Yes. No. Yes. No. Maybe. Sometimes. Crap.

[jchrisobrien]

Call it the astrological influence of being a Libra cusp (concerned with balance), call it weighing both sides of the issues, or call it plain on wishy washy, but I have a profoundly hard time coming down on one side of the fence or the other for a lot of the big moral issues out there.  The Tookie Williams execution is the latest example of this.  If you don't know, just plug tookie williams in google and read about him yourself, you can make up your own mind as to whether he is repentant or not. 

I was raised Roman Catholic, so I was taught that killing was wrong, be it during war, murder, execution, or abortion.  Later I learned about exemptions during wartime, and taking a life while defending your self, and a thousand other shades of grey.  I've seen the hypocrisy of people who are pro-choice but anti-death penalty, and those who say life is sacred unless you are a murderer.  I hear the arguments on either side, and I sway to and for depending on the eloquence of the speaker or the precision of their logic.

It's more than frustrating, it's weak.  Your beliefs define your character, and if you're beliefs change with the wind, what does that say about you?  I believe that people are organic: they grow and change over time, and once your learn something that doesn't mean you are committed to that belief for the rest of your life.  Change should occur after you wrestle with an issue, hold up your beliefs to a spotlight, kick the tires and see how they hold. 
Buy the car because you like it, not because the salesman made you like it.

I am a vortex of thoughts and opinions.  Murder is the worst thing you can do to someone. Forgivness is a sign of civilization.  People have to take responsibility for their actions, and suffer the consequences if that applies.  People can change.  Some people never change.  You can come from a horrible background and neighborhood and better yourself.  You can come from a cultured, civilized background and be an amoral prick who justifies their vile behavior through philosophy or a thousand shades of grey.  People will say anything to save their life.  You can't force someone to change.

If it's inhumane to kill someone who has killed another, what do you do to them?  How should they pay for their crime?  How many years of your life should you sacrifice to pay for the years you took from another?  Can you ever really pay for that crime, and if you can't, why bother incarcerating them in the first place?  I am told there are plenty of studies that say that the death penalty is not a deterrent.  By that token, people are going to kill or rape or steal regardless of what you do.  What is our response to that? 

These kind of question quickly spiral out of the micro view and into the macro.  They become questions of culture, of society.  People wouldn't steal if they weren't poor.  Any society that grows has rules, and needs ways of punishing people who break those rules.  All kinds of words on all sides of the argument again.  Drowning in a sea of emotion and logic.

If I really buckle down and think about it, I can come up with answers that satify me.  It's good when things happen that make you question your beliefs, and even better if you can be consistant about them in the end. 

Comments

[silas7.livejournal.com]

You know, I think I can accept this. I just want it to be acknowledged that it was a potential person. It's not a rash, or an ingrown toenail.

Fuck. Part of me feels like I'm dying when I write this.

[pyrric.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've got no problem acknowledging that a fetus is a potential person, a collection of unique genetic material that never was before and never will be again. Something irretrievable is lost to the world when an abortion takes place, and I don't think I could ever be a part of the process, either as a recipient of the procedure or as a nurse working in a clinic assisting with the procedure, because the whole thing just makes me so sad. But when compared to what's lost when a woman is forced to complete a pregnancy she doesn't want? What's lost when the state controls a women's body? Whether abortion makes me sad or not is irrelevant in the face of that. The already-existant woman and her quality of life is more important to me.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Argh. This is the part that gets all slippery for me. Because in the woman's body is another body. I don't care if it dependent on her or not; I hate the whole parasite analogy people use. People try to turn it into an issue about control. What about the idea that there are somethings in life that can't be controlled, and just must be accepted? It's a pretty foreign concept to people in this bluest of blue states. You can move heaven and earth to stop conception, but if it happens you have to ride it out.

Now, if everyone was brought up with this kind of background, we wouldn't have a problem. Problem is, they weren't. :)

Again, we keep talking about the tail end of the process, the termination. We need to talk more about the prevention end. We need to talk more about better technology in detecting pregnancies, in artifical incubators for humans, in transplants. We need to talk about clearer legal definitions about when life begins, and what rights that life has, and what rights and obligations both parents have.

[pyrric.livejournal.com]

Because in the woman's body is another body.

Not yet! It's not like the fetus is a little fully-formed homunculus that's hanging out in a woman's uterus for shits and giggles. In the woman's body is a *potential* body, a potential for a unified collection of different types of tissues and systems that could eventually all work together as a body. But it isn't there yet.

What about the idea that there are somethings in life that can't be controlled, and just must be accepted?

If there were no way to terminate a pregnancy, *physically* no way to stop the cascade of events begun with the union of sperm and egg, then you'd be talking about something that just must be accepted. But there are ways--safe, effective ways--to terminate a pregnancy, and the idea that I must simply accept a pregnancy because someone else thinks I must? Fuck. That.

Potential (not in a Slayer way) and beliefs

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Every time I try to accept that a fetus is not a person, my brain locks up. My upbringing must run too deep, and part of me wonders why I should even apologize for that. I suppose I feel the need because my beliefs run counter to, say, 90% of the people I know. I've seen violent clashes between people who have different beliefs, and I don't want that with my friends (This is why I should just post about Warhammer!)

A catepillar is a stage in the life of a butterfly (or moth). It is not a butterfuly, but it wll be someday. That's how I think of a fetus.

I know that I can accept killing in self-defense. By doing so, I already set up parameters where killing is allowed. I should be able to do the same thing in this circumstance. I'm not exactly sure why I can't. This is my own little hypocricy. Perhaps it stems from the fact that a fetus isn't trying to kil me, or kill the mother. It's just doing it's thing. Perhaps it stems from the idea that, a possible consequence of having sex is pregnancy. If you REALLY don't want kids, don't do it. There are more than a few ways to get off that have a zero risk of kids. If you want to do it, use all necessary precautions. If, after all that, I got someone pregnant, than I'd own up to my (perceived) responsibility and start preparing to raise a child.

Gah. I just feel like I'm arguing here. I feel like in the end if I don't say I'm down with abortion, then I get thrown into the same camp as the people who throw blood in women's faces at the clinic or Pat Robinson. I can say that I wouldn't condone abortion, but I respect your right to have one, but once I do that I feel like I could say "I respect your right to live, but I'm going to kill you anyway because my rights are more important than yours."

Can we go back to talking about Joss Whedon now?