Saturday, September 1, 2012

Philosophy and Humanity

Any argument based on a faulty premise is doomed to a foolish stalemate.  The stalemate occurs when the faulty premise is exposed. “When does life begin?” is such a debate.  Sperms are alive.  Eggs are alive.  All the sub-microscopic shit that goes into their make-up is alive.  If we were to find a sperm or an egg on Mars we’d go batshit crazy saying there is life on Mars, which there would be.  So, the answer to when does life begin?  It’s already begun.  Faulty premise.

The second faulty premise in the life/choice debate concerns the “sanctity” of life, which, if we’re talking from the political/religious right, means human life.  There is no sanctity of life.  Dictionary.com defines sanctity as “a sacred thing; sacred or hallowed in character.  “Sacred” means “entitled to veneration or religious respect  by association with divinity or divine things; holy.”  Life isn’t that; certainly human life isn’t.  And the people who make that argument don’t treat life as if it is.  You can’t call life sacred and then be willing to let whatever happens, happen, the moment that life becomes “viable”.  You can’t call life sacred and be willing to end it by institutional force when a faulty court system deems the owner of that life to have done something particularly heinous.  You can’t consider life sacred, then go drop bombs on it. 

The universe doesn’t treat life as if it’s sacred.  And if the universe is run by a deity, then that deity doesn’t treat life that way.  Life, even human life, comes and goes at the whim of random chance.  Disease, things bumping into things with great force, faulty arteries, poisoned brains, gravity, sneak up behind us and extinguish our lives on a daily basis.  Thousands of times.  No entity stops it and no entity cares.  The universe is loving enough to allow the rules of science and random chance to do their thing. 

A righteous group, political or religious, that claims to believe in sanctity of life, but behaves as if they do not believe in the sanctity of lives, particular lives; lives already being lived, is spiritually empty.   This god-awful war on women, and it is nothing short of that, is being waged by people who recognize no sanctity to the lives of women making the overwhelming choice of whether or not to bring a child into the world for whatever reason.  If you really believe in democracy, then you value choice.  The choice is about whether or not to stop the baby from happening, it is not about killing an innocent life, just as it is a choice to shoot a live sperm into a sock (sorry, flashback) instead of into home base for some egg.  If the people who are so quick to find a way to force women to carry every sperm-egg union that occurs, implanted by whatever source, would be just as quick to help take care of that baby once it found it’s way to the light of day, we could at least see a thread of humanity in their argument.  But that ain’t how they vote.  They vote to extinguish choice, then to extinguish funding for every possible service that might give that child a chance for an empowered life.

When James Brady was President Reagan’s press secretary, he was, by all counts, in lockstep with Reagan’s pro-gun, pro-NRA stance.  Then James Brady got shot in the head, and guess what?.  All of a sudden James Brady wants to make it more difficult to get guns, and particularly certain kinds of guns.  Different story when it hits home.

If you’re a lawmaker and you don’t have the imagination, or the decency, to put yourself into the situation that the law you’re making addresses, you shouldn’t be a lawmaker.  Imagine if Paul Ryan’s daughter Liza were to be brutally raped at say, the age of twelve by a violent schizophrenic or mentally ill psychopath.   Should her twelve-year-old body not “have ways to shut that thing down” as his policy-lock-stepped friend Todd Akin believes it would, Paul and his wife would be in a pickle if the bill he sponsored becomes law.  They would be required not only to force his twelve year old daughter to pile the trauma of carrying that child to term atop the original horrific trauma of the act, but then live in fear of the very real possibility that the donor’s DNA might run down the generational pike into the Ryan gene pool.  If that didn’t change his perception – and his vote - I’d have less respect for him than I have now, which seems mathematically impossible. 

If your philosophy trumps your humanity, you are not fit to be making laws for humanity.

16 comments:

  1. Wow, I really enjoyed reading your piece. I agree with everything you said and I have the same beliefs as you do. The last sentence was great, I couldn't have put it better myself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really liked what you said about life being "sacred." I've never considered that argument before and I find it intriguing that life isn't sanctified by any standards in the universe. I completely agree that women should be given a choice; they shouldn't be forced to bear the burden of an entire human life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I liked how you defined the true meaning of the word "sacred" and pointed out the irony of its application on life. I completely agree on your philosophy towards life. I've always had thoughts about this debate; however, reading this has helped me solidify my standing towards this issue. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that this idea of life's "sanctity" dates back to the time where the church and the state were tied together. Even though many years have passed this perception that life is sacred or holy still remains. But I think you were absolutely right in stating the hypocrisy of this notion in today's world. People claim that life is sacred, yet we lose and take the lives of millions without even the slightest feeling of remorse. Teenage mothers get abortions all the time without even the slightest thought that there could be a family out there who desperately would want your child. Life is clearly not sacred as you mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your tone really made the reading enjoyable. I agree completely with your point that people today are not sacred. If life was sacred, we would not have so many people exposed to disease, death, wars, and many other horrible facts of life. We are all hypocrites for claiming our "sanctity" because humans are the root of the problem. Without horrible crimes like child abuse and rape, there wouldn't be such a need for abortions. We wouldn't have to argue the reality that life just isn's sacred.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Politicians are hypocritical. They "try" to "help" society, but can't even pretend to be part of it. I sometimes wonder whether or not they know the difference between helping society and helping themselves. Humanity itself is hypocritical, thinking life is "sacred" when most people act as if the only "sacred" life is their own. I love the things you put here. It really shines a light on things most people don't think about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your literal comparison to Dictionary.com's definitions of sacred and sanctity and vulgarity brought a special tone to this piece which gives it a fresh perspective. Hypocrisy is clear everywhere; we claim life to be sacred but yet all the mass killings still occur all over the world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Before reading this post, I never even thought about the ridiculousness of people saying life is "sacred" when in all other cases, it most certainly is not. The same people also don't treat it as if it is.

    I also loved the point on democracy. Voting for laws that limit the choice of an individual and their baby, is essentially taking away from the idea of democracy. Other people are deciding what a woman can do with her body and not the woman herself, to whom it is mostly affecting. I completely share your views on this whole debate, and agree that it is completely unecessary and stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have never heard this pro-choice argument presented so eloquently. I have always tended to side with pro-life, but this really leads me to reconsider. When I would get into an argument about pro-choice vs. pro-life I would always begin with the label of each side: life vs. choice. But in the way you presented it I, I am beginning to understand how it could actually be a choice and not 'pro-death ' as its so often presented to me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think you hit the spot about how hypocritical the world is right now. You brought up the point that this is a democracy, everyone has a right to vote, a right to make a choice, but when people fight to limit a women's choice, it goes against the idea, which the founding fathers built this country was built upon. Your point of view is also universal, we see this type of hypocrisy is everywhere. Look at the debates on gay marriage. Its the same thing all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your idea of the sanctity of life is absolutely right--the loss of life that happens every day should be an obvious indication that life is not as sacred as some make it out to be. You make it clear how hypocritical these people are in saying that life is sacred while they are in support of the conflicts the US is involved in

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've always agreed with giving choice, and this gave me a interesting perspective about it. I especially like the part where you talked about John Brady, that personal experiences will change people's perspective. The end of the last paragraph is what I will remember the best from this article, if something bad has happened to you or your family and you're still supporting the opposite, its just not right…

    ReplyDelete
  14. As someone who grew up in a religious environment, the topic of "choice" is puzzling. In the bible, it says that God gave us the freedom to choose the path of our lives. Therefore, we are not born “Christian”, or of any religious for that matter. However, there are laws today enforced by religious people that restrict humans of making personal decisions. Reading this post allowed me to re-evaluate my stand on abortion as well as life.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I really enjoyed reading your piece. I especially liked your comment about how "life comes and goes at the whim of random chance", and is not as sacred as people apposed to abortion believe. The way you adressed specific people saying, "If you really believe in democracy, then you value choice" makes the democrats re think their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with your point of view. You brought to light something so obvious, many have unconsciously ignore it. Like others have mentioned here, i never realized how flawed the concept of a "sacred" life really is. Your essay throughly shows how hypocritical some can be on a highly controversial topic, like the one about James Brady.

    ReplyDelete