Results tagged “conservative”

It’s too early to be picking candidates. The primaries this year have been just irritatingly early in starting and irritatingly long to end. However, I can tell you, as I intend to in this post, how I will make the decision of which candidate to choose.

I base my voting decisions upon three primary factors: Qualification, Character, and Policy. These three factors are not exclusive and do not override one another, but I would place them in that order from most important to least important.

Qualification. The first factor I must consider when choosing a candidate for any office is how qualified that person is for office. Does that person have a history that indicates that he or she can handle the rigors of the appointment? Does he or she have a series of positions that lead up to or provide a history that helps to validate the abilities of the candidate? Has the person ever committed so heinous a mistake that his or her qualification is in question? A candidate that has little or no background in running a business or politics has little or no basis for qualification as far as I’m concerned. While I consider this to be the first point to consider, it’s not the only one. The point here is to determine whether or not the person I am voting for can even do the job.

Character. The second fact I must consider is the candidate’s character. Unfortunately, this is not a very popular way to judge a candidate these days, so finding issues that define character require careful examination of the facts that are known. Everyone is trying to spin the candidate they like one way and they despise the other. This is also a fuzzy and subjective measurement. Does a divorce 20 years ago or the fact that a candidate is a dry alcoholic reflect badly on that person today? Or does the fact that he’s remained dry and married since reflect well? A certain amount of discernment here is required. The people with whom the candidate associates with, offers support for, and gathers support from are also indicators in this area. The point is to evaluate how well I can trust the man or woman for which I am voting.

Policy. The final important fact I consider is policy. Does the candidates policy mesh with issues that are important to me? Will he or she keep taxes low? Will he or she avoid classist/racist/sexist/etc. politics? Will he or she keep our borders secure and manage the war on terrorism appropriately? Does he or she see creating laws based upon the inalienable human rights and God’s moral law? I’m being very generic here, but these are the policy issues that come to mind as important when making this kind of decision in the generic case. The main issue I want to know is if this candidate will try to move politics in the direction I think will benefit the United States best.

Finally, I must state one factor I avoid entirely. I do not pay attention to identity politics (at least when I don’t get sucked in to them because I’ve failed to be vigilant). It doesn’t matter what label the person picks for him or herself. I don’t vote for someone because he’s an “evangelical” or not for him because he’s a “mormon.” I will not vote for someone because she’s a woman or he’s a man. I will not vote for someone because his or her skin color is a certain hue. These are irrelevant. To base your voting decisions on such is simply racist, classist, sexist, or any other form of bigotry you are choosing to make your decision by.

Anyway, that’s the key factors for me. I am chiefly interested in a candidate’s qualifications, character, and policy. I may consider other things as well, but not his or her race, sex, or creed.

Cheers.

I hesitate to put this topic on my blog because it causes such a strong reaction by most folks. In fact, the discussion generally provokes a pretty strong reaction from me. This is why I really want to carefully treat the topic from my point of view without trolling
. As such, I just want to state my position from various perspectives and summarize what I believe.

First, let me define what I'm talking about to be clear. Abortion is the action of destroying or purposely rendering a human embryo or fetus inviable. I consider all forms of abortion as homicide. Just to be clear: homicide is not necessarily criminal. Our legal system, for example, incorporates the ancient concept of "justified homicide." Justified homicide is the termination of a human life under mitigating circumstances. For example, the most obvious case happens when someone threatens you with a gun in your home and you kill them. The law is carried out such that this action is not considered criminal.

The debate about abortion falls into several arenas that frequently get confused. There is the criminal, social, and political aspects of the discussion, which is concerned with whether or not government or some part of society is responsible for taking action in a given circumstance. There is the moral and ethical arena whereby you state that an action is objectively right or wrong (morality) or helpful or harmful to society, yourself, or some other class (ethics). There is the scientific and medical arena concerned with the actual nature of the action itself. I'd like to consider each of these aspects in the reverse order they are given here.

Science of Abortion

The medical science related to genetics and life forms one leg of the foundation of my ethical argument against the practice of abortion. The second leg of that foundation is that human life is sacred and should be protected, which is a moral and ethical argument I will consider in detail later. If life is sacred, then an important question is: when does an individual human life form? If life is not sacred, then it doesn't really matter if you are taking a life way anyway, so the point is moot.

I believe the answer to the question as to when life begins is answered medically without doubt. At which point does a person become an individual? When that person becomes genetically distinct: conception. At the point at which an individual sperm joins with the egg and their DNA combine to form a single whole, an individual exists, the potential becomes actual. I'd be willing to debate this point, but I can't think of another possible juncture where you can say a new individual exists. All other changes to an embryo or fetus or merely changes of degree, not changes of nature.

One might also suggest that the individual is formed when the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus. Yet, that doesn't really fly because the uterus merely acts as a feeding mechanism. Just because the embryo fails to survive because it doesn't start gathering food from the mother doesn't mean it was never a person. One might as well say that an infant was never an individual human because it failed to crawl to and suckle from it's mother's breasts on its own.

One might suggest that the individual is formed when it starts feeling or thinking or becomes a recognizable animal form or some other measure. The difficulty is that it isn't possible to define a moment or point of time at which such things happen. Furthermore, you can take away these things without necessarily losing individuality. Does a person cease to be an individual life form if she becomes paralyzed and without sensation? What if he stops thinking? A person can still act and be an individual in a completely catatonic state. Some humans are badly disfigured, but it doesn't remove the fact that they are human.

One might also suggestion that the individual is formed when it could survive out of the womb. However, this becomes difficult to measure. Records are set on a fairly regular basis for younger and younger premature infant survival. I don't see any reason why medical technology couldn't be developed to allow an embryo to develop completely outside of a mother's womb. In fact, it could even happen in my life time. Who knows?

One might state that an individual is only possible at the moment of birth or at some point after birth. However, what's special about the infant leaving the womb? There's nothing magically different between a fetus and an infant at full term except that one is in the mother's womb and the other is not. One might even say that individuality doesn't come until later as the child's complex psychological personality begins to form. Yet, this reasoning suffers from the same difficulty as the earlier arguments about feeling, thinking, or recognizable form.

I simply cannot think of any other moment where an individual is formed other than conception. That doesn't mean there isn't some other point, but as far as I can understand the medical process, conception is the only point where an individual life can be said to start.

If life is sacred and life begins at conception, then the definition of homicide definitely applies to an embryo that is terminated by a pill or through an abortion performed by a doctor. Again, this doesn't necessitate that such an act is criminal, just that such an act is the taking of a human life: homicide.

This basis is the reason for which I cannot accept the argument that this is about a "woman's body." It is, in fact, about a woman's body and the infant's body. As an illustration, if two men are trying to go opposite ways through a doorway and neither is willing to give up to let the other through, it's about each man's body causing hardship for the other. One would not say that one man would be justified in killing the other just so he could get the other out of his way.

Morality and Ethics of Abortion

My morality is based upon the teaching of the Bible as well as I understand it. My ethics are based upon that moral foundation as much as possible because I don't believe a complete ethic can be derived from nothing. (In fact, the definition of "derivation" requires that one assume some basic principles.) On the other hand, I can still appeal to common sense and what's good for society and individuals to help bolster my ethical and moral positions.

As I mentioned before, I believe human life is sacred. Let me define what I mean. Something that is sacred is something regarded with great respect and reverence. Something that is sacred must not be destroyed or damaged without justification. Without such justification, destructive action against a sacred object is wrong.

Personally, I believe human life is sacred because this is a common theme in the Bible. However, if I cast aside the Biblical basis, I believe there is still a strong argument for the sacredness of human life. The basis for that statement is simply this, is it alright to take another person's life for any (or no) reason at all? Is it okay to kill someone because you feel like it? Is it okay just because you wanted to? Is it okay to kill someone because you can?

I don't think I've met anyone of any creed, belief, or unbelief that thinks it is justifiable to kill for no reason or any reason at all. I certainly hope I've never met anyone like that. Therefore, nearly everyone believes human life to be sacred even if individuals have no religious faith behind such a belief. I use the word "sacred", but I don't mean that in a necessarily religious way.

If human life is sacred and life begins at conception, then any individual between conception and birth (those subject to abortion) are sacred and must not be destroyed (aborted) without justification. Again, this doesn't mean that the unjustified destruction of an embryo or fetus is criminal. Abortion is homicide. Homicide might be justifiable. Whether it is justifiable or not it might not be criminal.

Another possible fuzzy area presents itself, however. How much justification is required to abort an unattached embryo? An embryo attached to the uterus? A fetus? An infant? A toddler? A child? An adolescent? An adult? A senior? It is possible that different amounts or different kinds of justifications might be possible. Each stage of life might have it's own criteria and certainly each stage of life presents a different set of circumstances. For example, if you kill an adult threatening you with a weapon in your own home, that's generally considered justified. However, if you kill a toddler that threatens you with a weapon, you will not be considered justified under any circumstances I can imagine.

This is, in my opinion the very crux of the matter. Abortion is homicide, but what suffices as justification for this form of homicide? This answer is much more difficult to discern. Does risk to a mother's health justify abortion to save the mother's life? Does psychological risk justify abortion? Just because the father of the unborn individual raped the mother to form the individual is abortion justified? Is the mental health or intelligence of the mother factor into such a justification?

It is my opinion that these are the questions we need to focus on as a society rather than fighting this as an epic one-way-or-the-other battle. What suffices as justified homicide when it comes to abortion? Can abortion be justified as is the case with the homicide of an adult? Or is abortion always unjustified as is homicide involving a toddler? Is abortion justified when the parents of the individual are especially underprivileged (or even over-privileged)? Is abortion justified when the individual is found in utero to be susceptible to or affected by disease? Is abortion justified if the mother is taking medication that happens to destroy or render the embryo inviable? These questions should be considered rather than making this the monolithic issue of: Abortion-for-or-against.

My answer: I view abortion as permanently unjustifiable. I can find nothing in the Bible that suggests that taking a child's life to save the mother is justified. In the case of rape of the mother, there are instances of such an act but the infant not aborted (yes, abortions were possible in ancient times and the practice of justified infanticide was also a common practice in many non-semitic cultures). I don't find anything justifying abortion in any of the above questions in the Bible either.

Again, this doesn't mean that all abortion must be criminal. It is possible for me (or even general society) to consider a particular abortion wrong, but for the law to allow such an abortion to proceed without any criminal ramifications. In fact, it's even possible for an action to be ethically justified but considered criminal. To illustrate the point, take the face mask penalty of football. Whether the face mask was intentional (unjustified) or clearly accidental (justifiable) doesn't matter. It's so important to protect players from neck injury that any contact of one player's hands to another player's face mask is an automatic penalty. The same is possible in law.

Politics of Abortion

Therefore, the second half of this question is to decide when abortion homicide is committed, is such an act criminal? Currently, the laws are generally written such that no criminal charges can be brought against either the doctor performing nor the patient receiving an abortion for any reason or at any time during pregnancy up to the point of birth. I will qualify that previous statement by saying that some criminal prosecution is possible under certain circumstances. For example, some states forbid abortions to be given to minors without the consent of their parent or guardian. In such a case, it's not the abortion itself that's considered criminal, but that a medical procedure was carried out without the consent of the individuals in charge of the minor.

The libertarian view on the subject is that the government should not intervene and it is up to the individual to make up their mind on such a decision. Therefore, they believe government should not intervene regardless of the moral or ethical issues involved. It's simply none of the government's business.

This is one of the points at which I disagree strongly with libertarians. In my view, since I consider human life sacred and to undoubtedly start at conception, this is equivalent to saying that a parent is legally free of criminal consideration for killing their own child until that child is no longer under the guardianship of the parent. Such a view diminishes the sacredness of human life and reduces human life to the same level as personal property. If an infant, toddler, or adolescent is to be protected under the law, I do not see a difference as to whether the individual is within or without the womb. I see no reason why a pre-born individual should be considered with any less protection.

Conclusion

I feel pretty strongly about this, but I've worked very hard to present an objective view of the topic. I've purposely avoided any emotional imagery or other tactics in presenting my view and any point presented here is open for comment by any person visiting my site. However, if a troll or poster comes in using emotional imagery or misleading argumentation, you can expect to have your comment deleted. Disagreement is welcome; irrational and emotional argumentation about any aspect from any position is not.

Cheers.