My Stance:
I believe that abortion should be legal, and hopefully rare.
Why:
In almost all cases, I would advocate adoption over abortion. But I strongly believe that absolutely no one has the right to tell a woman that she is legally obligated to carry and deliver a child. Even in the case of rape, if it's possible, I would prefer adoption to abortion; but that is not the issue. The issue is that it is absolutely none of the government's business either way.
I have only recently had a pretty big realization about the abortion debate in this country, and how we think that a person is either pro-life or pro-choice. The thing is, the pro-life/pro-choice question isn't even real--that debate is a false dichotomy created by politics. The question at hand in the abortion debate is not whether babies have the right to life or women have the right to choose; the question is whether the government has the right to make the decision for people. The false dichotomy exists in the idea that being pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive, and that is because "pro-life" is a deceptive term which implies that you're either for life or against it. If you're pro-choice it's not because you are anti-life--it's because you think the government does not have the right to make the decision on this issue. This is a ridiculously important difference that is not being recognized; basically, we think pro-life and pro-choice are opposite sides of an argument when in fact they aren't even having the same conversation.
I have heard some politicians specifically say that they would like to make all abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, and I have to say that this makes me a little bit sick. I cannot comprehend how someone who believes in "smaller government" could dare to suggest that the government be given power in such a private, painfully intimate situation. A woman who has been raped has already gone through serious physical and emotional trauma; pregnancy is another physical and emotional trauma, and I feel really strongly that politicians simply do not have the right to force a woman to do it. (Again, like I said--if the woman is capable of doing it, I think adoption is preferable. I just do not think it's okay to require, by law, that she do it. We simply don't have the right to make that choice for people.)
Many people talk about abortion as murder, and try to make it that simple. I wish it were that simple, but it isn't, and there's one reason why: This is a life that exists inside another human being's body. With that one fact it becomes impossible to make this a black and white issue, and that's why other people just don't have the right to make a blanket decision for everyone.
Incidentally, I also oppose making abortion illegal on practical grounds, because I do care about the welfare of babies. (This is incidental not because it's less important, but because it's about logistics rather than the principle of the thing.) Just like every single other thing that is illegal in our country, abortions would still happen if they were made illegal, and they would probably end up being done in horrible ways that are even less safe and less humane. I don't want that to happen. If caring about the life of the unborn child is our motivation, then making abortion illegal is counterproductive.
This is, perhaps, one of the most thoughtful things I've ever read about abortion.
ReplyDeleteLove this! I go back and forth and back and forth about the abortion issue. I would never tell a person to have an abortion so it seems to me contradictory for me to say that I am pro-choice, but I am. I think abortion is wrong. If my child got pregnant out of wedlock I would let her chose what to do. I had a friend who said her mom said if they got pregnant they wouldn't have a choice and the baby would be given up for adoption. I think every person should have a choice: keep the baby and raise it, put it up for adoption, or have an abortion. I advocate adoption over abortion, but in some cases it is necessary. I would like the government to say that if anyone wants and abortion they must be given education into the other options available first before the abortion happens. I agree with you 100% on the things you said here. I still however have a hard time being pro-choice because it feels like I am condoning abortion when I actually think it is very wrong. I am pro-choice, but think abortion is wrong. I don't think pro-life people understand that that can be a philosophy of a person.
ReplyDeleteI was going to write exactly what Janssen wrote. Especially this part: "The question at hand in the abortion debate is not whether babies have the right to life or women have the right to choose; the question is whether the government has the right to make the decision for people. The false dichotomy exists in the idea that being pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive, and that is because "pro-life" is a deceptive term which implies that you're either for life or against it. If you're pro-choice it's not because you are anti-life--it's because you think the government does not have the right to make the decision on this issue."
ReplyDeleteYou're exactly right. Just because I think abortion should stay legal does not mean I am anti-life, not in the least. Thank you for saying it in such a clear way.
Thank you, Janssen. I know exactly what you mean, Laura, and I think there are actually many people on both sides of the debate who don't understand that a person can be both--just look at how conflicted you are, even feeling the way you do! It is a really tough issue.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Megan. I'm not kidding when I say this was a big realization for me--Mike and I were talking in the car and I sort of had an epiphany about it. I think the reason people like Laura have such a hard time deciding where they stand is that the two sides being presented are false. It's a little hard to say you consider yourself pro-choice when you know you're likely to be called a "baby-killer" or something ridiculous like that, especially when you don't feel good about abortions. But the thing to realize is that being pro-choice isn't about whether or not you think abortions are good; it's about whether or not you think people have the right to force other people to conform to their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is a country where we should have the choice to do what we want with our bodies as long as it doesn't affect other lives around us (another example of government involvement would be drug use). In an ideal world no one would be in a position where they become pregnant without wanting to, unfortunately this isn't an ideal world and we are often put in situations that we didn't choose for ourselves. Being pregnant is about two lives and not just one and I agree that it is wrong to disregard the mothers life and feelings in favor of the child's, but feeling my unborn baby move every day and react to music and touch and sensing his little personality and spirit reminds me that he is a human and has every right to life that I do. I am not saying that the government has the right to make decisions for us, but I also can't condone the legality of abortion simply because that may make some feel that it is okay when in reality it is NOT OKAY! I really like thinking about the issue in this way though as I have never thought about the morality of the government being involved in such a personal and spiritual issue.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand how you feel, Jennie, and I know that being pregnant brings a whole new level of feeling to the situation. Like I said, I also believe that abortion is wrong, and although I believe that women should be allowed to make that choice, I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would be able to do it myself.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that abortion is legal doesn't mean it is right--remember the adultery comparison from my gay marriage post? We believe that adultery is 100% wrong, but there's no way we would allow the government to make it illegal. That is because the laws of this country are made by men, not God, and there are some things about which men are simply not qualified to judge others. Human beings just do not have the authority to legally force a woman to deliver a child--period. It isn't about condoning abortion at all; it's about people trying to make a choice for you that they have absolutely no right to make.
No matter how you look at it, an abortion takes away the opportunity for a human to have a life.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is true.
ReplyDeleteDoug, I just don't see how it's possible to think that a woman can have the physical responsibility of growing a person inside her body, but not the choice of whether or not she wants that person there in the first place--and if you advocate making abortion illegal even in the case of rape, then you say it's okay to take away that choice. I'm absolutely not saying that people who are pro-life support rape, because I know that's not the case. But if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, and you support legally forcing her to endure that pregnancy and deliver that baby... Well, it is just beyond my comprehension to see how any person could think they have that right.
ReplyDeleteMy philosophy when it comes to abortion is that when the opportunity arises for a woman to have an abortion that she has exercised her opportunity to make a choice. She made the choice to have sex and get pregnant. [Cases of rape are different because she didn't choose to engage in the act that could result in her getting pregnant.] Nearly everyone knows that having sex can result in pregnancy. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
ReplyDeleteEvery time we make a choice there is accountability that comes with it. What we're talking about is accountability for one's actions. If someone makes the choice to have sex and risk getting pregnant, they ought to be willing to live with the possible consequences. Their opportunity to choose occurred when they chose to perform the acts that got them pregnant. An abortion is an irresponsible attempt to get out of the accountability side of the equation, as if two wrongs can make a right.
Our society has two big problems that make this an apparently difficult issue, when it is really not. First is the idea that we can do whatever we want and not have to pay for our actions, especially when it comes to sex. That is just wrong. Choice and accountability are irrevocably linked. You can't make a choice without some kind of consequence. Those that advocate abortion are trying to have all choice but no accountability. By definition, this is irresponsible.
The second problem is that society teaches us that if there is a disconnect in time between an act and its apparent consequences, that somehow causes a disconnect between the choice and the consequence, as if time itself minimizes the connection. As if the fact that there can exist a period of time between the act of having sex and getting an abortion somehow takes away the consequences. It does not, even a little bit. It might give someone time to justify their actions, but it doesn't disconnect the action from its inevitable consequences.
Personally I find it inconceivable that anyone can justify taking away the potential for a human life for what are essentially selfish reasons. ("I don't want to carry a child full-term" is solely self-serving.) Life is precious and should be treated as such. At the very minimum, we ought to err on the side of caution rather than the very permanent act of termination.
And I don't want this to make an issue of just the woman making a bad choice; the man in the picture had the same opportunity to make a choice, and he screwed it up just as badly. And if he advocates an abortion, he's just as accountable for that act as well.
I absolutely agree with you, Doug. In many cases, probably most--those that don't arise from rape, danger to the mother's life, or something similar--abortion is an easy way out for people who were irresponsible and don't want to be accountable for their choices. I believe that is wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't change my point--that that accountability is to God, not to the United States government. I agree with everything you said, I believe the same things; but it still doesn't mean that anyone on this earth has the authority or the right to force a woman to have a baby. There's just no getting around that fact.
So I'm a little late to the party, but since I've grown fond of political discussions with you on Facebook, I was looking through your Philosophy Series and saw this one. (This is Steve Jones, by the way. I just have a weird name for blogging.)
ReplyDeletePro-life is not a deceptive term, it's just condensed, because as you already pointed out a few sentences earlier, it's Pro-baby's-right-to-life. A right means that something is granted, no matter what.
So even if one believes abortion is wrong, if one also believes it should be legal, they don't consider it a right. Hence, they are anti-baby's-right-to-life, not anti-life.
The fact is, the two rights being discussed ARE mutually exclusive. The baby can't be given the right to live AND the mother the right to choose if it lives or not. Both rights are noble, but they can't coexist.
When a soon-to-be-mother desires to have an abortion, two outcomes are possible:
1) The baby's right to live is infringed upon, or
2) the mother's right to live those 9 months how she wants is infringed upon.
Someone will be infringed upon; it's unavoidable. So it's really a lesser-of-two-evils kind of a thing. So from my perspective, we as a people have a choice to protect either 9 months of a woman's life, or an entire lifetime of a baby. It seems pretty clear where the greater good lies.
Now, for someone who doesn't believe that the fetus has life, I can totally see where the woman's right to choose would be a higher priority. But for someone who believes that the embryo's life is sacred, I just don't see how keeping the government out of private lives is more important than saving that life. It seems to me a totally skewed perspective. It's trying to take the mote out of the government's eye when there's a beam in the woman's.
Yes, it's unfortunate to have the government interfere in personal lives. And in most situations it's wrong. But to save a life... well, cops do that every day, and no one complains.
P.S. Adultery is outlawed in many states, although it is usually not enforced.
P.P.S. Citing extremist opinions that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and then applying it to the whole pro-life side is a strawman. Most people on the pro-life side believe that in cases of rape or life endangerment, abortion may be necessary.
Hello, Steve. Glad you joined us. :) It is funny when you and I debate because I feel like rather than seeing things from a different angle, we see the same angle and just flat-out are on opposite sides of it. (Does that make sense? I suspect it does not, but I'm not sure how else to describe it.)
ReplyDeleteHere is where I disagree with you: "From my perspective, we as a people have a choice to protect either 9 months of a woman's life, or an entire lifetime of a baby." The problem there is that "we as a people" don't actually have a choice in the matter, because "we as a people" have no authority in someone else's uterus--end of story.
Regarding government's involvement in people's personal lives: Yikes, that is some seriously shaky ground you're on. Does that mean you think it would be okay for the government to put secret cameras in everyone's homes? Because a lot of criminals could be caught that way, and a lot of lives could be saved. Would this be considered just an "unfortunate," but necessary, infringement?
P.S. Well, that is awkward. I did not know. I was astonished, initially, but I'm actually not after thinking about it--it seems I will never stop finding out that our freedom in America is a lot less comprehensive than we're led to believe. I read around a little bit and get the sense that part of the reason it's rarely enforced is how dubious its constitutionality is.
P.P.S. I don't really think an opinion can be called extremist when prominent political figures espouse it--the opinion of potential presidential candidates is kind of relevant. And it isn't a straw man at all, since at no point did I say that everyone who is pro-life believes that. I am simply referring to the people who do believe it.
P.P.P.S. In reference to people who believe that abortion is wrong but may be necessary in the case of rape or life endangerment: Where do they find that they have been given the authority to say that it's okay in some cases but not others? If you believe something is wrong enough that it's necessary to infringe on someone else's rights to prevent it, then how is it okay for you to say that never mind, it is acceptable in certain cases? When did conservatives get the authority to make that call, and how did the rest of us miss it?
It seems that where you and I differ is you're focusing on the uterus, and I'm focusing on the fetus. At no point in your rebuttal did you address the fact that the fetus has rights. Do you believe it does not? Rights are, in fact, enforced by the government.
ReplyDeleteThis is a government issue. No matter which way it swings, it's a government issue. Currently, if someone forced a woman to go through with the labor, such as an abortion clinic refusing to abort a baby, the government would be the one to enforce it. The government is either going to be protecting the woman, or the baby. They can't just disappear. That's an idealistic stance that sounds pretty, but is not at all representative of reality. The government would, in fact, be meddling with her uterus, just with her consent, but without the doctor's consent. Yes, uteri will always be subject to the government.
Frankly, I don't see how you can support the government taking away children who aren't being treated particularly well and putting their parents in jail, but you don't support the government saying, "no" to grinding her fetus up in a blender. That's a total double standard. If you don't think kids that are being abused should be a crime, then I guess I can see why you wouldn't care about a fetus, either. But I'm guessing that's not the case.
It's funny you bring up a slippery slope argument, because that's usually what conservatives do (i.e. "soon we'll be allowing men to marry animals!") So I wasn't expecting that out of you. The fact is, our government is built so that things move so slowly through the 3 branches of government that no slope is THAT slippery. I trust that my nation will be wise enough to draw the line somewhere.
Which brings me to my next point. You talk about the privacy of the uterus, and how we can't make qualifiers. Well, we already have qualifiers on many things, such as your bank account. Does the government have access to your bank account? No, it does not.... usually. But do something illegal, and it does. That's a qualifier. Someone, somewhere decided when it would be appropriate and when it would not. That is true with virtually every law, and abortion is no different.
In fact, there are already qualifiers on abortion. In many states, 3rd trimester abortions are illegal, and in most states partial birth abortion is illegal. Someone, somewhere decided what was right and what was wrong. You know who did it? The people. And that's damn good of them, too, because partial birth abortions are absolutely sick. Thank you, people, for stopping a practice that never should have existed.
Would a rape-abortion law be very enforcible? Maybe not. She could always lie, etc. But at least we'd be trying to direct women to do the right thing, even if not all of them listened.
Oh, and last thing. I guess I went a little far in saying it was a strawman. While I still feel that a lot of your initial argument was "raped women shouldn't have to carry their children," I guess you didn't explicitly state that all of us disagree with that thesis. Because I agree; they shouldn't.
In re the "slippery slope" argument: The fact that an argument is used to make a ridiculous point in one situation doesn't mean it's not true in other situations. :) And no offense, but I'd say that kind of trust is a little naive. I absolutely do NOT trust that the nation is wise enough to make those decisions. Humans marrying humans to humans marrying animals = ridiculous. Saying it's okay for the government to intervene in private life in one aspect to saying it's okay for it to intervene in other aspects = really, really small step.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think the fetus has rights. But all rights are not in fact enforceable by the government. (People have the right to be treated kindly. That is not enforceable. People have the right to be happy. Not enforceable. And so on.) A fetus has a right to life. That does not supersede a woman's right to be in control of her own body. No one has the right to put a life inside her body, and no one has a right to force her to keep one there.
Third trimester and partial-birth abortion are not the same issue, because in that case a woman has already, long ago, made the decision to carry the child. We're talking about the initial choice to carry the child. In a third-trimester abortion, the baby is conscious and can feel pain. That is particularly cruel. An abortion in the first few weeks--while, again, not something I condone--is not in any way the same thing as one in the last three months.
Neither is taking a child away from abusive parents, because in that case the child is not inside another person's body. That's a pretty obvious, fundamental difference. It's not a double standard at all, because you can't have a double standard when the two components aren't in any way the same. That's like saying that kicking empty air and kicking a person's leg are the same thing--the existence of another person's body in the equation changes things completely.
It's also not true that the government is involved either way. The government does not currently force women to have children (and an abortion clinic refusing to perform an abortion is not forcing a woman to go through labor, unless you mean ALL abortion clinics systematically refusing to perform ALL abortions because the government said so). What people want is for the government to START forcing women to have children. The government would not be choosing to protect the woman over the baby--it would be choosing to not get involved, and leave the choice to the people who actually have the right to make it. Choosing NOT to meddle is not meddling; people are trying to MAKE the government meddle in a way that it currently does not.
You say that in order for the government to have access to your bank account you have to do something illegal, right? But in order for it to have access to your uterus you have only to get pregnant? I wasn't aware that getting pregnant puts you in the same category as committing a crime. We have laws that say if you do certain things, the government gets involved. We do not say that if you get pregnant, the government now has control over your body.
Government is man's institution, not God's. The laws of the government are a social contract; the reason stealing, murdering, etc. are illegal is that they affect others who are part of the social contact. A woman's pregnancy is not part of the social contract, because it exists only inside her body--which we believe is sacred, and not to be invaded by others. Pregnancy is between the woman, the baby, the father, and God. The end; random strangers not allowed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-4865/
ReplyDeleteWhich do you think is worse? Forcing someone to give life to something they don't want to? Or forcing someone to kill something they don't want to? Yes, the government is involved in the issue either way. You need to see that.
Let me clear up one thing: The people for whom I think it should be illegal to get an abortion are those people who have consensual sex with a non-family member whose life is not in danger. The government didn't make them have sex. That was their choice. The VAST majority of abortions fall into this category; it's not even close. And yes, drafting such a law is very feasible.
Do I think the fetus's chance at life is more important than someone's right to hide from a screw-up? Yeah, I do. And I find it sad that you don't.
You know, I'm sympathetic, because everyone screws up. Sex is prevalent. Teenagers are horny. But just like everyone else, there are natural consequences to screwing up, and there shouldn't be an escape from that that costs another's life.
Will the 9 months be hard? Yeah, they will. But she'll live. She'll get over it, and move on. If she gets an abortion, the baby WON'T live. And the baby did nothing wrong; she did.
You think it's more important that the government keep its distance from personal lives than to confront abortion (which you admitted is wrong.) But with 1.3 MILLION abortions a year... I think this is a much bigger issue than privacy.
No, I don't think it's a small step to go from illegalizing abortion to putting cameras in our home. I think that's absolutely ridiculous, and from our other debates I really didn't expect you to make such an outlandish comparison.
I guess some of my comparisons were outlandish as well, but I wasn't trying to illustrate that partial-birth abortion was the same as 1st trimester abortion. My point was that, yes, people do find certain things WRONG and impose them on other people. You called third-trimester abortion "cruel," while someone else doesn't think it's cruel. But you're happy that they don't get their way, anyway. So in that respect, it's a double standard to say that it's a privacy issue in the first trimester, but in the third (while the baby is still IN ANOTHER'S BODY) that privacy no longer applies, because you yourself think it's cruel.
Is there more pain? Yeah. But that's not relevant to privacy, is it?
Lastly, the reason I brought up a live child (which may have also been a poor illustration) was to demonstrate that you're fine with the government taking control of someone's actions. It is much, MUCH more taxing on a woman to care for a child outside the womb than inside. Sure, when she's pregnant she can't bend over, and she might throw up. But she can go see movies she wants to see, go on vacation, walk around whenever she wants, go to work... basically live life like any other slightly sick person.
But a woman with a live child... well, the government forces her to feed the child, take care of the child, teach the child, never leave the child alone.... All of those are FORCED by the government. And she didn't even commit a crime! And all of those involve HER BODY. HER BODY has to feed the child. HER BODY has to be with it. So I don't get why you're fine with yielding control to the government in huge, huge things like every minute of every day of a woman for years, yet you're scared of the government telling her she can't chop up her baby.
(Wow, I'm a dork. This was so long that I had to split it up into two comments. I apologize. :) )
ReplyDeleteOkay, one last thing. I went and re-read what I just wrote, and I think I realized something, and where our disagreements lie: By what time does the woman have to make her choice before she loses her agency to the government's protection of the child? Some say by the time the baby comes out of the womb. If it comes out, the gov't protects it at that point, and the woman can no longer choose. You seem to say she must choose by the second trimester. In the third, you implied, she loses her right to choose. I say she has to choose by the time she has sex. Because that's when it won't cost someone else their life, and that's when its HER OWN ACTIONS that she can control. If she chooses to have sex, then she made her decision, and the gov't should protect the life created from that decision.
Random strangers? So for immigration they're our brothers and sisters, but those 1.3 million getting killed each year aren't worthy of also being called our siblings?
ReplyDeleteI "admitted" that I believe abortion is wrong right in the original post--that fact was never in question. But I also believe it is wrong for people to think they have a right to control other people in this way, and I find it sad that you think you have that right.
ReplyDelete"Random strangers" obviously did not refer to the 1.3 million--those would go in the "baby" category previously mentioned. The random strangers are people who think they have the right to force women to have children. I'm not devaluing those other people; it just isn't their bloody choice.
I understand your point with that article, but which one I think is worse actually isn't relevant here. It's completely possible for abortions to be legal without forcing doctors to compromise their beliefs, and all we're talking about is whether or not abortion itself should be legal. Maybe, like with gay marriage, maybe I believe that abortions should be legal but doctors should have the right to refuse to perform them if it goes against their beliefs. Again--not the issue.
I think it may be time that you and I agree to disagree on this one, Steve. We completely agree on what we feel about abortion itself, the irresponsibility of many people who get pregnant, etc. But you believe that other people have the right to control what happens inside a woman's body, and I one hundred percent believe they do not. The end. Those other things you said don't matter--about it only being nine months, about it being the woman who did something wrong, not the baby (which, by the way, is highly judgmental, since you know nothing about the circumstances involved). None of that matters because the fundamental issue is not whether or not abortion is good--it's whether or not the government has the right to control a woman's body. You will never be able to say anything that convinces me that it does.
I'm a little scared to jump into this conversation, but here I go (don't get mad if we have different views!).... I agree with Miri in that it's scary when the government starts taking away personal rights (Cory Doctorow's Little Brother), but I am a little more on the side of the Great Googly Moogly, that when the woman decides to have sex knowing that it could result in pregnancy is when she made the choice. If she was raped (not her choice) or is in danger of losing her life (not her choice), then those are special circumstances. Every law/rule/commandment has exceptions. There has to be a line where the women relinquishes her choice, whether it's at the time of sex, or the third trimester, because she is growing a person that has rights also. As with everyone, our life experiences color our opinions, and to me every little baby is such a precious gift, I find it hard to think of a woman giving up that life because it is inconvenient for her (after they chose to have sex- and exceptions to the rule of course). There are so many women who want those babies, it's hard to watch people have unnecesary abortions at any point in the pregnancy because they don't want to give birth to the child, whether they keep it or not.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect to be able to convince you otherwise. That's not why I have debates with opposing sides, cause it's usually only fence-sitters who will change their mind.
ReplyDeleteIf you 100% believe they do not, then third trimester abortions should be perfectly fine. That's still 100% inside a woman's body.
(Also, just to clarify, what I meant by screw-up and "did something wrong" is unwanted pregnancy. Virtually everyone agrees that an unwanted pregnancy is a screw-up, even those involved. Wasn't trying to be judgmental.)
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, Lis, I understand feeling that way, and how hard it is to see that happen. But unfortunately, no matter how sad it is, the fact that other people wish they could have a child doesn't give them the right to take control of someone else's body.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I've read too many books about this kind of thing--1984, Little Brother, The Handmaid's Tale--but I just can't understand saying "Yeah, it's scary to let the government take away our personal rights," and then letting them do it anyway. It's bizarre to me that people don't see how much of a slippery slope that really is--we let the government decide which people can get married and which people can't, we let them force women to carry children, because those are things we personally agree about; and then what happens when someone else is in charge and they don't agree with you? Then you've already set the precedent of letting the government make personal decisions for people that it should never, ever have the right to make, and what happens when they start forcing things that you don't agree with? I don't understand why people think it would be so impossible for this to happen.
but I just can't understand saying "Yeah, it's scary to let the government take away our personal rights," and then letting them do it anyway. It's bizarre to me that people don't see how much of a slippery slope that really is--
ReplyDeleteSome people who believe strongly in something thinks it's bizzare when people don't think the same as them, when in fact it's hard to know everything someone is thinking and easy to base their judgement on a few paragraphs instead. I think all these issues would be easier to talk about in person than on 'paper'.
Regardless of what we believe, I hope you are doing something to stand up for what you believe in besides just posting on this blog. Write a letter to a congressman, get to know some women who have had abortions and talk with them, get to know some women who considered abortion but didn't after all. Get to know some immigrants and illegals, get to know some people who oppose them. Buy organic and local food. If you don't actively take part in what you believe in, it's letting it slide. I think this blog is a good starting point for you to make a difference in the world, Miri- keep going.
That's very true, Lis, but rest assured, I don't actually base my opinions on just one conversation. I have discussions like this quite frequently.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how people seem to bring up the face to face issue whenever politics are being discussed. I absolutely agree, it's always easier to have a good conversation when you're talking in person, but that isn't always feasible. It's a little hard to have conversations in person when the people in your life live several states away, but I don't think that means no one should ever talk about anything serious anymore. The world is kind of a different place now, and I think we all need to get used to the fact that a significant portion of relationships takes place in writing. We can't just avoid the harder issues because we would rather talk about them face to face.
You know, I believe that talking to people about the issues is doing something to stand up for what you believe in, and is actually more important than a lot of those other things you can do. One of the biggest problems with politics is that people think the "other side" is something foreign, rather than people just like them, who are their own friends and neighbors. Yes, I get to know immigrants--there are several in my family. Yes, I get to know people who dislike immigrants--there are several in my family. Yes, I write letters to my Congresspeople. I also buy organic and local food whenever I can, vote in local elections, recycle and try to save energy, and volunteer with a local organization that works to support people I believe in. There is always a LOT more that I could be doing, but as the average person goes, I think I'm actually pretty good at getting involved. :)