Because You Never Asked

(2/05)

     Once again, in the election of 2004, the Democrats have been crucified on a cross of "moral values". This, in spite of the fact that one would be hard pressed to find an administration that has failed more rotundly in the nuts and bolts of real accomplishment than that of George W. Bush. Its foreign policy can only be considered an unmitigated disaster, with its involvement of the nation in a bloody, expensive war whose "light at the end of the tunnel" cannot even be used as a credible lie, so remotely distant does it seem. They've turned the United States of America into the world's true "rogue state", as it snorts and blusters its military might like a steroid-crazed linebacker who is too pumped up to ever tackle the right guy. The domestic outlook cannot be considered so traumatic, but can hardly be called a success. Massive job loss from the previous Clinton era is an unassailable fact as W. continues to nurture his garden of tax breaks for the rich, the red ink of budget deficits has now reached record levels, and yet .

     all these things that matter the most were kept from view under a smokescreen of hazy concepts known as "moral values". In the afterglow of the election, I've already heard some Democrat practitioners questioning the Party's stance on abortion, wondering if it might be too rigid. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry in the face of such reasoning. When it comes to "rigidity", the pro-life side seems to have defined the term.

     The Democrats are confused. They better start making sense of something soon because questioning their stance on abortion is flirting with the realm of the ridiculous.

      Much to their detriment, the Democrats have allowed the opposition to define the "values" battle. America must be the only place in the world where "moral values" have nothing to do with health care, education, employment, real wages or massive death and destruction. But it wasn't the abortion issue that damaged the Democrats, where they are still on firm ground. The "value" that did jump up and bite them was the gay marriage issue. (For my unheeded advice as to how the Democrats should have dealt with this issue, see essay, "If I Were John Kerry").

     Although the liberal stance on abortion is the correct one --- not just morally, but politically as well --- the way their Party presents itself on the issue could stand to be tweaked a bit. The foundation for their position should be the idea that nobody is being forced to go against their beliefs, or being physically imposed upon by the pro-choice stance. Obviously, the same cannot be said for the pro-life position. How do we best make this point more relevant?

     There is hardly a place in western culture (and perhaps the world) where a civil, lay society has been able to unambiguously decide as to the morality of terminating a pregnancy. Religious authorities have done so and one is free to follow such religious dictates, but secular authorities, for the most part, control today's nation state and this is where the law comes from. Religion is supposedly a private, personal affair that should be kept from the public forum. This Bush administration's attempt to muddle these concepts is in direct conflict with not only the modern traditions of occidental governance, but especially so in America. It should be mentioned that these ideas separating church and state have proved very successful in building a dynamic, prosperous nation.

     In further defining this pro-choice stance based primarily on not imposing on others, the following analogy is helpful: Let's say someone walks into a convenience store, pulls a gun, and asks the cashier for all the money. There is not one, single, solitary place between the North and South Poles where this behavior is not considered anti-social, immoral, and punishable under the law. There is, unlike the abortion debate, complete harmony as to the morality-immorality of this kind of act.

     "But wait a minute", the pro-lifer would counter, "we pass lots of laws where there is much division of opinion."

     Yes, but not laws that make an uninspired woman go through 9 months of highly uncomfortable pregnancy, inflict the excruciating child birth experience on her, and then saddle the rest of her youth and vigorous maturity to the emotional and financial burden of one of the most time consuming, you-better-be-ready-for-this tasks known to humanity. Given these considerations, the pro-choice politician should express their views as follows:

     "Being that our society seems incapable of defining its moral stance with regard to terminating a pregnancy, I find it impossible, regardless of my own feelings on the matter, to choose the course of action that imposes a physical, emotional, and perhaps a traumatic burden on those women who'd rather not have a child. Being that we humans cannot arrive to any semblance of a consensual agreement on the morality of such an act, I leave such decisions to God. Being that neither I nor anyone else on this Earth currently hold such status --- even though there are those who'd have us believe they have such a "mandate" --- I am pro-choice".

     But this stance is top heavy in protecting the mother to the detriment of the fetus-child. The ardent pro-lifer would be unimpressed by the "non-imposition" standard because their version of a living thing has been killed. "Thou shalt not kill!"

     "Thou shalt not kill", in spite of my "heathen" status, is one of my most cherished principles. Being the imperfect human that I am, at times the necessities of defending my tropical dwelling place force me to adjudicate the maximum penalty to insatiable insects buzzing, biting, crawling, stinging and generally trying to appropriate my living space. But I've never so much as touched a real firearm and never killed anything bigger than a cockroach. Compared to this, the "Christian" version of "thou shalt not kill" seems to have shrunk to invisible proportions. What is it exactly that a Christian is not supposed to kill? Everyday they get up and annihilate billions of chickens, cattle, pigs and assorted higher life forms in an unquenchable orgy of blood, guts and gore that leaves no species untouched . and some of it is done for the pure fun of it! How 'bout a nice antler for the fireplace?

     But their lust for killing their own species is highly developed as well. When it comes to criminal executions, it is the pro-life element of our society that most revels in the slaughter. But that's just chicken feed (fatten'em up and kill'em!) compared to the human death toll exacted by the pro-life imperial armies of the Bush Gang. It's almost gotten to the point where the pro-life version of "thou shalt not kill" only applies to fetuses. Everything else is fair game.

     Before the pro-life faction of our society can demand the end to abortion, their concept of "thou shalt not kill" must be far more focused and well defined. In the absence of that, their anti-abortion posture is meaningless and hypocritical.

     American politics, under the Bush Dynasty, is beginning to take on an "Inquisitorial" personality. It is now becoming more a battle between the "light" and the "dark", between intellect and anti-intellect, than between opposing political factions. Continued longevity by the dark, anti-intellect of this government could lead to some frightening results. It is interesting to note that something like "adultery", which is far more explicitly repudiated by Christian doctrine than abortion, has still not appeared on the radar of American political debate. If the Christian right continues in a politically advantageous position, might something of that nature be their next nut to crack? Might we not begin to see adulterers facing criminal sanction . scarlet letters and such?

     Howard Dean is correct when he says that Democrats, in being pro-choice, should not be defined as being pro-abortion. By resting their pro-choice stance on a foundation of not imposing, they are loosening the noose of their ideology by giving someone who might have serious misgivings about abortion the opportunity to be pro-choice. It is a perfect rhetorical tool for Democratic politicians.