of a sort", they were hardly innocent, calling them "little Eichmanns"--modern day Nazis carrying out a deliberate genocidal pogrom against Islam. They were, he wrote, "willingly and knowingly" feeding the military, whose crimes he writes at length to document and were therefore also justified targets. [Post slightly edited on 2/11/05 to remove an offensive sentence].

As for my opinion, which you can read in the comments section here [note: the article and many of the comments at this site definitely do not meet the standards of discussion at Continuum and I express my opinion in this regard in the same comments section], you will find that I was definitely against firing Churchill upon First Amendment freedom of speech grounds. I find many of his comments, particularly the little Eichmanns comment, to be odious in the extreme and for this he deserves to be shunned and despised by all Americans whether within the academy or without. However, he should not, in my opinion, be fired for them. Aside from the free speech issues, the academy has long had a tradition of encouraging the exploration of competing ideas, including odious ones, through academic freedom.

Recently, however, I have become aware, through this article, of allegations that, if true, are definitely grounds, not only for firing Churchill from the U of C but for his being banned from the academy altogether. His alleged offense is academic fraud. If true (and while the charges appear to be true I am not in a position to confirm them in a "peer" sense), Churchill has made up, out of almost whole cloth, an incident of US military genocide against the Mandan Indians in 1837. The source that he cites as supporting his claim appears to do nothing of the kind. The fact that he originally made this claim in court under oath in his own defense makes his offense doubly offensive: not only has he misrepresented a source to make wholly false charges against the US military, he committed perjury in the process. He also seems to have repeated his false claims at a later date, making up new details without attribution. This is precisely the sort of action that is, and deserves to be, a virtual death sentence in the academic world.

If this proves to be true, neither the University of California nor any other University should have anything to do with Ward Churchill ever again.

Update 02/10/05: This article, too (warning, it's a long PDF file), documents Churchill's tenuous relationship with facts. Again I am no scholar and have no expertise in the area of US Government - Native American relations so I am not qualified to judge, in any peer review sense, the truth of the claims made in this article. I, rather, provide it for you're study so that you may make up your own mind whether Ward Churchill is a scholar or a fraud.

Update 02/16/05: Apparently, Ward Churchill is a plagiarist, too.
What do you think?

By the way, I will also be accepting articles concerning Homeland Security, if you'd rather talk about that. Please remember the groundrules for articles and comments, to wit:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Mandatory Health Insurance Coverage?

2005-02-04T11:08:00.000-08:00

I have a quickly expressed opinion on the manditory health insurance coverage issue in California: if this idea becomes law (and it may, I live in California, I know that we will vote for all sorts of kooky stuff), businesses will be run out of the state faster that we can hold a special election to recind the measure. Businesses like argi-business will be forced to increase crop prices giving a national impact to the nation's food supply and lowering our exports. This is a bad deal, no matter how you look at it. I agree, more people need health insurance, but this is not the way...

NoBonus

Mandatory Health Insurance Coverage?

2005-02-04T08:45:00.000-08:00

According to this CNN article, California lawmakers are considering making health care coverage mandatory, like mandatory auto insurance in Indiana, where I live, and elsewhere. It is an attempt to rein in spiraling emergency medical care debt and deal with some six million uninsured in their state. There are a number of plans being investigated. Clearly the State will have to subsidize, to some extent, those who are unable to afford coverage, placing a further strain upon the State's already strained financial situation.

My thoughts are mixed. I am for personal liberty. I am uncomfortable with the government mandating that its citizens do things. On the other hand, my home State has mandated Auto Insurance coverage, which I favor. Nothing is more infuriating than being involved in a fender-bender with a driver with no insurance, no money, and few assets. What becomes really dire is when said accident involves serious personal injury that can quickly become financially ruinous atop the pain and grief. I am for mandated auto insurance because I think it is criminal to get behind the wheel of a ton or more of steel that may end up maiming another individual without the means to reimburse the victim for medical expenses and suffering. Necessary coverage, for my car, is like $80 per month, which I gladly pay.

Health care coverage, however, is quite a different thing. I think every family ought to have health care coverage, it's the responsible thing to do but I view such a mandate as an infringement of personal liberty.

My question to you is, what do you think of a State mandating that its citizens purchase and maintain health insurance?

In composing a post or comment for our discussion, remember the ground rules which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

It's official...

2005-01-29T23:19:00.000-08:00

Iraqis are voting! I congratulate them and wish them well.

Update 1/30/05: Polls are closed. An early report of up to 72% turn out seems to have been somewhat high. Estimates now peg the number at 60% of eligible voter turn out, or about 8 million. Pretty impressive considering the threats of carnage by al Zarqawi, even in the Sunni Triangle. Sadly, there were 35 innocents killed plus 9 dead bombing scum reported but even in Fallujah, women and men came out to vote! If this is all al Zarqawi has left in his atrocious bag of tricks, he's on the tail end of his joy ride. Little Green Footballs has two emails from Iraq that are definitely worth a read.

Time for a new question?

2005-01-26T00:28:00.000-08:00

I've been lax in moving our discussion along. It's time for a new question. We have a couple of topics to choose from already. They are:

National Security; and

The proper role of Government.

As usual, I am open to other topics but perhaps we should address these first. As this is your blog as much as mine, I put it to you...

What do you want to talk about next?"

I've had my say, how about you?

2005-01-14T23:40:00.000-08:00

There are now three posts on the question:

How can it be assured that as many pregnancies as possible are wanted pregnancies so that abortions are as rare as possible?

I'm happy for everyone's contribution to our discussion. Thank you all. I am still accepting contributions and comments are, of course, welcome. Just remember the groundrules.

In composing a post or comment for our discussion, remember the ground rules which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Entry Four

2005-01-11T18:31:00.000-08:00

One of the most effective ways to minimize unwanted pregnancies is to change the current mentality about children, which is not very favorable. Children are not often seen today as blessings, but rather as financial burdens, hindrances to the adult lifestyle or (insert your favorite reason children are a drag).

As a homeschooler, I am home all day, every day, with my three children, and I can't tell you how often I have had other women tell me that they could never spend all day with their own children. Why in the world would they rather be anywhere else? I think in part, this may be because of the trend in society towards extremely permissive parenting, meaning that more and more parents are raising undisciplined and bratty children. My children are certainly not perfect, but on a normal day, when my hormones are not at their nadir, they certainly do not make me want to pack up and leave home for 10 hours each day.

The media certainly doesn't enhance our view of children, especially their financial impact. Several times every year I come across some article telling people that they can expect to spend some astronomical six-figure sum to raise each child to adulthood. The problem with these figures is that they are assuming that the cost of hospital births, fancy nurseries, day cares, sports uniforms, designer clothes, extravagant christmases, college tuitions and (insert your favorite modern "need" here) are somehow inherent in the childrearing process. My oldest is 11 years old, and including her homebirth, which cost 2,000, I can honestly say we have not spent more than 7,000 (if *that*) to raise her, and that is including medical expenses, purchasing thousands of books for our homeschooling purposes, etc.

Family life itself has been all but shattered in modern times by the rise of the institutional mindset, which includes the almost universal acceptance of working mothers, government schools and extra-curricular activities. Most family members of all ages routinely spend huge amounts of time away from their homes, building relationships with peers at the expense of family closeness. The alienation between adults and their adolescents can be directly traced to the peer mentality that dominates the lives of most children today, as their most important beliefs, interests and relationships are forged outside of their homes, in schools and by popular culture.

So much more could be said on this very important topic, not least of which is that many people are once again turning away from the anti-child mentality and embracing large families and home-centered lifestyles. This change of mindset is the most important component in ending "unwanted" pregnancies.

Samantha

Our Third Entry

2005-01-11T13:29:00.000-08:00

I’ve been pondering this question myself for some time. I attend an evangelical-fundamentalist-fire-and-brimstone sort of church, and the topic always comes up when there’s an abortion protest about why I refuse to attend.

See, I’m sort of the unwilling church poster child for the Pro-Lifers. Or, rather, I’m the mother of the poster child. When I became pregnant with my son, Joey, I had a blood clot left over from my first pregnancy. My obstetrician, a devout Catholic, came to me with the dire news. The best chance she could give me was 50:50 odds that either I would survive OR that she could save the baby. OR...not both. At the time, my daughter was five months old. I had to decide if risking my life to bring my son into the world was worth the chance that my husband might have to raise her alone. Because of my faith, I did not hesitate for a moment in my decision not to terminate the pregnancy. I’ve never regretted that decision; however, I’m glad that I live in a world where I had the right to make the decision for myself. My political beliefs, which are to a degree separate from my religious beliefs, tell me that it’s none of the government’s business whether or not I carry a baby to term. That decision was between me, my husband, our doctor and God. I’d rather Jerry Falwell and George W. Bush not have a say in the matter, as it was, quite frankly, none of their concern.

I wonder why the Christian community focuses so hard on ending abortion, when, in fact, ending unwanted pregnancy would be a much more successful campaign. I believe that one of the reasons there are so many unwanted pregnancies in our modern world is because people are out there having irresponsible sex trying to fill the emptiness in their lives. Birth control is, of course, one solution. Another solution might be for the Christian community to spend less time passing judgment about people’s private lives and more time in spreading the love of Jesus Christ. I’m not saying that churches should condone immoral behavior. My point is that Christian people nowadays seem to think they have to be the morality police, and instead of reaching out to people, they’re pushing them as far as they can go in the opposite direction.

From my standpoint as a parent, I intend to teach my kids about birth control. Teenagers have been having sex probably since about thirteen years after God created the Earth. Telling them how to prevent getting pregnant is not going to give them any new ideas. I also intend to teach them that sex, used irresponsibly, is a weapon that can ruin a life. If you’re not old enough to face the consequences of sex, you’re not old enough to have sex. Furthermore, I hope to teach them to respect their own bodies in a way that they will decide to save sex for that really special someone.

Mary Nichols

Abortion Question

2005-01-11T11:27:00.000-08:00

In response to your question: 'How can it be assured that as many pregnancies as possible are wanted pregnancies so that abortions are as rare as possible?' I tend to side with the comment by 'Maddie Dog' who said:

'Wanted'? Well, if the early preg. is carried full term then it is wanted. If aborted (early) then it is not wanted.'

Your question, you see, carries the implication that abortion is wrong (murder or whatever you want to call it). I can't buy that argument because of the overriding implication that it's any of your (or my) business what a woman does with HER potential child in HER body.

A line should have been drawn long ago -- and was in fact drawn by the Supreme Court -- its called Roe v. Wade. My philosophy: If a child is born its not your child, not my child and not society's child (unless its being neglected or abused). Likewise, if a child is aborted its still not anyone's child except the mother's and still noone's business (except the mother's).

Whymrhymer

Maximizing Wanted Pregnancies - Minimizing Abortions

2005-01-07T15:37:00.000-08:00

This post assumes the current situation under Roe v. Wade with relationship to abortion. It does not address the morality or advisability of abortion since this issue has already been discussed on this forum. Because it only addresses the question of how to bring about conditions such that unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that are sought because of them may be kept to a minimum, situations in which the termination of wanted pregnancies, either because they have been deemed necessary by a medical professional for the preservation of the life or health of the mother or because of various genetic problems impacting the viability of the unborn baby, are not addressed.

I have undertaken to answer the question: how can it be assured that as many pregnancies as possible are wanted pregnancies--or stated another way, as few pregnancies as possible are unwanted pregancies--so that abortions are as rare as possible? This question assumes that not even the most pro-choice individual finds abortions to be desirable in and of themselves but merely that free access to abortion is essential in a far from perfect world. It must be admitted, even by the most pro-life individual, that the world we live in is far from perfect.

In my opinion, we are never going to live in a world where all pregnancies are wanted. There will always be rapists and molesters who impregnate their victims. Such traumas are devastating enough to the emotional well being of the victims even without a resulting pregnancy. It would take a remarkable woman, indeed, to want to be pregnant from a rape and it seems likely that children may not safely bear children even if they so desired. These are examples of instances that, for the foreseeable future, are likely to continue to result in unwanted pregnancies.

I see no viable way to prevent these problems. Few individuals whose proclivities run to violent violation of unwilling victims and sex with children seem to be able to control themselves. There is some evidence (this is the abstract; the study itself is available in PDF format by pressing 'PDF') that, if they can become engaged in group therapy (as opposed to merely court-enforced attendance) and will admit to their culpability in the offence, progress can be made toward limiting repeat offenses. This conference report emphasizes the need for rapists to both accept responsibility for their actions and recognize the short-term and long-term consequences of their actions (p. 19) if they are to be successful in their life after release from prison. Even successful rehabilitation does not prevent the crimes, but it does limit future crimes of this nature, which does bear positively on our question. How are such successes achieved? This is beyond my scope of knowledge.

The only preventative measures of which I can conceive would be if we could discover, in advance of their crimes, which individuals will commit rapes or molest and separate them from society before the fact. It seems unlikely that a method of such discovery will be soon forthcoming. Even if we could discover genetic or psychological traits that mark likely rapists or molesters, unless or possibly even if such traits could be proven to infallibly point out future offenders, separating out such individuals before they have actually committed any crime is constitutionally problematic.

In a different category are women who, for example, would like to get a college degree and make her mark in some profession or vocation but, unfortunately, the condom broke at her most fertile moment, in other words, unplanned pregnancies that pose an impediment to the course of life planned by the mother.

Such instances can be minimized by the consistent use of more than one reliable birth control method, for example, a condom containing a spermicide and the pill. They could be eliminated altogether, of course, by abstaining from intercourse until ready for children, however, few adults, especially married adults are likely to go this route. It is, however, my preferred route for unmarried teens for whom pregnancy would completely alter their desired life course.

The sex-drive, being as strong as it is, especially in the teen-age years, it seems likely that, even with a commitment to abstinence on the part of teen girls, some will fail in their commitment and have intercourse that could result in an unwanted pregnancy. The availability of multiple forms of birth control to such teens and an understanding of their proper use and a commitment on their part to use more than one form of birth control properly and consistently will greatly reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy as discussed in the above paragraph. To provide abstinence training with no availability or knowledge of the proper use of multiple forms of birth control will likely result in more unwanted pregnancies.

Some might object that providing birth control and education in their use to young teens will result in an increase of intercourse among young teens. While I don't know that this would inevitably result, I concede the possibility. I would find that preferable, however, to the alternative, namely, unmarried teens having unprotected or improperly protected sex resulting in unwanted pregnancies and/or the transmission of STD's.

The Editor

A new topic of discussion is proposed.

2005-01-03T17:30:00.000-08:00

I hope that everyone has had a safe and enjoyable New Year celebration. It's also time for a new topic for debate. We have already discussed the question of whether stopping abortions altogether is a desirable thing. If you have not done so yet, please follow these links and read these articles and comments. This will alow you to avoid rehashing that discussion. There was a wide range of opinion but all agreed that there must be room for abortion to save the mother's life, at least, it would seem that we should discuss the question:

How can it be assured that as many pregnancies as possible are wanted pregnancies so that abortions are as rare as possible?

In composing a post for our discussion, remember the ground rules which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Our Next Question for Discussion

2004-12-28T06:38:00.000-08:00

My article on the death penalty is below. I am now accepting your articles in answer to the question:

Are you for or against the death penalty and why?

In composing a post for our discussion, remember the ground rules which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Death-Penalty Opponents Slaughter 23 on Honduras Bus

2004-12-24T21:51:00.000-08:00

Because this story is in some way connected to the Death-Penalty issue, I have published this link. Wierd. Somehow, I think that the only lives that these death-penalty opponents are interested in saving is their own.

The Editor’s take on the Death Penalty.

2004-12-21T08:54:00.000-08:00

Does the State ever, under any circumstance, have the right to deprive a person of his or her life? My own religious tradition, recognizing the authority of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Testaments of the book commonly called the Bible, answers yes. I shan’t go into a biblical defense of the death penalty since I intend to speak against the death penalty.

Although I am not against the death penalty in principle, I am against it in practice. Allow me to explain. This study review shows the extent of the problems our present legal system has with properly administering the death penalty. Read it carefully and allow it to sink in. Any system that results in 68% error respecting capital cases has serious problems that, in my opinion, render it incompetent to fairly adjudicate such cases.

One of the complaints often proffered by defenders of the death penalty is the tremendous expense and waste of time consumed by individuals on death row in the appeals process. Many want that process shortened. This study, however, shows why, in my opinion, limiting the appeals opportunities of the condemned will only exacerbate an already bad system and assure that more individuals will be executed erroneously, not fewer. Given the finality of death, the present state of affairs argues against the imposition of the death penalty.

What are the alternatives? We could expand the appeals process for individuals on death-row which would only increase the expense to tax-payers and expand the time between imposition and execution of the death sentence in the hopes that this will assure that all errors are found before execution. We could declare a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty and replace it with life-without-possibility-of-parole until we can be certain that either errors are eradicated from the system or, barring that, that all errors are certain to be caught in whatever appeals system is in place. In my opinion, the erroneous execution of even one individual is unacceptable.

Time for a new question?

2004-12-17T06:00:00.000-08:00

Discussion has slacked off now so I get the feeling that it's time for a new question. We have a number of topics to choose from already. In no particular order they are:

How to assure that all pregnancies are wanted pregnancies;

Protecting the nation from terrorist attacks;

Eliminate or minimize government interference in our lives; and

Capital Punishment.

As usual, I am open to other topics but perhaps we should address these first. As this is your blog as much as mine, I put it to you...

What do you want to talk about next?

Third post concerning a thriving economy

2004-12-15T09:37:00.000-08:00

Freedom is the most important factor in a thriving economy. The government's regulation of just about every aspect of running a business, as is common in America today, is a form of fascism.

All government licensing of professions should be repealed, from medicine, to plumbing, to child care. Licensing is simply a way for the State to extract more money from people, money which could have been saved, invested or spent in other ways. Voluntary organizations comprised of those in the profession should offer certification, if certification is desired. All government permits and regulations surrounding building should also be repealed, as this raises the cost of housing and running a business, because costs are always tacked on to the finished product.

Zoning laws should be highly curtailed or repealed altogether. People should be able to run businesses from their homes, or sell things out of handcarts if they so choose. Selling in that manner was extremely common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the descendants of those people (Jews, Italians, Irish) are now firmly established as the middle class.

Trade barriers should be abolished. People should be able to buy, sell or establish business relations in any country, without having to deal with tariffs or other protectionist measures. Foreign aid should be stopped, being replaced with capital investment in developing countries, which can certainly include charitable organizations who seek to offer loans so that people can start their own cottage industries

Minimum wage laws should be abolished, as should child labor laws. In this age of new vistas in education, namely homeschooling, young people who are not academically inclined should be free to go to work, to apprentice, etc. Both minimum wage laws and child labor laws prevent this. Social security taxes and medicare taxes should also be abolished. Employers and employees should contract together to determine wages and benefits.

Socialistic, paternalistic, government programs should be abolished. All welfare programs, the government school system, the National Endowment for the Arts, the FDA (and the list would go well beyond 1500 words). All this is money that has been stolen from productive individuals and put into supporting huge bureaucracies, in addition to squelching individual/family/church initiative in caring for the poor, in education, and in private philanthropy. Of course, this means that taxes should be slashed to the absolute minimum, including taxes on businesses, on personal income, on sales, on inheritance, and the list could go on.

Immigration laws should be repealed, except perhaps to require health screening. With no welfare state in place, immigrants are a blessing to a country as they contribute to the economy by working and by purchasing goods here.

Government subsidies of every kind should be abolished, as should price controls of every kind. Interference like this hampers the working of the market by distorting the information about supply and demand, resulting in shortages or surpluses.

Although I don't understand it very well, I do know from my limited reading that the expansion of the money supply increases inflation, and our government is printing money 24/7. A return to a sound money system of some kind, which very well may be a free market in currency rather than government monopoly, is necessary to decrease inflation.

Political, personal and religious freedom is also a necessity for a thriving economy. The American experience contrasted with the Socialist/Communist nightmare illustrates this. When people are not seen as individuals who stand and/or fall on their own merit and initiative, but rather as cogs in the State machinery, they lose incentive to be productive in all arenas of life because they know that their money will be stolen, their speech curtailed, their exercise of religion restricted. Of course, a black market always pops up in these situations, which is then the cause of increased taxation to provide police to repress it.

Regarding environmental concern, there have always been environmental problems. Before the automobile, city streets were covered with horse droppings. People used to bathe, wash, drink and throw trash into the same rivers. The free market will provide some solutions to environmental problems as people desire solutions and innovate to achieve means to increase productivity while protecting resources. The best way to do this is to enforce private property rights. If someone, for example, needs wood for their business and takes it from their own land, the incentive not to deforest is great, as their livelihood depends on those trees. Read about "the Tragedy of the Commons" (a quick google search) to see what happens to common land and resources.

I will end by saying that this is not a perfect world, and there are no perfect people. Greed exists, exploitation exists, etc., but regulation by government does nothing to change this fact, and there is every evidence that when economic decisions and control fall into the hands of the State that totalitarianism follows. It is my belief that freedom and private property (coupled hopefully with Christian ethics) is the best opportunity for the most thriving society and economy that we can expect to see in a fallen world.

Samantha

Another Take on Our Question

2004-12-15T05:04:00.000-08:00

Is a "thriving economy" in itself a proper goal or should we be

demanding more?  For example, if we have full employment but a

totalitarian state where jobs are assigned and free expression is

inhibited, the monetary economy could be great but most of us wouldn't

want to be part of it.



A thriving economy that pollutes our environment might seem to be

doing well in a short term glance but could be quite negative (even in

strictly monetary terms) long term.



Another example is that of mega-corps.  Let's say we have ADM, food

supplier to the world.  Their economic contribution is cheaper and

more plentiful food - very "thriving".  But what if they screw up and

introduce a serious problem into the food chain - something that ends

up in a big mess of chain reactions that leave us with a lot of

starving people - again, the short term benefits looked good, but a

more enlightened view might have realized that we would have been

better off with small,  inefficient and more expense individual farms.



I think I'd rather investigate what we need for a thriving society in

general.





Tony Lawrence

The First Post on Our New Topic.

2004-12-13T12:42:00.000-08:00

Let's see . . . off the top of my head I would suggest the following as requirements for a thriving economy:

1) Low or nonexistent taxation on accomplishment.
2) Sensible monetary policy.
3) Competition.
4) As little gov't regulation as we can get away with.

1) Low or nonexistent taxation on accomplishment.
Success generates capital. This capital is, by and large, reinvested into the business in many ways: R&D, capital improvements, paying competitive wages, etc.

Penalizing those who create opportunities by confiscating their legally earned wealth limits those opportunities and thus limits the economy.

This applies to supposed corporate taxation as well. [slight edit]You CANNOT truly TAX A CORPORATION. Any and all taxes are passed on to the consumer, thus lessening the ability of the end-user’s dollar to purchase goods and services. I suppose this lesson will only be learned around the same time it is understood that the whole “employer contribution to Social Security” is a myth and a scam.

2) Sensible monetary policy.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this area to comment extensively. I do know that this issue, mismanaged, can definitely halt an economy in it's tracks. I will look into this later and come back to post a revision on this point with what I have discovered would make good monetary policy.

3) Competition.

When only one company produces a product or delivers a service, that company has no incentive to improve their product/service.

Competition improves the quality of goods and services that we have to choose from to meet our needs. This encourages spending which improves the economy.

(BTW - The “it keeps prices lower” argument is a red herring in that consumer spending will set a price the market can bear regardless of the number of companies in a particular industry. People may still bitch, but if they are willing to pay it, then, by definition, it is a price the market will bear. If the sole company around sets their price above this mark, people will find not-quite-exact alternatives or do without. Most arguments of this type really boil down to “I want to pay less.”)

4) As little gov't regulation as we can get away with.

Let's face it, gov't regulation costs BILLIONS of dollars each year for questionable benefits. We must find a way to invoke _sensible_ regulations that are based on _fact_ rather than the enviro-fad-of-the-moment or this week's social-consciouness-cause-celebre.

Complete lack of regulation leads to some gross abuses by unscrupulous people. We need SOME rules to define acceptable conduct. As it stands we have _literally_ millions of words of codes and regulations which have little or no demonstrable benefit and cause definite demonstrable harm.

Every dollar spent on bad regulations is another dollar not spent on those things mentioned in point 1 above, which means lessened positive impact on the economy.

J at TAotB

A new topic of discussion is proposed.

2004-12-13T08:54:00.000-08:00

Two topics for a new discussion have been suggested: creating a thriving economy or minimizing government interference.

I propose that we explore the question:

What conditions are most conducive to a thriving economy?

In composing a post for our discussion, remember the ground rules which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

What did I do wrong?

2004-12-12T23:28:00.000-08:00

I think I blew it. We had some really good discussion here and very few problems. Suddenly...nothing. I have to assume that it's me. I hope that we can get started again. If any of you who were involved in our first discussion would be willing, please leave a comment or email me at revcraigh@yahoo.com and share with me what I've done wrong and/or what I could do better.

This really bugs me. I'm sorry. Please help me out.

Time for a new question?

2004-12-10T07:12:00.000-08:00

I don't often watch 'The Practice' but in the past two days I've watched as the legal eagles made a last ditch effort to prove that a man convicted of murdering a mother and a daughter and who was slated for death was innocent. Of course, they succeeded but only after bucking a system that seems increasingly bent upon limiting appeal options of those who have been convicted.

I am not writing to talk about a tv program. I am wondering whether it is time for a new topic for discussion. It has been some time since I received an article for post and comments have also slacked off. I'm wondering whether it is time to change topics. Since I view this as being as much your blog as mine, I put it to you.

Is it time for a change? If so, what should be our topic? We already have some suggested topics. To refresh our memories, those are: Ending abortion, which I take to mean, ways and means; Protecting the nation from terrorism; Create a thriving American economy; and Eliminate or minimize government interference in our lives. To this list, I add, without prejudice, Capital Punishment.

What do you say?

I'm Going to Have to Insist...

2004-12-09T09:09:00.000-08:00

Okay. When, in my role as moderator of this venue, I wrote:

"This ends here.
I mean it."

I meant the personalization of the comments; I didn't mean that all conversation should stop. Perhaps, however, the lull is an indication that the conversation has played itself out and that it's time to move on to a different topic.

Thoughts?

Another thing. I'm affraid I'm going to have to insist. On what, you ask? On henceforth carrying out our conversation in more neutral terms. I understand that the topics we propose to discuss here are such that inspire deep feelings. However, if you can't express your argument in dispassionate language, then what you're expressing is not argument, it's demagoguery and that's not what this site is about.

Soooooo, I'm going to have to insist. Okay?

The Editor’s long-awaited (by me, at least) post.

2004-12-09T08:51:00.000-08:00

I have written that I am not an anti-choice absolutist and I will address this point in a moment but there can be no doubt that I am extremely troubled about the number of choices being made in this country that result in the termination of pregnancies. The reason for my being troubled about this is evident in my comments in various places regarding the fact that, from the moment of conception, a distinct individual life is brought into being with genetic characteristics that are derived from but quite different than his or her parents.

What is at issue is primarily the status of the pre-born, discussed by Ms. Gloria Feldt, in her recent book The War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women’s Rights and How to Fight Back (Bantam: 2004; pp. 87ff. and elsewhere). If a fetus is deemed to be less than human, then there is no question of a right to life involved. If, on the other hand, it is deemed a person, then, in essence, the woman’s right to choose ends at the right of the pre-born to live.

I do not buy the argument that a fertilized egg is a potential human being just because he or she lacks those characteristics that we normally associate with humanity: a physically identifiable human form, consciousness, automotion, etc. All of us were once just a single cell; it’s what characterizes humans before they develop those characteristics normally associated with humanity. The problem is in applying notions of what we normally think of as characterizing human beings when applied to people on this side of the womb to human beings at their earliest stages of development within the womb. It is not a mere coincidence that, in utero, unless pregnancy is, for some reason, unwelcome, mothers consistently speak in terms of their baby; only when speaking of unwanted pregnancy do we speak of fertilized ova, blastocysts, and fetuses in discussions outside of the medical professions.

I am a Christian. One does not need to be religious, however, to be troubled by people choosing to terminate another human life, particularly when it is a woman seeking to terminate the human life within her. When Ms. Feldt (War on Choice, p.5) argues for a woman’s unfettered right to “freely and responsibly determine the number and spacing of children” she will have, she plays into my deepest fear: that women are terminating pregnancy for no other reason than their own, personal convenience (not that there are no reasons for ever terminating pregnancy) and that it is precisely the right to terminate for any reason deemed right by a woman that the most radical pro-choice advocates, such as Gloria Feldt, are seeking to protect. In a perfect world every woman would be able to choose when and whether to bear children without destroying human lives in the process. This is not a perfect world and no one can ever choose every circumstance in his or her life; pregnancy and child-birth are no exception.

By the same argument that a woman’s rights to choose ends at the pre-born’s right to live, the pre-born’s rights end at harm to the woman who bears him or her. It is on this basis that I argue against illegalizing abortion. This is not about whose life, the mother’s or the fetus’s, is more valuable, for I can see no valid argument for valuing one life over the other, it is about who is endangering whom. If the only recourse to protect the mother is to terminate the pregnancy, so be it. Furthermore, I do not see it as the Government’s place to determine in law when a mother is endangered by pregnancy; that is a matter for a medical professional to determine on a case by case basis.

To summarize, I do not hold that a woman has an unfettered right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Life is often messy and unpredictable and intervenes into every life, changing situations and reducing choices. What is most determinative is the right of every human, at whatever stage of development, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The messiness comes in when the rights of two individuals, a mother and her pre-born child, come into conflict.

Continuum: From Left To Right

2004-12-09T05:16:00.000-08:00

Now accepting articles from you in answer to the question:

Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to achieve in America and why do you think so?

Remember the ground rules: 1,000 to 1,500 words tops; reasoned debate--no personal attacks; no foul laguage; remain on topic. Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. If you have something to say, email it to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Update: There are now three articles posted immediately below in response to the above question.

Some Observations

2004-12-08T05:25:00.000-08:00

I’d like to make some observations at this point in our conversation. First, for all of the complaints by Pro-choice advocates that women’s reproductive rights are under attack by powerful white men, we have yet to receive any posts from a man, although we now have some comments by one. Admittedly, our sampling is small, but in a conversation supposedly dominated by men, it ain’t so here. Second, no one has yet to argue either for the complete removal of abortion as an option, at least in cases where the mother-to-be’s life is in genuine danger or for complete, unfettered access to abortion for any reason whatsoever even though arguments on both sides could be extended to those extremes. Third, thus far, our conversations have remained respectful. Although not all have kept their use of language to the most emotionally neutral terms available, neither did my ground-rules require this. All of our contributors are to be congratulated and I hereby congratulate you all, and thank you for your posts and your comments. Finally, I am preparing for my contribution, which should be ready for posting later today.

Keep them coming, folks.

Third Article on Abortion

2004-12-06T23:12:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately too many arguments against abortion have religious undertones. I am looking for a nonreligious reason to be against abortion. I could never have an abortion, I just feel that it would be too much for me to abort a baby, but I do not think it should be illegal for practical purposes.

This issue is so personal and not everyone even views the fetus as a baby. I understand this because the no one has been born. My belief is that the government should stay out of science. I'll leave it up to the medical community to decide whether or not abortion is seriously the threat to life that many religious people perceive it to be. (note: I am not trying to knock religious people, I just need some room to breathe the supposed separation between church and state)

But seriously, if I hear one more person say that the 'times are changing' argument is a copout I'm going to pull out my hair. Times ARE changing and the world will never be what it was yesterday. A lot of things suck in life and rape and birth defects and unwanted babies are part of our world. I guess if abortion is made illegal I sure hope that the Republicans who did this will give back their tax refunds to support the orphanages and foster homes and women's shelters so that the babies they fought so hard to protect can live a good life.

Andrea Goldman

A Different Perspective on Abortion

2004-12-06T20:44:00.000-08:00

Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to achieve in America and why do you think so?

Whether ending abortion is 'practical' or 'pragmatic' is not the issue, and whether or not it is desirable for most people also matters not at all. The fact is that by allowing abortion, the government fails in its primary job (both in terms of the Christian faith and the ideals of liberty), to protect the lives and property of its citizens (or to prosecute such harm after the fact).

Abortions belong in back alleys. They cheapen people's view of life (euthanasia follows on the heels of abortion) and hence affect the liberty of all, in addition to being an affront against God Himself. All the propaganda today which attempts to sentimentalize women killing their own children should frighten any student of history, because calling those who are unwanted less than human (as is done by using the term fetus) is the precursor to systematic destruction of whomever is 'in the way' at any given time.

The fact that over one million women hire out the murder of their own children is not a neutral issue, despite all the talk that they are just 'doing what they want with their own bodies'. Any physician will tell you that the unborn child is not part of the woman's body. It has totally different DNA and is, half the time, a different gender. It may be true to call the unborn child a parasite of sorts, but no more so than a newborn baby, and only slightly more so than a two year old. Of course, there are people today who advocate killing of born children up to a certain age, although most Americans are hypocritical enough to be horrified when a girl gives birth and then tosses her baby in the dumpster.

So, although I think 'practical' and 'desirable' are far too weak as terms for describing the importance of stopping abortion, I would say that in both the temporal realm of political liberty and the eternal realm of morality, it is both those things.

Samantha

Our First Entry

2004-12-06T15:53:00.000-08:00

Question:
Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to
achieve in America and why do you think so?

My Opinion:
Abortion has long been a subject of controversy and while it is good to believe in the value of life, it is not right to force opinions upon others.

Circumstances and reasons to get an abortion are not the same in every situation. This is 2004 and unfortunate things happen. America is not a safe haven where women can walk down a dark road without fear. Medical complications exist and forcing a woman to die, especially if she is already a mother, so a child can be born is nonsensical. Family members aren't always the kind, caring individuals they are supposed to be and take advantage of a child's innocence. Young girls make wrong decisions because of what they think is love. Some families just don't have the resources to take on another child. The number of homeless families and children in foster care is steadily rising and ending abortion would force so many more children into that life. The number of families surviving off of welfare is ridiculously high and would only get higher. Child abuse is out of control.

If someone does not want to have a child but has no other option, they will turn to the "back alley abortion" method or wait until the child is born and terminate it's life then. Abortion should be an option. Moderate it, make it hard for someone to have multiple abortions, that's fine, but don't make it impossible to get altogether. Not everyone has to like it, but they shouldn't get to take that right away from anyone else because of their beliefs. I'm not saying that abortion is right, I'm just saying that it should be included in everyone's rights. This is America. Land of the free. Free to make your own choices. Free to live your life the way you want. We should keep it that way.

-noodge

Words are important, Pt. 2

2004-12-05T20:37:00.000-08:00

In preparation for our discussion relating to Abortion, I have begun reading The War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women's Rights and How to Fight Back (Bantam, 2004) by the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Gloria Feldt. I shall refrain from discussing the argument presented, since I have read very little. I wish to discuss with reference to this book, that of which I wrote very generally yesterday.

In the Introduction to the book, Sally Blackmun, daughter of US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the majority decision in Roe v. Wade, refers to "women's reproductive freedoms", also referred to as "women's reproductive choices", as being "under serious threat" and a "crisis" (p. xvii). She goes on to describe the threat as "a war...being waged against those rights by an active, extremist minority, with frightening success on many fronts."

Notice that the pro-choice position is stated in the most positive of language: women have reproductive freedoms, choices, and rights. The result of framing the argument with this language is such as to demonize anyone whose position might result in even the slightest limits upon those rights. Unsurprisingly, those who consider themselves Pro-Life are linguistically framed as an extremist minority that pose a threat, who are creating a crisis and waging a war against women. In fact, Ms. Feldt consistently refers to Pro-Lifers as Anti-Choice (p. 4 and throughout). And she complains that the use of the term Partial-Birth Abortion is "incendiary language" designed to "deceive the American people". Is it uncouth of me to suggest that Ms. Blackmun and Ms. Feldt are likewise guilty of using incendiary language designed to deceive the American people and that by engaging in the very practice that they criticize in their opponents, they risk marginalizing themselves as being an extremist minority?

When I do suggest this, it is not without recognizing that Pro-Life people do engage in the very same thing. I mention it because there is no shortage of incendiary language in use by all sides. This very language inhibits, rather than encourages, understanding and compromise. From what I have read so far, Ms. Feldt is not interested in compromise but wants nothing short of unconditional surrender of those who are Pro-Life, however, in fairness, I have not read the whole book so this is just a preliminary impression at this point.

What's my point? I suggest that participants in our discussion not use incendiary language. While I will not edit posts, other than in the case of profanity and personal attack, it will be an assistance to understanding if we keep our language as neutral as possible, if we refer to those whose opinions differ from ours in the positive language--Pro-Choice and Pro-Life--that they use in reference to themselves, and so forth. We are after understanding here, not victory.

Words are important.

2004-12-04T19:22:00.000-08:00

Termination of pregnancy, abortion, a medical procedure, killing babies—the words we choose in talking about the act shape the course of our conversation about it. Termination of pregnancy and medical procedure are both clinical terms, designed to keep conversation as unemotional as possible because emotions are not conducive to clear thought and the weighing of risks, benefits and alternatives with a patient seeking to, well, terminate her pregnancy. Abortion is a fairly neutral term and the most common, but one closer to the emotions; we’re more apt to feel something when we hear it or use it. Killing babies is a phrase that is highly charged with emotions—primarily, anger—and is most likely to be used by Pro-Life activists protesting outside a clinic where the more antiseptic terms are used; it is designed to make those seeking an abortion aware of the consequences of the act that they seek: namely, that a baby, whose life has just begun, is going to die—their baby. It is very hard to contemplate having an abortion while focused upon the life to be ended.

It has been proposed that we take up the topic: Ending Abortion. It seems to me, however, that before we discuss ways and means of ending abortion, a prior conversation must take place centered on the question of whether ending abortion is a practical—which I doubt—or even desirable goal. Surely there are many who believe that, while abortions are far from desirable per se and that, in a perfect world, they would be unnecessary, in the world in which we actually live, they should be freely available to those for whom necessity has become a reality. I propose, for our first conversation, that we answer the question:

“Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to achieve in America and why do you think so?”

If you have an answer that conforms to these standards:

Articles for posting should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words.
Reasoned debate only; no ad hominem attacks will be permitted. This will be strictly enforced.
Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
Remain on topic.
Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable.

email it to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Let's Talk, Shall We?

2004-12-04T03:47:00.000-08:00

I have done the "This is my political opinion" blog and it no longer is what I'm after. What I want to do is a more communal blog where various writers, maybe even you, post on a certain political or social topic which, then, is discussed by people with various viewpoints.

Here is what I have in mind:

I’d like to hear your ideas for topics of discussion: you can leave suggested topics in comments here or I can be reached at revcraigh@yahoo.com; all topics will be considered. I will collate the topics and publish a list here.
Once we have the topics, I will suggest one to be the topic for discussion.
I will then accept articles on the discussion topic via email. Depending on how many I receive, I may select what I view to be the best from among the submissions and publish them on the new blog.

These will form the basis for a conversation to which anyone may contribute: hard Right to Far Left; hence the title.

There will be ground rules, of course. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic and be kept reasonably short. Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable.

So what do you think?

I have received four topics for discussion from Sara over at Somewhat Silent. They are:

- Ending abortion.
- Protecting the nation from terrorism
- Create a thriving American economy
- Eliminate or minimize government interference in our lives

All are relevant, important, and certain to generate viewpoints from each end of the spectrum. Just the sort of topics wanted.