Seth's politics

[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?

[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/Com...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]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

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.