Let's consider the invented public debate regarding first trimester abortion. This issue can be personal, social, moral and/or religious but should never have become political. The US constitution guarantees, among other freedoms, the freedom to believe in the religion of one's choice; and it cannot pass laws which restrict those freedoms.
Now, before anyone starts the false argument that people who believe in murder, theft, rape, and other heinous crimes could just claim that they were behaving according to their unique religion's beliefs, let's try a more honest approach. One must keep in mind that most significant contribution to society of religion, whether or not one believes in one, was to civilize people as they transformed from small communities of hunter/gatherers into citizens of villages, towns and then cities. There needed to be rules of conduct which could be universally accepted and adhered to. Clearly, it could not be OK to murder or attack one's neighbor, steal his or her spouse and belongings, or destroy someone's livelihood or reputation unfairly. No reasonable, thinking person or group could deny the need for laws which provide protections sufficient for diverse groups of people to live together in peace.
However, no government whose founding premises include respecting religious differences can impose laws based on beliefs which are not universally shared. For example: Many religions have rules and traditions governing such things as the types of foods one may or may not eat, certain behaviors (e.g., working on the Sabbath, marrying outside the faith), which holidays to celebrate, and where and when to pray. None of these can be codified into federal law because of the lack of universal acceptance makes it unconstitutional to legislate them.
So, when discussing restricting or banning early abortion, the issue which must be addressed is to what degree is the belief that a fetus in its early stages is alive and that life begins at conception universally held. Centuries of debate between religious factions are clear evidence that it is not.
A little historical perspective: For the better part of its history, the Catholic Church did not have a clear and consistent stance on the status of a fetus as a living being with a soul. Abortion at times was a sin as a remedy for a woman who had had sex outside of marriage and not because of concerns about murder or the sanctity of life. Southern Baptists were pro-choice until 1979. Theologians have long had diverse and evolving opinions.
For example, for years, Catholics were taught that life began at quickening, which is when the holy spirit entered the fetus and caused it to move; this typically occurred around the end of the first trimester of a pregnancy. What a woman did prior to that was a woman's business, and the church was not involved. It was only in the 1800s that a pope decreed that life began at conception and that any abortion was forbidden. Even if one believes in the pope's infallibility, and that his and god's decisions cannot be challenged, the fact that the church changed its stance on the issue is proof positive that the origin of life is and has been a matter of faith, and not a universally held truth.
For those in line with the church's position, any abortion is a sin; however, calling it murder and comparing it to killing one's neighbor is a religious rather than objective statement. There can be no debate that one's neighbor is alive; this is universally accepted. Since the same cannot be said about a two-month-old fetus, forcing everyone to comply with one particular religion's definition is a violation of one's constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.
Let's not forget that the USA is a democracy. Polls have consistently shown that the majority of women in this country, even those personally opposed to abortion, believe it should be legal for an adult woman to choose to have a first-trimester abortion. And here is where the deception comes in: Those who have decided to politicize this deeply personal and private issue have shown either their ignorance or willful disregard for the words and intent of the First Amendment which "....prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion ...(and ensures) that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion." And, whereas politicians as citizens have the right to believe what they will, the only reason for including this issue in a political platform is to further one's career and quest for power by winning over like-minded constituents who, because they believe strongly in abortion as sin, will support the candidate financially and politically.
An interesting fact: None other than Bob Jones III, of Bob Jones University, a very conservative, evangelical organization, came out during an interview with Bill Moyers against outlawing abortion. He explained that his calling, and that of his flock, is to convince every woman in America that abortion is a sin. Thus, if a woman who did not believe abortion to be a sin was denied one because of legislation, then the church had failed in its mission to save her soul.
As more and more cultures pass legislation allowing for same-sex unions, many who are opposed cite religion’s longstanding condemnation of this behavior. Proponents of LGBT causes cite evidence of gay and transgender people in ancient and primitive cultures which accepted homosexuality in certain circumstances. Whereas this may be helpful in winning hearts and minds, a more useful and strategic approach is to simply remind folks of the words and intent of the constitution.
The United States is more than a country- it is by design a unique approach, also known as The Great American Experiment, to government. As opposed to other, older countries and civilizations, which often started off as monarchies, empires or theocracies, the USA is founded on the notions of individual freedoms and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. These values are truly modern as guaranteed, governing principles, and they have led to a previously unheard of level of personal fulfillment. They ensure that any mutually-agreed-upon behaviors by consenting adults which do not infringe upon the rights of others must be legal and protected. Remember that our democracy depends on protecting the rights and well-being of minorities; from its earliest days of existence as a country, the US has been a haven for those escaping persecution and discrimination.
In that light, it is not remotely legal or appropriate to contest the rights of adult, law-abiding citizens to marry whomever they please. The disingenuous arguments against often cite every perverse behavior from bestiality to rape to child sexual abuse, none of which meet the all-important requirement of mutual consent by adults. There are clear laws against rape, child abuse; even older minors who claim to consent do not have the legal right to do so. Those who officiate at weddings acknowledge the importance of consent when they ask "Do you take this person..." and each person must day "I do." (To reassure the under-informed, those who might want to formally unite with barnyard animals or inanimate objects cannot prove consent.) All adults of sound mind are entitled to unions sanctioned by the state. Whether religions approve or disapprove of same-sex marriage is up to them; a member may attempt to change a church’s policy but may not legally force what is a private organization not to have its own rules. Affiliating with a particular religion and adhering to its rules are voluntary choices, and disaffected members may leave their churches while still being productive citizens; state and federal laws are by definition mandatory and cannot be avoided without abandoning the country which promises freedom and protection.
A Brief History:
In the past, it was the need to survive that dictated which rules and commandments had to be created and shared. Staying alive and raising a large family was necessary and a full-time job. Any distractions from the objective could mean the end of the line. Romantic love and emotional and sexual fulfillment were not only indulgent, but selfish, as they were based on the individual, rather than the whole. Seeking one’s soulmate or perfect partner was then an unheard of and dangerous luxury. If a young man lusted after his neighbor’s wife or husband, or one woman longed for another, following those desires would directly threaten a stable and, hopefully, growing tribe which was usually one war, natural disaster or calamity away from extinction.
Now, no discussion of homosexual desire in history can omit those boy-loving Greeks. Here again, let’s look at the context. In those ancient days of empire, armies were all male and spent years of their lives getting to and from the battlefields. Transporting thousands of soldiers and the provisions needed to feed and house them was a massive enterprise. Add to that the fact that soldiers were generally physically and sexually potent; and there were insufficient females to meet their needs. In this context, and in a culture which did not condemn homosexuality, it made sense to idealize and promote a cult of male bonding in order to keep them united and prevent them from raping newly conquered citizens.
Throughout history, most western religions have condemned same-sex behaviors. However, in practice, many often followed, and still do, the doctrine of don’t ask don’t tell. Theocracies allow men and women to mix only when married. Unmarried men often have sex with other males; and men often use boys for sex, as practical for the man and instructive for the boy. This is not to be confused with liberalism; it simply means that, unofficially, as long as a man manages to do his job as a husband and father, same-sex encounters in certain circumstances were not discussed.
Also, historically, fifty percent of children died before puberty. Today, childhood mortality has been vastly reduced. In a workforce with jobs and pensions, girls are just as valuable as boys; so, rather than having numerous children with the expectation of half surviving, a couple can have two or even none. Due to financial security and retirement accounts, marriage and parenting may not be required for survival. Romantic love is encouraged, as is personal fulfillment, either as a single or married person. In fact, many argue, there are too many people and inadequate resources to sustain our overpopulated planet.
With the precedent of China’s instituting a one-child policy, which has since been revoked, it might be more practical to promote unions, hetero- and homosexual, which do not produce offspring. In modern cultures which honor individual rights, the increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships, more people are willing to openly explore and express attractions which, previously forbidden, fall somewhere on the spectrum between allowed and celebrated.
I don’t consider myself naïve or particularly sentimental, but I’m pretty sure that, if our politicians are setting the bar for what our public discourse has become, we’ve all lost our minds. I seem to remember a time when public figures, many of whom have had massive egos and competitive natures, still had some regard for knowledge, at least an appearance of integrity, and an understanding of the issues they debated.
I remember learning in school the rules of debate where one’s opinions or positions had to be based on or supported by facts. In the past, when a public figure misspoke or out-and-out lied, the entire adult community, especially the media and others in power, called out the guilty party and, if that person did not recant or apologize, he or she would not be given a microphone again.
In politics, when a congressman said something inappropriate or incorrect, not only would his opponents happily point out his error, but even his supporters would reprimand him with comments like “With all respect to my esteemed colleague, he’s completely off the mark here.” Now when a speaker errs or spouts convenient nonsense, everyone on his side of the aisle remains silent, which implies agreement, or even openly agrees, since they are under orders above all to show solidarity and party loyalty. So, when only his opponents cry foul, they are labeled as partisan. Suddenly inaccuracies and lies become topics of debate, as if they were tenable positions, when in fact they are based on nothing but a need to make oneself look right and good and the other side look wrong and bad.
Let’s look at the Global Warming “debate.” There was a time when reasonable people didn’t question scientific data showing that the planet was warming. Nobody who was not a scientist would weigh in to argue facts arrived at through the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, supporting evidence and replication. Those who did speak to the facts were qualified based on their education, training and experience.
Whereas non-scientists could have and express different feelings and opinions about the facts, the facts themselves were not up for debate. Those corporate interests and industries who were worried about the potential expense of efforts to mitigate climate problems would argue either that the costs outweighed the benefits or that such efforts would have no effect. As this position became less and less tenable, and as facts and opinions became interchangeable, those defenders of the status quo took the logical next step and declared the science itself to be debatable. Knowing that it would be easier for uninformed people to understand, they simply lied and denied the incontrovertible evidence of global warming.
This new approach, where, in order to simplify matters and avoid nuance, people find it easier to challenge facts and declare them opinions and thus open to question, has won the day. It has led to a complete and culture-wide breakdown in informed, reasoned debate. All facts (Gravity? How babies are made?) can be unmade and then mocked or disregarded; opinions are now based on other opinions. Misinformation and disinformation have become the order of the day, resulting with a massively ignorant and easily-manipulated populace waving banners with such inanities as “Get your government hands off my social security” and slick-looking websites denying the moon-landing, the holocaust or anything else that doesn’t support a person or group’s world view.
Copyright © 2024 You've Been Had - All Rights Reserved.