(no subject)

[adderslj]

When did western culture become so moronic? Why has debate reached the point where the only option seems to be "pick a side and defend its values until the death"?

Take abortion. Abortion is one of the terrible, hard decisions we as a society have to face regularly.

The facts are these: there will always be unwanted pregnancies and women will always seek to end them in some fashion. However, doing so ends the existence of something that will, without intervention, become a human being.

This is actually simple to grasp, yet the debate is dominated by two groups, one of which is unwilling to deal with the reality of backstreet abortions and the human cost of unwanted children, while the other is unwilling to countenance for a second that an abortion might be taking the life of a human being (or that there might be serious emotional consequences for the mother further down the line).

So there we have it, one of the most serious ethical dilemmas our society has to face, and it's reduced to a shouting match between two groups of morons. There are people who are pro-life and people who are pro-choice, but precious few who are pro-thought.

Really, I hope there are better sentient species than us out there somewhere, because we're not using this gift of intelligence terribly well right now.

Comments

[sailormur.livejournal.com]

That is a very very true statement.

Adam, what brought on this rant, if I may ask?

[adders.livejournal.com]

A women's magazine over here interviewed the three main political party leaders and asked a question about abortion. Blair said that he didn't like abortion, but accepted that it was neccessary and that the debate over the topic should always be open. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said that he didn't yet know what his party should do in light of some recent pictures of foteuses in the womb and supporting medical evidence that perhaps 22 weeks as a cut off was too late. And Michael Howard said he was personally in favour of a 20 week cut-off, but would allow a free vote on the subject if his party got into power (that is, the Government would table a motion, but wouldn't "whip" its own MPs into voting on a party line, leaving them free to follow their own hearts and heads on the issue).

I liked that. I thought all three leaders gave thoughtful and honest responses.

And I then come across an orgy of thoughless pro-life, anti-Tory drivel in some posts on my friends page, using this difficult and painful issue for stupid party political mutual masturbation, if you'll excuse the phrase.

And it upset me.

[adders.livejournal.com]

I actually meant "pro-choice" in the above, but it makes little difference - my feelings would have been the same either way around.

[sailormur.livejournal.com]

Wow, how enlightened of your leaders. That's pretty cool.

I sometimes think that people's reactions to things are like setting a price for your house. You know if you want to gain X, you have to ASK for X+1. So in order for them to gain whatever minor political ground that they want, they have to act like unreasonable zealots.

[adders.livejournal.com]

We have a more nurturing environment for thoughtful debate on the subject over here, because our leaders don't have a large pseudo-religious social demographic to appease. Blair, for example, is a Christian, but he could never make a big thing of it in the way Bush does, for the fear of electoral damage.