Point taken. Yes, you don’t seem to be trying to make the country into a Catholic haven. But the pro-life position regarding the “value of human life,” yours included, is not based on facts and science, but on feelings and beliefs. And my feelings and beliefs on the subject, and Lobohan’s and everyone else’s, have equal validity to yours no matter whence it comes, which was my point. And a government run on feelings and beliefs cannot possibly be what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
When I see people like the Salvadoran authorities, it seems to me they have internalized a single principle: no abortion! And they substitute that rule for any kind of critical thinking about WHY the rule exists.
If I can draw an analogy: a good friend of mine observed people at his parish attending the Good Friday service. A bit of trivia: Good Friday is the only day in which the sacrifice of Mass is not performed. The Tabernacle, which normally holds consecrated bread, the Eucharist, is left standing open and empty. Yet people came into the Church, genuflected in the aisle when they reached their pew, and then sat - just as they do every Sunday.
But… the reason they do it every Sunday is because every Sunday, the Tabernacle contains the Eucharist, the real presence of Christ!
So my friend’s wry observation was: “What are they genuflecting to? And, more important, what were they genuflecting to the other 52 days of the year?”
In other words, they didn’t think about the WHY of the rule. They just knew, on some basic level, that genuflecting is what you do before you enter the pew.
That kind of unthinking adherence to a rule is not wise. And if it’s applied in cases of abortion, it’s tragic.
I could say that the rule prohibiting drowning a five-minute old infant, if we see that the infant is born with Down’s syndrome, is ALSO based on feelings and beliefs rather than science. True?
“Indecent exposure” laws? Laws against adult incest? Laws against beastility?
All based on feelings and beliefs.
Perhaps it’s more accurate to say “a government that makes decisions that are based ONLY on feelings and beliefs”, snugs.
That said, if it was mandatory to legalize adult incest and beastiality in order to secure abortion rights… sure, I can picture making that trade. Indecent exposure is a bit trickier, since I gather by definition it involves springing yourself (as it were) on the public, while the other two are more private and with less social impact.
Actually so far as I am concerned, indecent exposure should be the easiest. There is no logical reason why being exposed to human nakedness should be considered a traumatic experience. It’s really just a silly cultural hangup with no victims at all. Having spent time in India, where naked people are a common sight, it’s really no big deal. Plus, if people stopped caring about it, that would reduce the incentive to do it. This is definitely an area in which I would say that the offense is the result of its illegality.
I dunno… not that I’m prudish or or anything, but isn’t indecent exposure (and not just casual nudity but real “hey, perfect stranger, LOOK AT ME!” stuff) considered a potential gateway activity to more violent crimes? I’ll have to review John E. Douglas’ Mindhunter this weekend; I’m pretty sure he mentions indecent exposure as an early warning sign.
In general, I can see making a distinction between some guy trying to take a leak in the woods who gets spotted by some girl scouts, and some guy who likes to suddenly pull his door open and show his wang to, well, some girl scouts.
An argument could be made that the laws against bestiality are based on consent issues, although you could make an argument that making consent a necessary precondition of sexual activity is based on feelings and beliefs.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Mindhunter this weekend; I’m pretty sure he mentions indecent exposure as an early warning sign.
[/quote]
This almost seems like a non sequitur.
What if it were shown that sex criminals were more likely to wear Tom Selleck mustaches?
What if I said that there was a statistical correlation between orange trousers and Mafiosi? Would you feel the necessity to ban orange trousers?
Again, so what? It’s only offensive if the girls take offense. If our society didn’t make a big deal about nudity, there would be no trauma and less incentive c
Gosh, when you put it like that, you’re still wrong!
OK, all feelings and beliefs, hence, all are equal as compared to an objective standard. Except for the fact that there are more of us than there are of you. Except for the fact that, as a result, these laws foist the will of a minority on the majority without any objective reason for doing so.
And do so by means of a legalistic contraption, Rube Goldberg, Attorney at Law. A purely artificial contraption, pretending to one purpose while affecting another purpose altogether. And no, 30% of the women compelled to ultrasound will not change their minds, they came for a procedure they chose of their own free will. You may believe, if you wish, that women’s minds are fragile things that can be changed by the slightest effort. That has not been my experience, but good luck with that.
It is a woman’s prerogative to change her mind, but she tends to hold that prerogative just outside of your reach.
And the insult lurking beneath all of this is that a woman of sufficient means can bat all of this aside by the simple expedient of a plane ticket.
My point exactly. We criminalize naked people on the beach, which isn’t anything at all but our prudish feelings about naked people on beaches. In areas which permit nude sunbathing, we don’t see any glaring uptick in sexual assaults.
In short: we have all sorts of laws that arise from feelings and emotions, as opposed to reason and fact.
Don’t we?
Sure we do. Doesn’t mean that it is a good thing to add more.
Hey, don’t get on my case just because I referenced (I’ll confirm if Douglas mentions indecent exposure when I get my hands on his book) a possible warning sign, something that law enforcement might be well-served to keep a record of when corpses start showing up.
Of course, now I’m wondering how serial killers in India start out.
Well, if western society changes and the taboo of nudity gets replaced with a taboo on something else and we have people who compulsively violate that taboo and later go on to dig shallow graves in their crawlspaces, fine, I’ll drop my misgivings about legalizing indecent exposure.
And again, I’m fully prepared to recognize the distinction between nudity where it is expected or unnoticed (i.e. a nude beach, someone urinating in the woods with no expectation of being seen) and nudity that is deliberately shown where UNexpected and to BE noticed.
On reflection, if 30% (or any significant percentage) of women changed their minds about aborting after being forced to see an ultrasound, doesn’t THAT suggest social influences, i.e. she’s already got some feelings of guilt (maybe she’s Catholic and thus it’s been ingrained since childhood), possibly enhanced by pro-life protestors who told her she was killing her baby when she entered the clinic…
If society would drop THAT concern, THEN perhaps we could say the ultrasound is just another piece of medical information. And since it’s not a particularly important piece of medical info in this context, we’d wonder why we’re ordering its collection and use in the first place.
To the extent we do, it’s a bad thing, especially when it involves a fundamental right.
I also believe that public nudity should be a fundamental right, but it’s not one I’m bothered to argue over at this point.
I’ll note that in Islamic countries, the maintenance of blasphemy laws is often justified by the argument that blasphemy hurts the feelings of believers. That’s an irrational, emotional appeal. Fortunately, our free speech right trumps that. Abortion should work the same way.
I always thought that the altar itself contained a relic and that even if the tabernacle is vacant/moved, you still genuflect to show respect for the altar and its relic, which I believe is why the priest kisses the altar at the start of mass.
I think we are all united in disapproval of unnecessary genuflecting.
Anyone not in on that?
Yes and no. You should bow to show respect to the saint whose relic is in the altar; you should genuflect to the Real Presence of Christ.
That may be – but the fact that it isn’t so destroys the argument that it isn’t so. True?
Are you trying to pull that trick that Capt. Kirk did to the space robot?