It seems to me we have a great lack of intelligent discourse in this country right now. What bothers me most is that we aren't even talking about the root issues. For example, people posturing for presidential runs are saying things like "if I knew then what I know now about Iraq I wouldn't have voted for it..." I interpret this as saying if there were weapons of mass destruction I would not be against the war or the troop escalation. Let's play a thought game for a minute and take a theoretical look back at would could have happened. If we invaded Iraq, removed Saddam, took over the country, chaos takes over as it has BUT we found enriched uranium or other strong evidence of WMDs. What would be different? Well, the world at large might be slightly more supportive of the war but I don't see how Iraq would not be still in chaos. Is there anything in the finding of some sort of WMD stockpile that means Iraq would now be a nice, stable, peaceful society? Of course not, I think Iraq would be in more or less the same state regardless. You voted on your politics 4 years ago, don't deny it. If there were WMDs, what would you say now? Yes, Iraq is absolute chaos but we found WMDs, so we should send in 21,500 more troops? And what the hell, let's get Iran too just in case? That's a terrible argument, but I think it's the argument being made.
To me, the root cause of disagreement is rarely the focus of debate. I blame the media for not pushing it and politicians for not having the strength to point this out. Let's take another example: abortion. What is the abortion debate? Well, it looks like an argument of women's choice versus pro-life. If I break this down in my head, the debate is a single point, something that a physicist would call a singularity, and here it is: when does human life begin? If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder and already covered by existing murder laws. If life begins at birth or when the fetus can feel pain or when the fetus looks like a little tiny human or at some point after conception, then, in your opinion, after that point, abortion should be murder. However, before this point, it is not and should be legal. Is it possible to believe life begins at conception but that abortion should still be legal? How does that work? It's OK to kill really tiny lives? If so, email me because I can't get my head around that one but I'm open to considering it. Ignoring complexity of rape or incest, I don't think that is a rational argument. To me, and I realize this might seem like an oversimplification although I don't think it is so I beg your patience , the core question (indeed, the only question or, perhaps more accurately, the initial question) in the abortion debate is only when life begins. However, that is not the debate I see on TV or in the magazines. As I understand it, and I'm no legal scholar, abortion is legal based on a right to privacy. If you believe conception begins at birth, abortion is murder plain and simple. If you don't believe that, then, and only then, can you believe the women should have the right to terminate her pregnancy. There isn't any right to privacy if you kill your 3 year old in your own home? However, a 3 year old is obviously human. A fetus? I agree that is open for debate. If only it were the debate... The Supreme Court needs to rule on when life begins and that will define the law. I think the Supreme Court should take that up, but not until I'm sure that my side will win...
For the record, I agree with the "women's right to privacy" issue only because I don't think a fetus is a life until it is born. That is why I think stem cell research should be legal. That's me, feel free to have your opinion. Don't worry, I don't mind, I accept the fact there are lots of wrong people in the world.
You know what's odd about this blog? I intended to talk about Exxon and their extreme profit. Hmm, maybe I'll get to that later.
No comments:
Post a Comment