Shuffle Says: “Five Months, Two Weeks, Two Days” Louis Prima, et al., The Capitol Recordings

My friend Julie over at Happy Catholic posted a month or so ago about her belief that the world was turning into a dystopic Scifi novel. While I won’t disagree outright that I increasingly find actions taken by our government to move us closer and closer to an Orwellian singularity, I do take issue with a few of her pieces of evidence.

The first was  “A paper proposing use of the term ‘after birth abortion’”

Second was in regards to “The House rejected a ban on sex-selection abortions.”

The third was A BBC story about doctors in the UK taking organ donation for granted.

Let’s take them one at a time.

First off, leave the Philosophers alone. They’re suggestion is abhorrent? Perhaps, but they exist in the world of academia, which we can all agree bears little resemblance to the real world. I hate to sound like one of those crotchety oul fellas that always get proven wrong by history, but it’s absurd to posit that a suggestion like this would gain any traction in the US government, which is already bifurcated to the point of ineptitude by the abortion issue. Furthermore, this is their job: to argue all possible sides of an idea, to make us question morality and ethics and the state of society. The same form of critical thinking that is allows you to call these potential atrocities into question. The vast majority of people even in the essayist world will never know these guys names or pay them any mind. And it is for that reason these sort of people would even make this argument. To get people to react to it and pay attention to them for even the briefest moment. They’re trolling you. This is no more than a modern, poor man’s Modest Proposal with less ties to reality.

OK Onto the Doctors in moderately OK Britain.

I only wish this was happening in the US. We’re trying to solve a problem. I can’t list the statistics off the top of my head, but smart people have told me (and my smart people source is the head of transplant services at UT Southwestern Medical Center) about how woefully unhelpful current system is. Many other nations have circumvented by changing the mentality of the issue. The psychology behind it is this. Human beings are programmed to do two things, help their fellow man, and avoid death. Now the fellow man thing is subject to the death thing because, well… logic. Same question phrased differently plays on both. If you present it the way we do. Assume no. you have to go out of your way to say yes. In doing so you are forced to face the fact that you will, not might, die. Something we humans especially Americans don’t do well. Other countries mostly Northern European have far fewer problems with both the expense and wait time for new organs.

What triggers is the base instinct that anything to do with death is to be avoided and with it so easy to just not go the extra step people tend to just not do it. However, when the opposite is true you are forced to go out of your way to say no, the subtext of those two letters is “I want to screw over my fellow man because I want my corpse to be prettier”. We are biologically programmed (thank the maker) to feel guilt at this notion (and by we I don’t just mean cradle Catholics and Jews mind you) which again makes us more likely to be decent human beings.

All this considered.

Any person or any reason at any time can opt out of this very easily.

Just a dying ALS patient can sign (at least by oral proxy) a DNR, or a Jehova’s Whitness can refuse blood, or a Christian Scientist can refuse… y’know, medical treatment. Anyone can say no. Also, Catholics are taught that at death our souls detach from our bodies so we really shouldn’t give a shit about what happens to our corpses (I mean no one wants their remains raped, but hey, necros need lovin too). Personally, I believe it’s common Christian kindness to give what we can to others. No one would probably want my  kidneys but I’ve been told I got a good heart (which I don’t ever take for granted because two of my closest friends suffer from the exact same, but extremely rare congenital heart defect and whom but for the grace of whatever you pray to, and a brilliant fucking team of surgeons I’d never have the pleasure of spending some of the happiest moments [and on one drunken occasion bodily fluids] with)

I hope my body can be of use for as long as possible and for as many people can be dosed with ether, put in ice packs, and sold to the highest bidder.

Anyhoo, onto abortion

I want to make it very clear that I am NOT taking a stance on abortion (not in this post anyhow. I actually have a very clear understanding of my views on the matter and almost no one knows them, but that’s another story and shall be told at another time). The question raise is should abortions be allowed based on sex. Therefore we are only answering the second half given the premise that abortions are legal.

We cannot police thoughts. Motive in case of legal actions is irrelevant. The mindset should only come into play when distinguishing illegal acts for instance making the call between manslaughter and murder or when knowledge of circumstances affects a prison sentence as is the case in statutory rape.

Abortion in the United States is a legal action and therefore the reasons for taking such action cannot be grounds for prosecution. In order to allow for such a suggestion we’d have to submit that a person’s thoughts should be subject to law and that would be a grave misstep.  It’s the same reason that hate crime legislation is dangerous (I know at least two of my readers are gonna slap me for that one, but is simply fact).

You believe that terminating a pregnancy on the basis of sex is wrong. That’s fine. Sounds like a shitty reason to me too. Hell, I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s morally reprehensible, but we cannot have freedom of speech or religion if we don’t first have freedom of thought for I would certainly hope that thought comes before speech and occurs concurrently with faith. Freedom of thought is not written down for it must exist a priori to all other laws.

A wise old cowboy once told me “Yer on the right side of the law to carry ice cream in yer pockets, even if yer mind is set to horse thevin. ‘Cept in Colorado of course.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s