Seth's politics

[Sethomas]

I wrote this for an ultra-conservative Catholic message board, but it basically explains how and why I lean politically the way I do.

One thing that irks me in political discussion is the use of the word “liberal”. That being said, most people would call me a “liberal” in most issues; I support same-sex civil unions (reserving the appellation of marriage for strictly religious ceremonies), I believe the present economy should be more collectivistic, I would like to see greater separation of Church and State, I believe that civil liberties should not be encroached upon any minority, I opposed the Iraq war, I feel that the United States should heed more respect to the world community (it has never even paid in full its insipidly paltry dues to the United Nations, despite having been granted the honor of hosting its facilities). To the contrary, I do hold very conservative personal reservations. I believe in an active deity (particularly that corresponding to the Roman Catholic faith), I feel that financial reward should be commensurate with personal effort, and, most incongruous with my designation as a bleeding-heart liberal, I feel that abortion is an abomination against which there should be strong legislation.

I was sixteen during the 2000 elections, but had I been of age I would have voted for George W. Bush. I thought he was a moron at the time, but I conceded the possibility that maybe having a simpleton as Commander in Chief would be worthwhile if he were to instigate anti-abortion legislation. When it became clear within the first few months of his office how small a priority morality was to him, I immediately felt embarrassed for having been deceived. When it became clear that Bush was to blame for overlooking the intelligence prognosticating 11 September 2001, it made me literally ill to think I had once supported him. Popular conspiracy theory holds that Bush actually orchestrated the World Trade Center attacks, but I find such an idea juvenile. However, I find it most likely that Bush was in the same chair as Franklin Roosevelt probably was in with regards to the Pearl Harbor attacks: preemptive amelioration was avoided as to profit from tragedy.

And so, at age twenty I voted for Senator Kerry in the presidential races. I did not do this because I approved of Kerry in the least, but rather because he was the only candidate who had not already proven what a failure he would render himself in the president’s chair. Abortion was not an issue—if it had been, Bush would have worked to those ends in his first term. I simply voted because I didn’t want to carry the blame of political apathy.

The central reason for which I am “liberal” is that I have internalized the value of altruism. I cannot speak of my works as an altruist, lest I be praying loudly in the streets to be heard. However, I am perfectly free to speak of my ideals. At age fourteen I studied for Academic Team the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, and the one thing that stuck in my head from his writings was the resurrection of an old phrase by Plautus: Homo homini lupis est (Man is a wolf to other men). The upside of Hobbesian philosophy is that government is inevitable as society grows. This opens the possibility that a governing body can force people to be nice to one another. This begins with the imposition of legal sanctions for ne’er-do-wells, but it opens the possibility of imposing social equity.

I’ve read Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and Adam Smith and Emile Durkheim and an onslaught of other titans of economic thought. From this, I’ve developed varying sentiments about communism. I speak about communism because it is polar extreme of what is popularly called “liberalism”. Communism is founded on good intentions. I’ve heard that maxim many many times since high school economics, and it holds true. What I’ve never read but have personally formulated is this: the essence of communism is the idea that all things bad about capitalism should not be amended, but annihilated. The earliest modern communist that I have in my memory was a post-Revolutionary Frenchman by the name of Fourrier. To read Fourrier’s writings is to batter off the inclination to laugh hysterically at social naiveté, until one attempts to empathize with a person who just lived through the Reign of Terror. When the risibility of Fourrier’s ilk was realized, what filled the gap were national and religious-oriented socialist parties who wished not to wipe out capitalism, but to correct it.

What I have to say about Karl Marx is that he had a remarkably astute perspective on reality and a glaring deficiency in realism. Marx assumed that Europe was on the brink of revolution, and as such he not only chastised such socialist parties as the Roman Catholic socialist parties of the 1840s and other nationalistic socialist parties as being ineffectual, but he denounced them as worthless and short-sighted. Marx conceded that communism could only take root if it were to spring at the global level. He most likely realized that this would require a virtual cataclysm, but he died optimistic regardless.

According to Marx: Religion denigrates the unity of the human being—abolish it. Free enterprise tends to result in alienation (Entäuserung) between the worker and the consumer—abolish it. Accumulated wealth (Das Kapital) invariably results in disparity—abolish it. Inheritance perpetuates social inequity—abolish it… and while you’re at it, the family structure.

I point this out because few people realize how polarized communism really is. Thus, calling a socialist a communist is no more appropriate than calling a libertarian a fascist. With that clarification, I am a free-market socialist. I believe in a redistribution of wealth, but I also believe that free enterprise is the propellant of any sustainable economy. What this amounts to is essentially the popular Western European system: heavily progressive taxation and strict regulation of labor and quality standards. The central fault at present with the European system is the lack of economic mobility, but in my opinion the blame for this falls mostly upon the educational system.

I guess I should explain my use of quotes in the term “liberal”. I have no idea from whence the American political nomenclature came, but it’s diametric with common sense. Liberalism was first referred to as an economic system—perfect liberty of the market from the government. In the Old World terminology, liberal refers to an espousing of laissez-faire market ideology. Apparently, American politicians decided to apply the term to perfect liberty of everything except the market, and the inchoate Democratic Party of the late 20th Century was stuck with the misnomer.

What liberalism means to me, in the American sense of the term, is a favoring of the population at large versus total lack of imposition upon the individual. The problem is, both political parties work toward and against this ideal aggressively. The Democrats, most obviously, favor progressive taxation that suit social programs to promote economic parity. Republicans, however, are somehow associated with morality and so do not flinch away from restricting personal liberties under the guise of “family values” or other such hubristic nonsense. As an altruist, it’s obvious which party I should favor.

The Democratic Party does have the fault that it expects perfect assimilation of ideas in regards to personal liberty. This is harmless in most cases; at worst, some rich white kid would lose a scholarship to a minority student or other such non-issues. However, in the case of abortion this fault resonates deadly. So, the idea of abortion requires some exploration. The most common misconception is that liberals love abortions, as if pro-choice women simply can’t resist having sex only to destroy the consequential embryo. The vast majority of pro-choice liberals see abortion as a last-resort tragedy. Many pro-choice advocates concede that abortion often leads to downfalls such as regret or depression.

From a catholic perspective, it is sinful to be pro-choice, even if this entails personal abhorrence to the practice itself. The practice of abortion is by any face a social evil. However, the prerequisite for sin requires an awareness that one’s actions are evil. If one is disillusioned by the quip that what is aborted is simply undifferentiated tissue, then they are not deliberately sinning. (Note that a Catholic cannot possibly hold this in her defense, as it contradicts Church teaching.) So, a sin is committed when an abortion is undertaken, but the evil lies in the ignorance. To call an abortion advocate evil, then, is asinine as she is not deliberately violating her own sense of right and wrong. Historically there have been abortion advocates who could merit the label of evil in that they abused “women’s rights” as a fuel for their own gain or misguided views, (exemplia gratia, Margaret Sanger’s eugenic idealisms), but it is puerile to believe that such people represent a majority.

I would love to see abortion rendered illegal in all cases but when the mother’s life is endangered. However, quite likely this is a pipe dream. What I do consider far more probable, and incumbent upon the pro-choice alley, is the possibility of banning abortion as a market. Planned Parenthood, for example, operates with enormous profit margins. If the sad reality is that abortion shall remain legal, it is only sane that there be no capital incentive for an abortion to be undertaken. That is, abortion mills should not have the opportunity to profit from undertaking the procedure. What this likely means is an incorporation of the industry into a state function that presents the information clearly, concisely, and gravely.

[theapportioner]

Why make the exception for when the mother's life is endangered? It's not like we would condone bombing a village to contain an epidemic, even if it would save more lives in the long run.

What do you consider the moral status of the fertilized egg? Is it a 'potential' human life or already a human life? Do you oppose morning after pills/embryonic stem cell research?

[Preechr]

Way to zoom in on just one particular aspect of a guy's ideology, man.

[Big Papa Goat]

ya, way to zoom in on the only contreversial thing he said that took up about half the post
way to go

[Preechr]

Yeah.

Way to go.

[Sethomas]

Why make the exception for when the mother's life is endangered? It's not like we would condone bombing a village to contain an epidemic, even if it would save more lives in the long run.

Well, I'm not saying that someone would HAVE to sacrifice their child for the sake of their own lives, but from a utilitarian perspective it's just one life over another. I don't think it's the State's right to declare what lives are worth more than others. Historically mothers died for their children with chilling regularity, but also historically they didn't have the choice--it was either die by surgery and have a child or die by complications and see two deaths.

What do you consider the moral status of the fertilized egg? Is it a 'potential' human life or already a human life? Do you oppose morning after pills/embryonic stem cell research?

I avoided the question of morning after pills because my views on the subject are, I confess, murky and metaphysical. I consider the fertilized egg a human life, but from a religious perspective only God has the prescience to know whether or not it's has a soul. The reason I don't simply equate the morning after pill with abortion at the religious level is that such a high percent of zygotes are destroyed naturally by their phase in the menstrual cycle in the same manner as the hormone overdose incurs.

So, even though I believe life begins at conception, I'd say that life shouldn't be defined by the State until it has established its viability in the womb. I'm sure you know better than I do when that lines is crossed, I've never taken an embryonic development class. My point is that this is indeed very early in pregnancy, my guess is maybe a week? At any rate, it's in most cases long prior to the present legal allowance for abortion.

As for embryonic stem cell research, if babies are going to be aborted they may as well serve some purpose in the long run. However, the corruption I see in the system is that there has been a very lucrative business for abortion clinics to sell the remains to laboratories, which violates my principle that abortion clinics should be economically neutral.

If we want to be counterfactual, obviously if abortion were banned at present I wouldn't support embryonic stem cell research. I think that there's reason to be optimistic that, by the time (if and when) abortion becomes illegal, technology will be sufficient that we may obtain viable stem cells from other sources.

[kahljorn]

Christopher's Thanksgiving.

[ziggytrix]

What do you consider the moral status of the fertilized egg? Is it a 'potential' human life or already a human life? Do you oppose morning after pills/embryonic stem cell research?

I avoided the question of morning after pills because my views on the subject are, I confess, murky and metaphysical. I consider the fertilized egg a human life, but from a religious perspective only God has the prescience to know whether or not it's has a soul.

But you earlier said "Note that a Catholic cannot possibly hold this in her defense, as it contradicts Church teaching."

Isn't contraception of any sort sinful by Church teaching? Which is sorta understandable since people used to think that sperm was some kind of human-seed that mystically grew inside a woman's abdomen. But wouldn't a morning after pill be even worse than ordinary contraceptives under official Church doctrine? So are you working strictly with all Church doctrine in your philosophy or just the stuff that isn't kinda crazy in a modern light?

[ScruU2wice]

so you have to believe in all of a churches policies, or none of them..

christians it's back to feudalism..

[Big Papa Goat]

I think your period button is broken scru

[ScruU2wice]

I think you're being petty, but I'm not quite sure.

[Sethomas]

Ziggy: I was speaking of politics at large, not what is most morally sound. Morallity should only limit liberty where it encroaches on the life of another. So, in most cases it's sinful for a Catholic to be on birth control, but whether or not a secular society should have it banned is a totally different question, to which I generally lean toward the negative.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So, in most cases it's sinful for a Catholic to be on birth control, but whether or not a secular society should have it banned is a totally different question, to which I generally lean toward the negative.

But does God care about a nuanced, secular society?

Mario Cuomo, in one of his many scholarly rants, has made a similar argument as a Catholic in defense of abortion and birth control. I think it's a valid argument, because to persecute the decisions and freedoms of one group leaves an other open for persecution down the road. A secular society with the freedom to practice, yet the protection against encroachment, may be the most ideal setting for all religious practice.

However, if you are to believe the Bible, if you are to believe the book of Acts, or the writings of Peter, then isn't it your obligation to defy the earthly laws of the state and spread the Good News (that is, if you believe preventing abortions is consistent with scripture)?

[Preechr]

No.

Christians are instructed very clearly to get along with whatever government they are subject to at any given moment. They are not even instructed to move if the environment gets too messed up and they start feeling all wierd and stuff.

Well, that's an answer to the question I think you were asking. You actually asked at least two completely different questions, but I'm thinking that's because English is not your first language. Maybe you just suck at grammar.

The Bible... at least the "Christian" part... doesn't instruct followers to force anybody to believe or practice much of anything.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Show me where in the Bible it says to always get along with the government you are in, aside from all the Ceasar to Ceasar stuff. Provide some other examples.

Also, maybe you should read the books I mentioned, and then tell me that a Christian's duty (as layed out by folks such as Peter and Paul) is to be quiet and pay your taxes.

MAYBE READING ISN'T YOUR FIRST LANGUAGE, BITCH!! WHAT!?

[Sethomas]

I think the absence of any political guidelines speaks volumes on that subject, unless you keep in mind that Jesus was a socialist in a religious sense. As for imposing socialist government, I think the "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" statement you mentioned does give Christianity the liberty to adopt any godless government it requires. That statement was brought up in Scripture because of the transgressions of the Roman State upon the Jewish religion. You could argue that Jesus was only saying "sure Rome is evil, but at this point in time you'd get your ass wipped anyways." He did predict the Fall of the Temple, after all.

I personally believe that Jesus had the prescience to be able to say "American leftism is WRONG!", but he didn't. He told tax collectors and whores to "sin no more", but he never told anyone to ostracize sinners.

Plus, you may have heard of the conservative political philosopher Jean Beth Elshtain. I was in a class she taught on Augustine's De Civitate Dei, and she was quite clear on the matter that Augustine never intended the City of God to take place on Earth. So, if theocratical impositions of the state go against Augustine, then I'm all for secularism.

Someone at the Phatmass forums keeps bringing up the fact that the Catechism states that the State must concede that it derives its power from God, but I feel that this simply means it's our responsibility to choose moral leaders. As a metaphysical body, the State can't really concede much of anything except through its legislation and social programs. The purpose of the State is to mutually benefit the human race, and it makes perfect sense for that to entail the unborn.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I agree with you for the most part, and I think you and I hold a very similar perspective on the government/faith relationship.

However, while I agree with you (and perhaps St. Augustine?), I think you could pull out other pieces of the Bible to justify action. I don't think a Christian should alienate or hate sinners, for obvious reasons. But isn't it the duty of a Christian to call out a system that goes against the teachings of Christ?

For example, Peter defied the Sanhedrin, and defied tradition and custom by reaching out to the Gentiles. I don't think this means Peter hated the authorities, or that by doing these works he intended to recreate Heaven on Earth. But it does tell me that the role of the Christian has been to teach and to challenge, not to be quiet and equivocal, IMO.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think the "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" statement you mentioned does give Christianity the liberty to adopt any godless government it requires. That statement was brought up in Scripture because of the transgressions of the Roman State upon the Jewish religion. You could argue that Jesus was only saying "sure Rome is evil, but at this point in time you'd get your ass wipped anyways." He did predict the Fall of the Temple, after all.

On this point, isn't this scripture always prefaced by the fact that they were trying to trick Jesus? You could also argue that Jesus was simply refusing to fall into their Jedi mind trick.

[Sethomas]

You will BURN for implying that Jesus was being insincere. >:

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't mean he lacked sincerity. But the tone of the scripture seems to imply that Jesus was sort of whatever about the whole thing. Like, "oh, this meaningless hunk of monetary value is important to Ceasar? Uh, ok, then give it to him."

[Sethomas]

I understand what you were saying. I just take a metaphysical consequence approach to Scripture (I plan on writing a book on the subject), so I tend to believe that the Inspired Word is written like it is for a reason. I agree that, to Jesus, the whole thing was a non-issue; people were being assholes and wanted to trip him up, and he saw through it. But I also believe that God would have inspired it to be written a little differently if He wanted us to believe in absolute libertarianism or whatever else.

[kahljorn]

Isn't the reason for all this scripture regarding sex(and contraceptives, despite not being mentioned in the bible) relate to the fact that sex is supposed to be a "Holy" or special thing, rather than something to simply throw around at whoever/whenever?
If you look at that through, "Metaphysical consequence" couldn't there be a good reason for that rule? I'm not saying that a secular government shouldn't be able to do it's own thing, that's part of why I liked Kerry so much. However, how could any catholic who supports their religion possibly believe in allowing society to continually degrade itself further and further? How could any decent human being do that in general?
To put it simply, the metaphysical consequence of allowing sex to reach the point it is now is tons of shitty people and children who can't be supported. Stupid girls who are sluts and aren't satisfied unless they are getting fucked everyday and getting knocked up. When sex has so little meaning attached to it, how about the result of them-- children? What is the metaphysical consequence of children who are accidents or inconvenieces? We've already stepped passed the point of the bible, fuck this contraceptive argument. Society has already entered into what the bible was supposed to prevent; why fight it? It has already failed.
There's generally reasons why morals and such are designed, usually it has to do with the millions of unwed teenage mothers who's children will be drug addicts and mentally fucked in the head, incapable of donating much to society. But then, in our government who really cares. You're not supposed to be able to get divorced either, but for the convenience of catholics and christians and hindus and atheists and whoever else everywhere in the US; a treat. Abortion clinics might as well setup in convenience stores, between the porn isle and fly traps.

Essentially, the bible was supposed to prevent an immoral society, but we've already stepped past that-- especially as pertaining to sex.

p.s. I'm not saying that's the entire point of the bible, just one of it's more important facets especially in light of, "Metaphysical consequence". Also, I'm really tired so I didn't use shiny language in my post ;(

[Sethomas]

I think that society should be as moral as possible. But that's not the responsibility of the State.

[kahljorn]

I thought that was part of the purpose of having a governing body. I'm not really saying that they (religion and government) should interfere with eachother one way or the other with that, though.
Aren't civil liberties and rights essentially an extension of morals; isn't law basically the personification of them? Do you propose an immoral government with an immoral Law?
Morals don't necessarily need to be religion oriented.

I didn't read your whole essay because it was too long, so I don't know if you already discussed that.

p.s. I have this belief that governments are partly responsible for the type of citizens it develops.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think that society should be as moral as possible. But that's not the responsibility of the State.

Your are now in the Preechr quote book.

You, Sir, have arrived.

Anyway, Seth, I agree with your outlook, which means I need to hurry up and buy your book. ;)

[Sethomas]

That's one thing that really irks me about modern American politics, the symbiotic relationship between Libertarianism (particularly how manifest in the Neocon movement) and Conservativism. Conservatives look to the Libertarians for logical consistency (however myopic it may be), and the Libertarians look to the GOP for political hegemony. In the short run it works for them, but it accrues so much logical fallacy that it's painful. In the end it looks like they want a government who does nothing except defend the rich and tell everyone else not to do what they want.

Aren't civil liberties and rights essentially an extension of morals; isn't law basically the personification of them? Do you propose an immoral government with an immoral Law?
Morals don't necessarily need to be religion oriented.

That depends on how you define morals. In a JS Mill/Thomas Hobbes manner, civil morality boils down to protecting the individual from everyone else, as "Homo homini lupus est" (Hobbes' favorite quote from Plautus). Religion adds to morality, but as Christ said, His "Kingdom is not of this world". Abortion has been shown, for example, to incur a great deal of suffering upon a human being. To overlook that for net convenience is no more consistent than infanticide.

[kahljorn]

I guess that is how I define morals, in a way, "Protecting the individual from everyone else". Most people can agree that they don't want to die, be stolen from or have anything else bad happen to them. There's plenty of morals people can agree on.
Rather than being based on God or any religously inspired ideas, I tend to base my moral system around one that allows society to exist in a state in which people will be safe from other people, and also safe from themselves. It does absolutely no good to have a system of laws protecting citizens, wherein through their immoral actions/mind-frames they become capable of harming themselves. I sometimes think it's immoral to raise people into being masochistic shells of humanity.

Personally I feel the morality of the government reflects upon the people, not only in a developmental fashion but also in more direct matters. Which is why I think Government should be some kind of moral epitemy. To me, the basic goal of the Government is the raising of healthy, productive citizens to further the development of the nation. Considering the government plays a large part in the education of it's citizens, I feel it should be capable of bringing children up to be moral citizens who are fully capable of thought and of whole-some moral character-- contributions to society. Without that you have a nation full of jackasses. Without the people within the nation, you have no nation nor culture. The individuals who comprise it are the most important thing(ideally). The more productive the citizens, the more productive the nation.

However, I can see what you're saying. There's people who go, "It's wrong to commit murder" and other people who think it's immoral to worship any god but theirs. I guess where it starts to get fuzzy is when you start impeding people from being gluttonous slobs. It's kind of hard to say if it's moral to allow them to be filth(or, even worse, to lead them to it through a poorly structured culture), but just as hard to say they should be jailed or reeducated... which is precisely why I think it's important, developmentally, to be instilled with moral and character; to avoid ever having to deal with the above circumstances.

Basically, how I feel about it is this: if it's immoral to beat, molest and instill your children with poor values why should it be any different for the government? What kind of parent are you if you raise children with poor moral values who can't function properly, non-the-less raise their own children. Self-perpetuating circumstances are kind of hard to get out of, and I don't really see any point to being a unifed group of people unless it's to alleviate these problems and evolve past them.

You kind of have to look at it through, "Metaphysical consequence" and consider what will happen. Through the past, to the future; through mine eye a camel swalleth ;(

And thanks for quoting me kevin, it makes me feel so special. :)

p.s. Ever hear of this guy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development)

[kahljorn]

I read your article and I agree with what you were saying(my flu makes me impatient and unwordy). That really does take morality out of the equation for the government since nobody is making profits on it. I think the idea that people can act immorally and gain profit from it(and that these are the way things are often setup) is ridiculously unproductive, and really just sets up for future immoral actions. Personally, I'm for aligning things so there's no moral choice or profit involved, just reality I suppose. In that sense I can agree that the state and morality should be kept far away from eachother.
However, I agree that you still have to recognize the effect abortion has on society, along with the other gratuities we graciously pass out. Which I guess was the entire point of my post, that the laws/rights that the government passes out have a huge effect on society and that we should choose them wisely if we want society to be something beautiful.

Not that I care either way, I'm just talking from my Stickuptheass idealist side of my personality. I have to say, I don't really care if women get abortions. Some of them need it, and would probably live shitty unproductive lives without it. For the same reason I don't want people fucking all the time and having shitty children, I'd have to be pro-choice-- despite how much it hurts me inside.

[derrida]

Isn't government too unwieldy a tool to be used in the imposition of morality? The government can't restrict underground clinics or trips across the border for the well-heeled any more than it can ensure that a woman (or her doctor) being treated for uterine hemmorhaging aren't subject to suspicion. Is it because the traditional structures of family, community, and church are no longer able to enforce social norms that the government must step in and take their place?

[Sethomas]

Obviously the government can't stop coat hanger jobs. But at least it can punish them when caught. As far as indirect abortion goes, I've stated that it should be legal. Even the Catholic Church supports that notion. I'm not sure if that's where you were going, but sure.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think if government is going to jump into the world of morality, then it needs to strive for consistency.

As derrida said, simply passing a law or overturning a court ruling won't end abortion. If the government wishes to overturn Roe v. Wade, then the government likewise needs to support daycare programs, intitiatives like the one in VA to implement free statewide Pre-K, funding Head Start programs, GRADS programs, Help Me Grow's, etc.

Changing a law doesn't do anything. It simply criminalizes women. There needs to be more than that.

[Sethomas]

I agree. And from a moral stance I think that same-sex unions shouldn't be allowed to have adopted children, but from a social stance I have to say that they SHOULD have them. Not only is it a double-standard to say they shouldn't, but it would also open up a new market for unwanted children.

So, yes, I agree absolutely that criminalizing without supplanting is a mistake.

[kahljorn]

I agree, you can't simply eliminate the problem without recognizing the circumstances and problems that lead to it. That's one of the problems our government has, lack of foresight, discrimination without option for alleviation. You have to look at the effects the laws you make will have, and you have to look at the reasons for the reasons you are making those laws and try to alleviate THOSE circumstances(otherwise you have a bunch of people out there with 'problems' that can't be alleviated except through 'extreme methods'). That's what my previous posts were attempting to point out.
I think that education is very important, and I find it horrible that the government underrates it's ability to influence a nation, and seems to not really care too much about it. I'm sure there's some asshole who has said that education is the foundation of a successful nation, insert his quote here.

I also find it hard to force a woman through 9 months of pregnancy for a baby they don't even want. Likewise, I find it deplorable that the woman got pregnant in the first place instead of controlling her urges(for all you feminists out there, i find the males actions to be just as deplorable, but the man doesn't have the responsibility of bearing children and being a responsible mother).

Maybe we should forcefully chastize anyone who has sex outside of marriage, without the intent of having a child. STICK UP THE HASS I TELL YOU.

If we want moral consistency in the government, though, I'm afraid that would be nearly impossible ;( For the same reasons lust is considered a carnal sin, so is greed, pride and whatever else motivates most of the government.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Sort of in line with what we were just saying.....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_14_06_EJD.html

February 14, 2006

Bridging the Divide on Abortion
By E. J. Dionne Jr.

NEW YORK -- For many staunch supporters and opponents of abortion rights, the search for a third way on the issue seems like so much phony political positioning.

But the truth is that politicians are already engaging in strained positioning on abortion. They know there is a large ambivalent middle ground of public opinion that is uneasy with abortion itself and also uneasy with a government ban on the procedure. So they fudge.

No one has been more masterful at holding his pro-life base and appealing to the middle than President Bush. He speaks regularly of his support for a ``culture of life'' but never says he would overturn Roe v. Wade. In Congress, supporters of abortion rights in both parties will signal their moderation by opposing partial-birth abortion or favoring parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions. Whatever their merits, such laws do little to cut the abortion rate.

But there is a new argument on abortion that may establish a more authentic middle ground. It would use government not to outlaw abortion altogether, but to reduce its likelihood. And at least one politician, Thomas R. Suozzi, the county executive of New York's Nassau County, has shown that the position involves more than soothing rhetoric.

Last May, Suozzi, a Democrat, gave an important speech calling on both sides to create ``a better world where there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, and where women who face unplanned pregnancies receive greater support and where men take more responsibility for their actions.''

Last week, Suozzi put money behind his words. He announced nearly $1 million in county government grants to groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to Catholic Charities for an array of programs -- adoption and housing, sex education and abstinence promotion -- to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to help pregnant women who want to bring their children into the world. Suozzi calls his initiative ``Common Sense for the Common Good'' and, as Newsday reported, he was joined at his news conference announcing the grants by people at both ends of the abortion debate.

This is a matter on which no good deed goes unpunished, and Suozzi was immediately denounced by Kelli Conlin, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, for the grants that went to abstinence-only programs which, she insisted, do not work.

As the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has argued for years, the best approach to the problem involves neither abstinence-only nor contraception-only programs, but a combination of the two. But the merits of the issue aside, it's unfortunate that Suozzi's initiative is caught in the crossfire of this year's campaign for governor of New York. Suozzi is expected to challenge state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. NARAL strongly supports Spitzer, who opposes the ban on partial-birth abortion which Suozzi -- otherwise an abortion rights supporter -- favors.

Still, it's a good sign for the long run that in an interview on Monday, Conlin was careful to praise most of Suozzi's grants program -- ``the vast majority of it we are totally in agreement with'' -- adding that ``prevention is the key.''

Nancy Keenan, the president of the national NARAL group, is also stressing prevention. Her organization ran an advertisement last year explicitly inviting the ``right-to-life movement'' to join in an effort to ``help us prevent abortions.'' Usually, NARAL's allies refer to abortion opponents as ``anti-choice,'' so the conciliatory language itself was a welcome departure. At the federal level, NARAL is pushing for a bill promoting contraception introduced by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, an opponent of abortion.

Right about this point, I can see my friends in the right-to-life movement rolling their eyes and insisting that all this prevention talk is a dodge. Maybe so, but my question to them is whether they honestly think that their current political strategy, focused on knocking down Roe and making abortion illegal, will actually protect fetal life by substantially reducing the number of abortions.

Even if Roe falls, legislatures in the most populous states are likely to keep abortion legal. And if a ban on abortion were ever to take hold, does anyone doubt that a large, illegal abortion industry would quickly come into being?

I have more sympathy than most liberals with the right-to-life movement because I believe most right-to-lifers are animated not by sexism or some punitive attitude toward sexuality but by a genuine desire to defend the defenseless. Surely that view should encompass efforts to reduce the number of abortions in our nation. That's why I hope Tom Suozzi finds imitators, and allies on both sides of the question.

© 2006, Washington Post Writers Group

[Emu]

Maybe we should forcefully chastize anyone who has sex outside of marriage, without the intent of having a child. STICK UP THE HASS I TELL YOU.

There's a movement in, I THINK, either Georgia or South Carolina (some southern state) to get the government to offer money to drug addicts who agree to go through a procedure to sterilize them. That's not QUITE in line with what we're talking about, but that made me think of it.

[kahljorn]

I can't believe somebody would take my sarcastic advice literally! Those jerk-offs.

[The One and Only...]

Every action of government is necessarily a moral action if it is to be justified.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This is a response I received on the above article I posted. It's from a Catholic relative of mine from Ireland:

"I don't agree that Suozzi is on the right track. He sounds like he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Giving grants to Planned Parenthood is actually providing support to the largest purveyor of abortion in the world. I agree with funding for abtsinence programs of course,but funding the education of kids about artificial contraception is not going to help. Artificial contraception actually leads to more abortions. Many of the types of contraception are themselves abortifacient,e.g. the low dose pill and IUD both allow fertililization but make the uterus hostile to implantation. They also foster a more cavalier and more casual attitude towards sex, which is not part of God's plan for society.
Hope you are getting on well!"

I have no idea whether ot not she's right about those things, and I don't know that I even disagree with her. However, I find it interesting that she is probably in total agreement with the president of NARAL on this issue. This is a very good example of how the extremes on both ends are in total agreement to disagree, while the middle ground is left sorting it all out. Oh well. :(

[Dole]

Hope you are getting on well!

:)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I liked that part, too. :)