I've discussed this issue before.
The foremost issue in every election is this: should the strong kill the weak?
I say, NO. I say that our government should always prohibit the strong from killing the weak. If the government fails to protect the lives of ANYONE within its jurisdiction, it has failed us all. It has diminished our humanity. If the government draws a line to separate one group, which can be killed legally, from the rest, then be assured that the government can move that line at any time, to include any other group in the list of who can be killed, for any reason or no reason at all.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are brawnier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are angrier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have better weapons than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they outnumber their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more money than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more votes than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are of the preferred race and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are given legal privileges that their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are healthy and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are legally competent and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are photogenic and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have no genetic or developmental abnormalities and their victims do, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have been born and their victims have not, the strong should not kill the weak.
Believe it or not, this is NOT a settled question at this time. In the previous century, numerous governments have adopted a variety of positions on the issue.
All governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in SOME cases. But that is not the full story.
Some governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in all cases.
Some governments have sometimes merely inhibited the strong from killing the weak.
Some governments have sometimes permitted the strong to kill the weak.
Some governments have sometimes aided the strong in killing the weak.
And some governments have actually REQUIRED the strong to kill the weak.
If you think the last ended with the fall of the Third Reich and the liberation of their death and concentration camps, you are in error. Both Stalin and Mao demanded that their political opponents be slain; in Mao's case, by their neighbors when enforcing the One Child Policy.
You can escape that lowest tier here in the US if you're very careful to delve deeply into the coverage provided by your healthcare insurance company, and you have enough money to opt out. Regardless of whether your plan covers abortion, if any of the plans offered by your insurer do, you are contributing to that coverage. And certainly if your state's Medicaid coverage includes abortion, then your state government is helping the strong kill the weak. This is why local elections areas or more important than national elections.
And when you vote, remember that the most important issue is whether your governments will prevent the strong from killing the weak.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What is your position on capital punishment? I.e., do you agree with the statement "It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have not committed crimes and their victims have murdered people, the strong should not kill the weak."
Also, what is your position on cases where the life of the mother is at issue? Do you agree with the statement "It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have political power to decide that the victim who has been born should die rather than the potential victim who has not been born, the strong should not kill the weak."
I am not going to try to argue or change your mind; I absolutely respect your moral code. I simply noticed a few gaps in your list of situations, and I'm curious as to how you view them.
I do not believe in using executions as punishment. I have touched on this before.
Executions, to be moral, must be a form of justifiable homicide. A state is justified in executing a prisoner when that is the only way to protect others from the danger said prisoner poses. For example, Saddam Hussein was publicly hanged, on television, in order to forestall his remaining supporters from fomenting civil war. It was reasonable to believe that they would go to war for as long as he lived. Only proving that he could not be restored to power, by killing him in public, would dissuade them.
I would support execution of a criminal if it was demonstrated that even while in prison, he posed a credible threat of attempted murder or rape to other prisoners, in spite of reasonable and prudent precautions.
As for your second case: When the life of a pregnant woman is at risk, then with her informed consent, the doctors may treat her just as they would if she were not pregnant, disregarding the safety of the baby if that's what the treatment calls for and that's she wants. For example, uterine cancer is often treated by removing the uterus. If she is pregnant, that will absolutely kill the baby, but the goal is to remove the neoplasms, not kill the baby, so it is tragic but acceptable. Likewise, chemotherapy is very dangerous to a child in utero. Killing the baby isn't the point; it's a side effect or complication of the accepted treatment. We call this "double effect," and it has applications outside of medicine.
Spontaneous abortion, more commonly called "miscarriage," is not murder the way a procured abortion, whether surgical or pharmacological, is. Surgical extraction of a dead fetus is not a procured abortion, because the doctor can't kill what is already dead. If the baby is dead, then neither D&E nor D&C is wrong, because they protect the mother from the danger of the rotting corpse in her womb.
When a pregnant woman facing a life-threatening condition, even when it's a complication of pregnancy (e.g. preeclampsia), it is wrong for the doctors to start with a "therapeutic abortion." I can see going for an early c-section or drugs that threaten the baby, but not killing the baby.
Post a Comment