Do Whatever You Want with Your Own Body but...

With Obama's speech to and honorary degree from Notre Dame bringing abortion back into the news, I have decided to put my thoughts on the issue into words. This is as much a matter of clarifying my position to myself as it is of creating a post for others to read. While on most issues my opinion is definite and unconflicted, abortion does bring up many mixed feelings and opposing thoughts that I can't quite reconcile.

When I was an undergraduate in college, I was a member of the campus pro-life group. I was also a practicing Catholic then, which I no longer am (I still believe in God, but do not see any particular religion that I know of as having most of the answers). Still, even then I was mostly libertarian, though I didn't feel strongly enough about my libertarian position on social issues to vote for Libertarians instead of Republicans. I did then, as I do now, see abortion as different from issues such as drugs, pornography, and prostitution. Using recreational drugs (including but certainly not limited to alcohol and tobacco), using and acting in or be photographed in pornography, engaging in prostitution - whether as the prostitute or the john, not to mention riding in a car without using a seat belt or riding a motorcycle without a helmet are all examples of choosing what to do with your own body. (Note: the last two are things I would never do as there are less painful ways to commit suicide than car and motorcycle crashes, but I support other people's rights to fly through windshields anid split their heads when they land after being thrown off a motorbike). I support both women and men doing whatever they want with their own bodies. But a fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate being with its own DNA, and within two months, its own blood type, heartbeat, and brain. To call it a parasite might be accurate depending on your definition, though it is no more a biological parasite than minor children are economic parasites. While it may cause temporary symptoms of illness, it is not really detrimental the woman's health, as would be a virus or a tapeworm. It is not an invader but rather something the woman's body is designed to host. Abortion is not a matter of doing what she wants with her own body but a matter of her having control over the life and death of a distinct individual that just so happens to live within her body.

To put it another way, drugs, prostitution, and most other so-called vices are victimless in and of themselves. Victimization may occur as an unintended consequence but it is not intrinsic to the products or services themselves. And most of these victimizations - drug dealers shooting rivals over "turf", drug users stealing to support their habits, pimps and johns beating prostitutes, prostitutes robbing johns, pimps taking all of the money prostitutes earn instead of a reasonable cut, etc. - are direct results of the fact that these things are illegal. Take away the black market and allow the prices to be determined by a free market, and you take away a lot of the motivation for criminal behavior around these otherwise peaceful activities. And the few criminals left as vendors or customers of these businesses could be reported by the honest people who no longer had a reason to fear the police. In any case, these unfortunate consequences are by no means the purpose of drugs and prostitution, any more than air pollution is the purpose of a car. With abortion killing something, whether or not you consider it human, is the very definition of the act.

I also think that the death penalty, while not without its problems is much more justifiable than abortion. It is true that a an innocent person could be killed, and. since this sentence is irreversable, that is a reason why I have some misgivings about the death penalty. Still, there is no question in mind that some people deserve to die (anyone who kills innocent people for pleasure, or one who kills in the act of committing another crime i.e. felony murder). So while the death penalty targets those who have met a fairly high standard to be proven guilty of terrible crimes, abortion targets those who are known to be innocent. Similarly, in a just war where only combatants and the ruling party (or leaders of the insurgency) are targeted but civilians get caught in the crossfire, this is quite different from intentionally ending the life of an innocent being. As for deliberately targeting innocents to bring a swift end to the war and save millions of other lives - as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - this is problematic, though I view it somewhat like using abortion to save the life of the mother (which is the one case where I do unequivocally support abortion during any stage of pregnancy).

There is one thing that I do support, which I can't help noticing is similar to abortion - animal slaughter. I have stated my postion on killing animals for food before. I am not sure about killing animals just for their skins (or furs), though I'm defienitely not opposed to using skin when it is left over from an animal that's been used for meat (as with leather). I do have a problem with killing for pure recreation or trophy hunting, but I support the rights of hunters who eat the animals they harvest.

Meat is a natural part of the human diet, as it is for the diet of chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. I don't doubt that some people can be healthy on a vegetarian or vegan diet, but different people have different dietary needs. For example the Dali Lama was a vegetarian, but began eating meat when his doctors told him he needed it. I also dont' see the difference between people eating cattle, pigs ,sheep,and chickens, and mountain lions or wolves doing the same. Or fish eating other fish, lions eating zebras, or any of thousands (millions?) of other predator species doing what they do in the natural world. Well, there is one difference, people, at least sometimes make efforts to minmize or even eliminate the suffering of their prey. (cf. Temple Grandin and the Animal Welfare Institute).

This all leaves me with the question: should human fetuses have more rights than animals? This is something that I feel should be a yes, but at this time I cannot come up with a logical reason why. And, while I consider abortion immoral and drug use perfectly moral, I do see an attempt to enforce abortion laws as having the potential to cause the police state environment that has grown from the War on Drugs and the War on Terror to become even more repressive. So for now at least, I won't be fighting to change the laws on abortion or basing my vote for a candidate on this issue (regardless of which side he or she stands on).

Still, I would ask that those who are considering abortion because of a birth defect or disability, as well as those who are minorities to consider the genocidal implications. In any case, its fair to say that not all pro-lifers fit the sterotype of prudish right-wing religious fanatics. Some might say it is hypocritical to acknowledge that while calling anti-porn, anti-prostitution, anti-BDSM feminists "anti-sex", but based on the total of all that I've read that the radfems have written and their treatment of people who disagree with them about sexual matters, I think it's a fair assessment.

PS Happy Memorial Day all veterans, those currently serving in the armed forces, and their families.

Foreign Aid Petition

I received an e-mail asking to sign a petition to "Reform U.S. Foreign Aid." I had to think about this a little while. Normally, I don't think it is a good idea to try to "improve" something that, for the most part, I'd like to see eliminated. But, after looking at the text of the bill, as well as various commentaries on it, I decided that its calls for accountability, transparency, and streamlining bureaucracy are positive enough to outweigh any problems it might have. So, I signed the petition, while attaching this message:

I would prefer to see all foreign aid eventually phased out. I would like to see assistance to allied governments come in the form of loans or favors that can be reciprocated rather than grants. Charity, where it is needed, should come from voluntary private donations, not taxpayer money. But, seeing as how foreign aid is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, this does seem like a step in the right direction.

Let the Tea Bagging Continue

KIA, in responding to Becky C.'s post put it best:

If you were like me and real-world committments prevented you from attending the tea parties live, you can send an electronic teabag here:

http://teaparty.gop.com/

Nevermind the hypocrisy of the GOP now, go ahead and teabag the current leadership. It's never too late to try to make a difference.

I couldn't agree more. I know that the Republicans under Bush outdid what the Democrats had done in wasteful spending up until that time. I know that the Republicans under McCain would likely do the same. And I'm far from convinced that GOP politicians have learned anything from last election.

If the GOP is giving us a forum, though, to express outrage about taxes and spending I am not against using it. Just as if the Dems gave a forum to protest loss of civil liberties under a Republican administration, I'd use that, even though Dems are not much better, and arguably worse than the Repubs on that score.

I don't care who Fox News praises and the other networks ridicule or vice-versa. It's about the message, not the messengers. So I sent my postcard and you can too. It's a little late for tax day of this year but really, really early for next year! (And it would be great if the spirit of protest could be maintained year round).

Amazons Rankings are Rank

Say it ain't so, Jeff Bezos!

Amazon.com has been one of my favorite places to shop for a long time. Especially during the Christmas season when I try to avoid the malls like the plague. So I hope that this "glitch," or whatever it is, with Amazon Rankings is fixed soon.

Sure, there are plenty of other online stores to shop on, but I already have my name, address, credit card info., etc. on Amazon. I don't like to enter all that information in more places than I have to. So hopefully they'll fix whatever's wrong and issue a substantial apology to the injured parties, before I have to experience the pain of boycotting them.

As an interesting aside I was once sent an e-mail by Amazon telling me of several gay-themed books and movies that I "might be interested in" because I purchased a DVD of Airplane! Go figure.

Update: April 30, 2009 - I see that the "glitch" has been fixed. While it is regrettable that this happened in the first place, it is good to see that Amazon did respond when it's customers made their feelings known. With Mother's Day and my brother's birthday coming soon, I am glad I don't have to boycott them!

We Need More Eighteenth Century Men

Thomas Frank in his column this week in The Wall Street Journal Eighteenth-Century Man made a good point about the ridiculousness of fat-cat politicians who pretend to be down-home folks while they spew faux-populist rhetoric. However, he failed to prove that the main subject of this column, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, fit this category. In fact, he conceded that "Mr. Sanford's democratic idealism may be for real, but ... with ideals this bad, you don't need hypocrisy to go wrong." And what are those horrible, horrible ideals? Opposing deficit spending, seeking better ways for people to invest their Social Security money, and above all, refusing federal government handouts.

Now, I know that in times like these deficits "don't matter." We are all Keynesians, socialists, or whatever term will fly to justify the "temporary" increase in government spending to get us out of the latest emergency. Fine. Let's get all we need from "the rich," and who cares if those labeled rich for the purpose of soaking them at tax time may be anything but. Is there really no way to cut a $3.55 trillion budget? Is raising concerns about deficit spending really such a bad thing? I thought that one of the causes of the current economic crisis was people spending beyond their means - whether they were private individuals, corporate executives, or even those most virtuous of virtuous people - government officials.

How about Mr. Frank's take on Social Security? Well he does score some cheap points by saying:

Business, on the other hand, is an institution with almost magical powers of beneficence: were we to entrust our retirement savings to "conventional investments" instead of government, Mr. Sanford wrote in 2000, we could expect returns of 8% a year. (And that's why the Dow stands well above 20,000 today.)

Very good, except that an investment purely in the stock market has historically yielded close to 10% per year since 1926. So the 8% return implies a balance between stocks, bonds, and money market instruments as financial advisers have always recommended. With such a combination there will be fewer years with a loss and those years that do have a loss will be less severe. Even taking into account the really bad years like 1931 and 2008, long term investments in the markets almost always beat the below 3% returns offered by Social Security. Plus, markets do tend to go up shortly after their worst crashes (one of the best years in the market was 1933). After Social Security collapses we can look forward to the government printing more worthless bills. Of course, I can't blame anyone who can't trust the markets. But I can say that the money you send to the government for Social Security would be much better invested in gold coins, canned goods, bottled water (or water purification tablets), farmland, livestock, guns, ammo, etc. than to finance government waste.

Finally, there is Mr. Frank's smug dismissal of Mr. Sanford's refusal to be a welfare queen:

Worst of all, his stand against the stimulus, while self-denying in the Sanford tradition, was taken against the loud protests of less Spartan citizens. Mr. Sanford's desire to strike his bold moral pose took priority over his state's need for relief.

Loud protests of less Spartan citizens? How many citizens protested against the stimulus package in the first place? Quite a few I know protested against the first round of Federal Bailouts (with letters to congresspeople - those protests were not very loud, I guess that's the problem). The point is, there will almost always be loud protesters on all sides of a controversial issue and if government officials never did anything because there were protesters opposed to it governments would never get anything done (which would be a good thing, but only officials of all ideological stripes paid heed to their protesters equally). In any case, in this era when it seems that every public figure, whether in government or private industry, has an outstretched hand saying "gimme, gimme, gimme!' does it not seem right to condemn the one who says "I don't need your charity." After all his "less Spartan citizens" can move to any of at least a dozen other states whose governors are begging Uncle Sam for bailouts like dogs begging their masters for treats, and whose legislators have already spent twice the bailout they hope to get.

It is true, Mark Sanford may not be the responsible citizen legislator he pretends to be. But it almost seems that Thomas Frank wishes he wasn't. Mr. Frank and his ilk can accept sleazy, lying politicians. What they can't accept is principled opposition to big and ever-expanding government.

Even the most reasonable radfem....

I learned of a challenge to find feminist porn from Nine Deuce at "Rage Against the Manchine." Though the challenge was initiated by another radical (read anti-sex) feminist, Nine Deuce was offering to bet anyone $100 to anyone who could win the challenge. I did not take the bet, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with radical feminism (and if it's not obvious read on and it will become so).

Nine Deuce is one of the few radfems who will occasionally let people who don't kiss her ass comment on her blog, and even more occasionally she will post opinions of people who disagree with her, if only so she can personally attack them. So, I thought I might have a chance of getting my comment posted. WRONG! Why I do not know, but I suspect it is because of its mildly sarcastic tone. I should have known that 92 reserves sarcasm for herself and her groupies (of course their sarcasm is anything but mild and usually quite personal). Just goes to show that even the most reasonable radfem can be very arbitrary and unreasonable, and will impose double-standards at the drop of a hat when her fragile little feelings are hurt by someone attacking her worldview.

Anyway, here is the oh-so-offensive posting:

This seems like a rigged contest to me. When has an anti-porn feminist ever considered anything even slightly erotic to be feminist?

Photos of nude or scantily clad men for women's consumption? Male exotic dancers? They're not fulfilling women's real sexual fantasies, just the women's desire to be like men so they're ...MISOGYNISTIC! Women playing a dominant role in BDSM? Everyone knows that no woman really wants to participate in BDSM in any role; they only do it to please their male partners therefore it is ...MISOGYNISTIC! Lesbian porn? Always someone playing a male role and someone playing female role and playing the female role is always degrading. (Incidentally the exact same thing can be said about gay male porn). Now, I, personally, don't know what evidence there is to support the idea of all lesbian and gay porn having people playing opposite sex roles, or the reason that the female role is inherently degrading. But the high priestesses of radical feminism all agree among these points so they must be true. Therefore, of course all same sex porn is ...MISOGYNISTIC!

In fact all sex is misogynistic. All male masturbation is, too, because masturbating males are fantasizing about having sex with (and therefore violating) a woman, or fantasizing about having sex with someone they plan to treat like a woman. I don't know if female masturbation is misogynistic but I'm sure researchers in Women's Studies labs are working hard to determine that.

PS Congratulations to the Villanova men's basketball team on making it to the Final Four for the first time in 24 years! Thanks to you not all of the money I left in Vegas 2 weeks will stay in Vegas (and even less if you win the overall tournament). But whatever happens from now on, thanks for a great season.

MMM... Suicide!

It's hard to believe it's been almost three months since my last entry here. Largely it's been a combination of procrastination and having more pressing things to do. But also, there was the fact that while there have been many news items that piqued my interest I have had a hard time lately finding something to put a unique spin on. In matters from the stimulus plans to the War on Drugs, time and again Becky C. has said what I would have said had I thought of it first and had her eloquence. On the subject of the Octomom, Becky made some good points as well, though I think she glosses over extreme irresponsibility of both Ms. Suleman and her doctor to implant the 8 (EIGHT!) embryoes in the first place. Still, she's far from the only irresponsible parent, or the only person being rewarded for irresponsibility with taxpayer funded handouts. And while I think its in the best interest of all 14 of her children to be placed with people who don't see parenthood as a game, taking away someone's children should never be easy for the state.

But anyway, what finally brought me back to blogging was the discovery of a blog called Suicide Food. (I don't want to publicize the blog that led me to this, but you'll find if you look up anti-sex spinster cunt aunt). As a dedicated omnivore, I find the SuFoo site enjoyable in a way the author probably doesn't intend. See, while I understand that while creatures wanting to be eaten do not reflect the reality of today, I do hope that genetecists can make that happy vision a reality some time in the future. Interestingly enough, SuFoo's author, Ben is, like me, not only aware of but also a fan of the Ameglian Major cow from Douglas Adams' The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. While it does seem that Mr. Adams created the Ameglian cow mainly for satirical purposes, it is obviously more moral to eat a creature that clearly wants to be eaten than a vegetable or fungus that we assume has no feelings. Broccoli and mushrooms don't appear to have feelings but neither do clams and mussels (two of the few animal species I have harvested with my own hands).

This does, of course, present a dilemma, sure the Ameglian cow could scold Arthur Dent, and the rest of us, for eating a salad against the wishes of the vegetables but what did he eat (yes the creature was male and was called a "cow", not a bull or a head of cattle; Douglas Adams wrote that not me - so deal!) Even assuming that the cow ate other animals somewhere down the food chain something had to eat something that got its energy from photosynthesis. And, I would find an all an meat diet almost as unappealing as a vegan one. So I hope that someday some bioengineer will come up with plants that can express their wish to be eaten. And they should be able to express joy for having their embroyes eaten unless we never eat peas, corn, nuts or any kind of beans, including the vegan favorite soy beans (is it too much to ask for biotechnology to create plant embroyoes that could express their own desire to be eaten, obviously not all should have that desire since some we will want to grow into the next generation of plants). Otherwise eating seeds, or eating fruit containing seeds that one throws away, is just as immoral as eating eggs. Incidentally, the issue of eggs raises one of the biggest questions I have about the animal rights movement: There are people who are against eating meat and people against abortion. There are people who are against both. Generally I can respect all of their opinions, and can understand why people in the third category would be against eating eggs. But there are also people, from what I can tell a very large percentage of self-proclaimed vegans, who believe there should be no restriction on aborting human fetuses, but consider it immoral to eat the eggs of a chicken. Am I missing something, or am I justified in my desire to feed the people in this last category to the lions?

Well, since these ethical dilemmas have no solution in the foreseeable future, I guess the best that I can do is try to make sure whatever species my food comes from is treated as ethically as possible. To that end, I have decided to link to the Animal Welfare Institute (as for why I am so emphatic about making sure that people know I am not supporting PETA, the reasons are many, though here is a good place to start). I have also decided to link to the site of Temple Grandin. In addition to being one of the best self-help advisers for her fellow autistic people, Dr. Grandin has probably done more to improve the lives of farm animals than all of the people who have tresapassed on farms or broken into labs to "liberate" animals combined.