Do you stick to your own standard talking points, or is there something new you should be paying attention to as regards the candidates? When you consider Trump, this becomes a real challenge.
Before he started his run for the presidency, it seemed easy to write him off as a buffoon, a TV impresario. Who talks like that? Who sticks his name on every building he can get his hands on? And, what's with that ridiculous hair style? Who can take a guy like that seriously?
But slowly I'm beginning to get the feeling that maybe I should take him more seriously. Trump's remarks on Mexico, and Mexicans, I thought, would finish him off. They didn't. When he cast aspersions on McCain heroism, I thought that surely was the end. Now, he's really finished. That's what I thought. But, he wasn't.
It seems that the man in the street understood that, of course, McCain was a hero, but if McCain was going to go to fight in dark, political alleyways, he's got to expect to get kicked in the nuts. Past heroic behavior doesn't change that reality. And, the public got it.
And, then there was the Megan Kelly thing. The media screamed that Trump had suggested that Megan was on the rag. But, actually, that's not what he said. What he did say might be stretched to imply that that was what he meant. But, in reality, the press stretched it too far. The public didn't go along.
Now Trump is beginning to flesh out his message. Take a cut from the mideastern oil we fought to protect. Negotiate more realistically with our competitors. Do health care in a way that won't break the American economy and yet reach more of our citizens. The impulse that prompted the Affordable Health Care Act wasn't bad. It was simply implemented atrociously. I'm beginning to like Trump more and more.
Planned Parenthood: Here Trump really deviated from the party line. While saying that abortions were bad, he acknowledged the Planned Parenthood did a great deal of good for women.
Voters will have to make two choices. Is the Donald better than all the others who are competing for the nomination as the Republican standard bearer in the general elections? And, who do you prefer: Trump or Hillary? Are these questions really so difficult?
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Saturday, August 1, 2015
The Abortion Issue -- Once Again
A surreptitiously filmed interview with an indiscrete member of Planned Parenthood has once again brought the issue of abortion to the fore. The Pro-lifers come marching into our homes via various TV "news" programs decrying the murder of innocent children-yet-to-be-born. Using words like "holocaust" they demand the end of this butchery of innocent livees.
Stepping back a bit, it becomes clear that this latest attack on abortion has been made possible by (a) disregarding science, (b) invoking the will of God, and (c) an inappropriate discussion of the abortion procedure by a doctor seemingly oblivious to the forces arrayed against allowing women to have an abortion.
Since this latest attack on abortions resulted from secret filming of a conversation with a medically qualified abortionist, let's start there. The imagery we get from a description of how the head of a fetus is crushed so that its organs can be harvested for medical science makes for horrible imagery. Let's examine that imagery more closely.
Work in medicine is often not pretty. How would you care to invite an overly enthusiastic proctologist to a dinner party. It's not that one has anything against proctology -- its practice has saved innumerable lives. It's just that it's not pretty; and to many it's disgusting -- something certainly not fit for polite dinner conversation. So what was this abortion provider doing describing abortion details at dinner with people who clearly had not been properly vetted?
Anti-abortionists, or "Pro-Lifers," as they prefer to be called, see little difference between taking the life of a human and terminating a pregnancy. What difference, ask they, between terminating a fetus and taking the life of a newly born infant? The issue, I would submit, hinges on the definition of "life." Isn't a viable sperm living matter? Isn't a viable egg egg living matter? And, of course, the result of the successful joining of these two entities -- an embryo -- is clearly living matter. Indeed, a number of faiths consider birth control (keeping the sperm from reaching an egg) to be a sin --a prohibition widely disregarded by the practitioners of those very faiths.
There was a time when this discussion was considered to be academic. It was generally conceded that the life of a fetus prior to birth was generally unsustainable. Science has changed that. The question now is how premature can a birth be for it to be viable? Sonograms have further muddied the issue. We can now actually see the fetus. From its genitalia we can determine it's gender. We can make out the outlines of its face. How can this not be a child, even if it's a pre-born child?
But, then is it unreasonable to ask whether the time might come when a fetus can be nurtured to the point of a viable life without the need for a human womb? What then? Whatever the decisions, it will be arbitrary as is generally the case with human laws.
Whose rights are we concerned with? That of the mother or that of the fetus? In the case of rape, it is generally conceded that a victim should not be required to give birth to a child resulting from her victimization. And, yet, is not the fetus blameless? I am not arguing that a woman should be required to give birth to the child of a rapist. I am simply pointing out that humans have to make the best judgements they know how. To some extent this process is arbitrary. The one who, in my opinion, is in the best position to make the call is the woman who has become impregnated.
Stepping back a bit, it becomes clear that this latest attack on abortion has been made possible by (a) disregarding science, (b) invoking the will of God, and (c) an inappropriate discussion of the abortion procedure by a doctor seemingly oblivious to the forces arrayed against allowing women to have an abortion.
Since this latest attack on abortions resulted from secret filming of a conversation with a medically qualified abortionist, let's start there. The imagery we get from a description of how the head of a fetus is crushed so that its organs can be harvested for medical science makes for horrible imagery. Let's examine that imagery more closely.
Work in medicine is often not pretty. How would you care to invite an overly enthusiastic proctologist to a dinner party. It's not that one has anything against proctology -- its practice has saved innumerable lives. It's just that it's not pretty; and to many it's disgusting -- something certainly not fit for polite dinner conversation. So what was this abortion provider doing describing abortion details at dinner with people who clearly had not been properly vetted?
Anti-abortionists, or "Pro-Lifers," as they prefer to be called, see little difference between taking the life of a human and terminating a pregnancy. What difference, ask they, between terminating a fetus and taking the life of a newly born infant? The issue, I would submit, hinges on the definition of "life." Isn't a viable sperm living matter? Isn't a viable egg egg living matter? And, of course, the result of the successful joining of these two entities -- an embryo -- is clearly living matter. Indeed, a number of faiths consider birth control (keeping the sperm from reaching an egg) to be a sin --a prohibition widely disregarded by the practitioners of those very faiths.
There was a time when this discussion was considered to be academic. It was generally conceded that the life of a fetus prior to birth was generally unsustainable. Science has changed that. The question now is how premature can a birth be for it to be viable? Sonograms have further muddied the issue. We can now actually see the fetus. From its genitalia we can determine it's gender. We can make out the outlines of its face. How can this not be a child, even if it's a pre-born child?
But, then is it unreasonable to ask whether the time might come when a fetus can be nurtured to the point of a viable life without the need for a human womb? What then? Whatever the decisions, it will be arbitrary as is generally the case with human laws.
Whose rights are we concerned with? That of the mother or that of the fetus? In the case of rape, it is generally conceded that a victim should not be required to give birth to a child resulting from her victimization. And, yet, is not the fetus blameless? I am not arguing that a woman should be required to give birth to the child of a rapist. I am simply pointing out that humans have to make the best judgements they know how. To some extent this process is arbitrary. The one who, in my opinion, is in the best position to make the call is the woman who has become impregnated.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)