Debating topics

[kandrathe]

I view the conflict as that between ideology and pragmatism. Or, that most things are not strictly black and white, but have shades of grey which require a case by case analysis. Which is why we have laws that describe what is right and wrong, and a judiciary to review individual cases to determine if and how those laws should be applied. This is why I think sentencing mandates violate the spirit of jurisprudence.

The problem I see with these polarizing debate topics is that people take a stand without looking for commonality. For instance, I would suspect that a majority of people would agree that we should try to eliminate the need for abortion. If both sides of that debate spent their energy and resources fighting to end the need for abortions, there might be a few hundred thousand fewer of them. I think many people have moved into that area of preventing unwanted pregnancies, but there again the ideologues on one side refuse to accept the reality of sexuality, and on the other side refuse to accept the moral implications.

So then the argument is between advocating abstinence only, or assenting that copulation will occur between people who are unprepared to accept the consequences, so it would be better to make birth control available to those who might later need to resort to abortion. Then we get to a point where the rubber hits the road (so to speak), and we need to think about funding this idea. Then of course many people will look at the idea of spending public money to make birth control freely available as either frivolous, funding sexuality, or antithetical to a moral message.

But, focusing in on the aspect of copulations that occur between people who are unprepared to accept the consequences, I ask, "At what point do parents get to decide to opt out of raising children?". The moral point in question is if there is a difference between killing the baby inside, or outside the womb. The rights question is; can a women be forced to carry a pregnancy she does not want? So it might be that the answer our society has come up with to resolve the conflict between those two questions is that infanticide is an acceptable form of birth prevention.

I digress.

Pete suggested, "Five years of working construction should be a prerequisite for anyone applying to a school of philosophy." To which I would suggest that that five years also be spent working in hospital emergency rooms, free clinics, and homeless shelters. The point being that unless one experiences the problems of life as it exists, one should not pontificate about the solutions.

And, about the sex sentence. The only problem with it that I can see is that is run on, and therefore hard to understand.