The Daily Skunk

If you are a label reader like myself, you have definitely come across an ingredient listed as “natural flavor”.

At first glance most wouldn’t even think twice about this, I didn’t, until it dawned on me one day how odd it was to see that listed as an ingredient… I mean doesn’t most anything have a natural flavor?

Well, turns out natural doesn’t mean natural in this case. No it isn’t some concentration of the real thing added to enhance the flavor. It is much more chemically altered than that.

Here is an excerpt from the US federal code on natural flavors:

“the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or any other edible portions of a plant, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose primary function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. ^[3]“

Now, I realise that there is nothing within that which seems to be sinister… or is there?  That’s the thing, nobody but the manufactorer or owner of the product being natural flavorized really knows and most of them aren’t as simple as that definition implies.

And that is  because the flavors are patented, which also means they do not have to be listed as anything other than natural flavors.

Now I’m not necessarily trying to suggest that all of these are bad for us, but on the same note do you think any of them are actually good for us?

Something tells me that there is no positive benefit to consumption of these flavors and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many have some sort of negative health impact if consumed in large amounts over long periods of time.

For example… Coca Cola, how do you think they get that flavor in there - do you think it is a pure concotion of some organic products boiled down into some refreshing syrup and then mixed with water and carbonation?  Or Mountain Dew, Squirt, Pepsi, 7 up, etc. And most people who drink these beverages drink multiple cans per day… even though the amount used is very small, what does that actually mean.

Anyway, on with the conspiracy theories.

The sky is falling, right? Wrong, that is old news. This time the bottom is dropping out. Everywhere we turn someone has a new bailout request to help sustain our ailing economy. The squeakiest wheels are getting the grease. The taxpayers are getting squeaky about the greasing. We all know  we cannot borrow our way out of debt. What no mainstream media outlet is talking about here is the real problem at hand. Over the last fifty years we have went from a manufacturing and product exporting economy to a service based and product importing economy. Has anyone noticed that America does not really produce and export anything other than money, grain, and a few products here and there.

When I was growing up, there were several factories in my town. We made air conditioners, gloves, and bicycles. We even had a butcher block factory. We had three large printing companies.  Trucks pulled into town empty and left full. Trains brought in huge rolls of paper and hauled finished print products like books and magazines to distribution centers across the country. Today, we are a town full of fast food restaurants and chain stores. Trucks and trains do not load here anymore they just stop for fuel and snacks. Our large printing shops have now become warehouses. Our air conditioner factory moved to China and its building sits vacant. The bicycle factory has been converted into a storage facility. It is full of imported electronic gadgets and bottled tap water.   As a country, how can we come out ahead if we continue to let our manufacturing jobs leave? We can not really expect to lead the world economy by providing service and selling each other foreign made goods. We make money, but it is not new. It is only the same money traded back and forth among us.  A simple example of what I am talking about is found in a bottle of water at a convinience store. We bottle and sell tap water to eachother, drink the water and throw the bottle in a landfil. Money is exchanged, taxes are paid, but nothing new is brought into the country.   We have to manufacture products and sell them to the rest of the world. The only way to help our economy (for real) is to re establish our manufacturing base.

I am sure my town is not alone.  Millions of former factory and assembly workers from all across the country have had to find new ways to earn a living. 

How did this happen? Who is to blame? Some say government bureaucracy and a foolish tax code. Some will say big unions drove up labor costs, so the factories went where labor was cheaper. Still others will blame Wal Mart for driving out the mom and pop shops.  Politicians and trade agreements are easy targets for part of the blame also. If you asked many of our grandparents they would tell you that our generation is not willing to work hard as they had to.

 
The real question should not be who is to blame but how can we get it back. That is what really matters. To play on the analogy of spokes in a wheel, how many of our jobs are really producing something new for our country and how many are simply riding the wheel? I understand that every  job is a spoke that is part of  the wheel turning, but our turning wheel is growing while the axl that spins it is shrinking. All of these bailouts we keep reading about are simply grease easing tension on the squeaky axle. I am afraid that if we do not increase the strength and size of the axle very soon, it will snap.   Manufacturing has traditionally been the axle that turns America’s economic wheels. If we do not make and export more products than we import,  we will soon run out of a means to pay for it all.

This is the most motivational thing I have ever seen.

I’m not an emotional person, but even the second time I watched this I wanted to ball like a baby.

It actually gives me some hope for humanity.

World’s Strongest Dad

I just read that FISA, the gutting of the 4th Amendment to that relic we call the Bill of Rights, passed the Senate, which holds a fantastic 9% approval rating with the American people.

To this news I must make the following comments:

If I had a 9% rating at work, I would be fired. So should you, Congress.

If you, Congress, think you can pull this off, you are wrong. I hereby commit to vote out ALL federal incumbents.

And lastly, I must say, you MOTHERFUCKERS! How dare you destroy this country, whose Constitution you have all, each and every one of you, sworn to uphold!

I see a nomination for Loser of the Year here…

A Humanist Position on Abortion

I

Why Do We Need A Humanist Position on Abortion?

As I read theological perspectives on abortion from Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars, I was struck by the fact that I hadn’t encountered a Humanist position. This is particularly interesting to me in light of the fact that Humanism is now regarded as an officially recognised religion by the United States government – a fact belaboured upon by both hardline atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and religious apologists. Since Humanism is a religion, we ought to have some sort of position on abortion – one of the most morally complex and troubling issues of our time. However, we cannot have a theological perspective since we doubt (or flat-out deny) the existence of God. Hence, our theological position has to be atheological. This paper is an attempt to fill this void and develop a Humanist position on abortion. I will begin by explicating the basic beliefs and tenets of Humanism. Then I will discuss the manner in which Humanists think about morality. Finally, I will develop a Humanist position on abortion that values both the life and life choices of the mother, and is attentive to the fact that a fetus has moral worth and deserves some consideration.

II

What is Humanism?

Humanism, while a complete philosophical system with an ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology, is hardly a monolithic movement. Humanism lacks any kind of centralised authority, hence, there is a great degree of diversity of viewpoints within the movement. However, there are a few general principles that most, if not all, Humanists hold.

First, Humanists highly value the principle of free inquiry. Paul Kurtz, in A Secular Humanist Declaration, writes, “The first principle of democratic Humanism is its commitment to free inquiry. We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought.”[1] Kurtz builds his account of rights and civil liberties off the groundwork of free thought. He writes, “Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organise opposition parties and to join voluntary associations.”[2] Further, not only does respect of the principle of free inquiry entail these rights and civil liberties, but it also “requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs.”[3] Finally, having laid out what is gained by adhering to this principles, Kurtz explains the reason underlying the acceptance of it. He argues that “The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions.”[4]

It is important for us to consider, at certain points in our discussion of Humanism, not just what Humanists believe, but what they do not believe. This is because there are a plethora of myths and misinformation about Humanism which are as detrimental as they are false. While we are speaking about the freedoms guaranteed by Humanism, we should discuss the myth that suggests that Humanists seek to outlaw religion. For example, Diane Dew, a conservative Christian writer and webmaster of an influential and award-winning website on Christian theology writes, “Like other religions, it also has a goal: the supplanting of all other religions with its own.”[5] Matt Cherry and Molleen Matsumura deal with some of these myths in their publication, 10 Myths About Humanism, writing “Humanists are staunch supporters of freedom of religion, belief, and conscience, [and want to] protect the freedom of religious belief equally with the freedom of nonreligious belief, the freedom of religion equally with the freedom from religion.”[6] Further, we should clarify that while Humanism strongly values tolerance, it doesn’t fall into the trap of vacuous relativism. Kurtz writes, “Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny.”[7] Finally, we ought to address the accusation made that Humanism unfairly singles out religion as the target of its critiques. Humanism, and the principles it endorses apply equally to religious and secular forms of oppression. Kurtz continues, “There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world – secular and non-secular – all of which we [Humanists] vigorously oppose.”[8] In light of this, it is essential to bear in mind that Humanism is more than an objection to religion – it is a positivistic philosophy of life that not only criticises religious extremists, but any extremist who would limit free inquiry. The next key belief Humanists hold is both derived from, and is, the ultimate source of their belief in free inquiry.

Humanists “hold in high regard the scientific method – the constant search for information and the willingness to change opinions as warranted.”[9] They “believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world.”[10] The scientific method and the general practice of observation, hypothesis development, rigorous testing, and finally, a tentative claim to belief forms the cornerstone of the Humanist’s epistemology. The Humanist’s reliance on the scientific method as the best means of understanding the world should not be considered to be arrogantly asserted or as an article of faith. While science (and the scientific method in particular) is held “in high regard,” Humanists willingly admit that “all human knowledge is fallible, all claims to ultimate or absolute truth [are] questionable.”[11] Kurtz elaborates that because of the intrinsic fallibility of human beings and their perceptions of the world, “we [Humanists] are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction.”[12] These two claims in conjunction – that only though observation and experience can we learn and/or know anything about the world and that that knowledge is inherently fallible – motivate the Humanist to reject dogmas and any beliefs asserted without justification.

In addition to these broad methodological claims about how human life ought to be lived and how we ought to make sense of our experience with the world around us, Humanists believe that “The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central Humanist value.”[13] This necessarily results in and motivates the Humanist belief in the fundamental equality of persons. They write, “we see no place for prejudice on the basis of race, nationality, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, political persuasion, religion, or philosophy. And we see every basis for the promotion of equal opportunity in the economy and in universal education.”[14] Kurtz writes, “Humanistic ethics expresses a concern for equality and social justice… Each individual is to count as equal in dignity and value, an end in himself or herself, entitled to moral considerations.”[15] The American Humanist Association writes, “We base our ethical decisions and ideals upon human needs and concerns… We measure the value of a given choice by how it affects human life, and in this we include our individual selves, our families, our society, and the peoples of the earth.”[16] Kurtz writes that “For Humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices.”[17] Humanists ground their ethical considerations on the principle of equality, the rejection of moral absolutism and divine command morality, and their emphasis on the role of reason in evaluating moral dilemmas. Along with the idea of fundamental equality is the Humanist belief in an ethics predicated on self and mutual respect. The A.H.A. is particularly clear about this, writing “Ethics in the Humanist view is largely the responsibility we have for the well-being of others.”[18] It is this last idea – that of our responsibility to care for our fellow men and women – that is most prominent in Humanism. Both Kurtz and the AHA cite numerous examples of Humanists working towards the improvement of mankind.[19] To this I can add my own anecdotal evidence. I can assure you that I have encountered Humanists operating at every level and in every capacity in soup kitchens, homeless shelter, domestic violence shelters, free medical clinics, Habitat for Humanity building sites, after-school tutoring programs, and many others. It is also important to note that in these many endeavours, they often work side-by-side with religious people.

Finally, it is important to conclude by addressing the number of myths about and misrepresentations of Humanism that circulate even in the upper echelons of academia. For example, it may surprise many who are unfamiliar with Humanism, but “Agnosticism or atheism is a relatively unimportant part of Humanist philosophy.”[20] As a corollary to this, it is important to realise that one is not a Humanist in virtue of the fact that one is an atheist or an agnostic. While it is true that Humanists disbelieve in God (the theistic version at least), it is not their defining belief. In fact, claiming that atheism lies at the centre of Humanist thought is analogous to claiming that not eating pork is the defining feature of Jewish faith. On a related point is the question, “Do Humanists go to church?” Again, it is likely to be surprising to those unfamiliar with Humanism, but some Humanists do go to church. The AHA singles out Unitarian Universalist congregations, Congregationalist congregations, the attendees of liberal Jewish and Muslim temples and mosques, and Buddhist temples as likely places to encounter Humanists. Further, Humanists do not categorically reject the sacred texts of these host religions. Instead, Humanists tend to read these texts as valuable pieces of literature (at minimum) and as good allegories and explications of moral life (in some cases). Additionally, religious figures, including Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha are treated with the respect they deserve as excellent moral exemplars.

Humanism, as our inquiry has revealed, is a philosophical system based on several observations. First, Humanists claim that the only way to gain knowledge about the world is through an epistemology that values observation and rational analysis of our observations. Second, because Humanists realise that our access to reality is imperfect (our perceptions and intuitions can be wrong), they resist dogmatic assertions of fact. They submit all of their beliefs, even the overarching ones on which they ground their epistemology, to rigorous scrutiny and demand justification for them. This leads them to the importance with which they regard free inquiry. Civil liberties arise out of their respect for free inquiry. Their belief in civil liberties motivates their contention that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and ought to be treated as ends (and not as mere means).

III

Relevant and Irrelevant Concerns

Before I articulate my proposed Humanist position on abortion, I want to discuss the related matter of what sorts of facts and concerns we Humanists find morally relevant to the discussion. The British Humanist Association writes:

“Humanists seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. They use reason, experience and respect for others when thinking about moral issues, not obedience to dogmatic rules. So in thinking about abortion a Humanist would consider the evidence, the probable consequences, and the rights and wishes of everyone involved, trying to find the kindest course of action or the one that would do the least harm.”[21]

They argue that rigid and dogmatic rules do more harm than good, particularly with respect to such an ethically complex issue as abortion. They continue, “Abortion is an issue that demonstrates the difficulties of rigid rules in moral decision making. Medical science has advanced to the point where we have options that were unthinkable even a few generations ago and where old rules cannot cope with new facts.”[22] With regard to abortion, Humanists think that, among others, the following issues and concerns are morally salient:

- The life of the mother

- Would carrying a fetus to term put her life in serious jeopardy?

- Would carrying a fetus to term put her health in jeopardy?

- The life of the fetus

- The life choices of the mother (and, if applicable, her partner)

- Does she want to become pregnant?

- Does having a child fit into her plans?

- Does her partner want to have children?

- Is her partner willing to support a child?

- The health of the fetus

- Does the child have a high probability of developing a serious health condition or of being born seriously deformed?

- Does the mother want to have a child with the probability of serious health concerns and/or deformities?

- The circumstances surrounding the pregnancy

- Was the mother raped?

- Did the pregnancy come about as a result of incest?

- The age of the mother

- Is the mother too young to have a child (and is she physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of having a child)?

- The age of the fetus

- Did the pregnancy occur very recently (a few days ago), somewhat recently (late first term), or not recently (late second term to third term)?

As I’m sure this list of some of the salient moral concerns relevant to determining the moral status of an abortion has illustrated, attempting to formulate some sort of rule (even a flexible one) regarding the moral status of abortion would be futile and counter-productive. This is in part due to the idea of additional issues and concerns arising due to medical innovations. Professor Laurie Zoloft concurs, writing, “…the new terrain on which we now find ourselves [with regard to the corpus of scientific knowledge concerning human reproduction] bears scant analogy to the terrain of the rabbinic world. The biology of the Talmud was still couched in terms later altered or reframes, gamete reproduction was still not fully understood, and microbiological techniques were not even imagined.”[23] If this much evolution has occurred as of this point with respect to our understanding of human reproduction, why think that future revisions to our knowledge base on the subject will not also be required? Thus, as Humanists, we believe that we have to assess abortions on a case-by-case basis in order for us to be sensitive to any sorts of ethically relevant concerns that might emerge.

In addition to these factors, we, as Humanists, find morally salient, here are some considerations we find morally irrelevant (followed by a brief commentary explaining why we think them irrelevant):

- Human life is sacred.

- We, as, Humanists, do not believe that human life is sacred because we do not believe in the notion of sacredness. Instead, we would prefer to say that “we believe that human life is valuable.”

- Human life begins at conception.

- We think that this claim is under-determined by the available evidence. While some religions think that life begins at conception (Roman-Catholicism, for instance),[24] others think that life begins at a later point (Judaism).[25] Aside from religious views on the subject, this is a point openly debated by scientists and doctors – one upon which there is no consensus at this juncture.

- Abortion is a form of “playing God.”

- To begin with, Humanists are either atheists or agnostics (with a few Deists thrown in to keep things interesting), hence, any attempt to appeal to God and his (yes, almost universally God is alleged to be masculine) will be met with deep scepticism. But more importantly, if abortion constitutes “playing God,” then must we extend this judgment to all other medical life-saving interventions? Is the use of a tourniquet to staunch the flow of blood an instance of playing God? What about an appendectomy? Additionally, what stops one from arguing that if God created us, and gave us the medical talents we have, that he wouldn’t condone our use of these talents? After all, do any of us really think we know the will of God? And if we think we do, can we prove this knowledge to those with a deal more scepticism?

Having outlined the factors and evidence that Humanists believe are morally relevant, and explained why we think these other commonly referred-to factors are not, I will now set about establishing a Humanist perspective on abortion that will be attentive (I hope) to all the aforementioned concerns.

IV

A Humanist Perspective on Abortion

What is perhaps most interesting about the Humanist position is the relative unimportance of the issue in the grand scheme of moral dilemmas that face humankind. Jim Wallis, in his book, God’s Politics, describes a debate at Notre Dame on abortion, writing:

“One young student at Notre Dame passionately reminded the group that a legal practice that kills four thousand unborn children every day[26] is an urgent moral imperative. But she was then reminded that nine thousand people each day now die of AIDS, thirty thousand children perish every day because of hunger and diseases mostly due to poverty, and as many as half a million are lost each year in international conflicts and wars.”[27]

The loss of four thousand potential human beings each year is undoubtedly a tragedy. But there are much more pressing humanitarian projects that demand our attention, for indeed, they cost more lives and are substantially less morally questionable. Wallis, in his course at Harvard Divinity School, entitled, “Faith and Politics: Should They Mix and How?,” advocated for the view that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” This is a truly Humanistic position – one that wants to reduce the number of abortions being performed in the United States, while keeping those that occur safe for both the women undergoing them and the doctors performing them.

As a Humanist, I am struck by the fervour of religious individuals’ views on abortion. Judith Jarvis Thompson, in her article, “Abortion,” begins her piece by describing the scenes of violence that all too often erupt at abortion clinics. She writes:

“On December 30, 1994, an opponent of abortion opened fire at two Brookline clinics, killing two people and injuring five others. He then went south to spray twenty rounds of ammunition into a clinic in Norfolk, Virginia. That episode was only the most extreme in a series of recent attacks on abortion providers. In the two-year period ending in December 1994, five people were murdered and at least nine wounded in similar assaults.”[28]

There is a subtle and disturbing irony located in people who consistently argue that abortion is murder, and, in expression of this view, attempt and commit murder themselves. Thompson suggests that both parties return to a more civilised form of discourse about abortion, replacing drive-bys with conversations.

A Humanist position on abortion should be generally permissive in respect of the fact that abortion is, ultimately, a woman’s choice about her body. That said, there are certain circumstances in which a Humanist would argue that it would be wrong to have an abortion. Judith Jarvis Thompson, in her influential article, “A Defence of Abortion,” states a case for the general permissibility of abortion. She bases her account on a strong interpretation of issue as primarily concerning a woman’s right to control her body. Thompson argues that we should set aside the issue of whether a fetus is a person, and instead, focus on the question of how far one’s right to life extends. One obvious limitation upon the right to life is the conflict between two individuals’ rights to life. Imagine that I am on a desert island with another person. We have both been bitten by poisonous snakes. Our first aid kit contains only one vial of anti-venom serum. The fact that I have a right to life does not mean that I have the right to the anti-venom since both of us need it. Thus, a person’s right to life is limited when it conflicts with another’s right to life. With respect to the issue of abortion, the aforementioned reasoning gives us a good reason to think that abortion is morally justifiable in cases in which the fetus’s right to life comes into conflict with the mother’s own right to life. Thus, as Humanists, we argue that if a pregnancy puts the mother’s life in real danger, the mother would be morally justified in choosing to have an abortion.

But what about the other common exceptions made with respect to abortion: that abortion is also justified in the case of rape or incest? It simply is not obvious that the woman’s right to not be raped or to not be the victim of incest ought to trump a fetus’s right to life. So how does one go about justifying those cases? Thompson uses the following example to illustrate the fact that while individuals have a right to life, this right is limited by other persons’ rights. She writes:

“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist… He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?”[29]

This argument turns on the analogy between a woman who, unintentionally and unwillingly, becomes pregnant, and the protagonist of her allegory. She argues that while no one doubts the violinist’s (analogous to the fetus) “right to life,” this in no way gives the violinist the right to use another person’s (analogous to the mother) body in exercising that right to life. I shall take it as established that the aforementioned example illustrates the Humanist reason why we believe that abortion, in the case of rape and incest, is morally justifiable (since the pregnancy was unwilled and constitutes a severe imposition upon the woman’s rights over her body). Of course, this has been the easy part of the argument to establish – after all, many opponents of abortion make these same exceptions. However, the Humanist position goes farther than these exceptions.

Consider a case wherein a couple uses protection (condoms and an alternative form of birth control) whilst engaging in sexual activity. Despite their intention to not become pregnant and the measures they took to minimise the risk of pregnancy (the use of two forms of birth control makes pregnancy a near mathematical impossibility), the woman becomes pregnant anyway. Is a woman’s choice to have an abortion in this circumstance morally justifiable? Some say no, and base their answer on the idea that she is morally responsible for the pregnancy – after all, the choice to have sexual relations does bear consequences and one must accept responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.

Before we address the flaws in this argument, it is essential to first discuss the cases that this argument would not cover even if it held water. Because this position hinges on the fact that the mother participated in sexual activity in full awareness of the possible consequences of her actions, anyone who wants to argue against the moral acceptability of choosing to have an abortion in this circumstance must first prove that the mother to be was cognisant of the consequences of her actions. This is going to rule out very young mothers and mothers who haven’t been apprised of the risks of abortion (perhaps their families decided that they shouldn’t attend sexual education classes?). Additionally, one can make the case that mothers who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol may also be excepted since, in their intoxicated condition, they might not be aware of the consequences stemming from their actions (however, this is an extremely controversial line of reasoning with far-reaching consequences, and as such, I will not pursue it at length).

As a Humanist, however, I think that there is no need for exceptions here. Any mother who does not want to become pregnant and takes steps to avoid becoming pregnant must be allowed to have an abortion. Consider the following example (provided by Thompson):

“If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, ‘Ah, now he can stay, she’s given him a right to the use of her house-for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.’ It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in.”[30]

Leaving aside the sheer absurdity of the example, Thompson has provided us with a good reason to think that as long as one takes precautions to avoid becoming pregnant, one is morally justified in having an abortion. In this scenario, the burgler is supposed to stand-in for the fetus, the homeowner is supposed to stand-in for the mother, and the window bars are supposed to stand-in for birth controls (condoms, “the pill,” etc.). It argues that the idea of responsibility is a limited notion, and that one’s responsibility can be mitigated provided one takes steps to reduce one’s responsibility. After all, there is only so careful one can be!

At this point, one might suppose that we have gone too far in our analysis. Surely, some might argue, the Humanist position is one that seems to endorse abortion in all circumstances because it endorses the individual’s rights over her body to the exclusion of all other considerations. However, this is not our position. We must now turn to Thompson’s idea of the “Minimally Decent Samaritan.” Thompson describes a Good Samaritan as someone who goes out of his or her way at some cost to help another person. A Minimally Decent Samaritan, in contrast, is an individual who acts with respect to the basic human worth and dignity inherent in all persons. The following cases will help illustrate the difference between a Minimally Decent Samaritan and a Good Samaritan. Thompson earlier suggests that we consider a case wherein she falls sick and the only thing that will cure her is the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on her brow.[31] The question is whether her right to life makes it the case that Henry Fonda is morally obligated to give her the caress she so urgently needs. In my view, Henry isn’t morally obligated to fly in (at his cost) from California to Massachusetts to provide the touch she needs. It would certainly be a choice indicative of virtue (no doubt deserving of the term Good Samaritan), if he chooses to provide this touch, but it is certainly not morally required of him. However, imagine that Henry isn’t in California, but instead, is already in the hospital room with Judith. All he needs to do to save her life is to walk across the room and touch her forehead. I would argue that for him to do so is to act as a Minimally Decent Samaritan. After all, providing this touch requires so little of him and produces so much good. If he refused to provide this touch, I would argue that he has acted badly – that he doesn’t have the virtue of human kindness that I think is essential to participation in the human moral community. Humanists would like everybody to act like Good Samaritans, but we accept the fact that not everybody is capable of such self-sacrifice. Instead, we believe that people should behave like Minimally Decent Samaritans, and that to fail to do so is indicative of some serious character flaw (here I retreat to terms more commonly deployed by Aristotelian virtue ethicists than the moral language deployed by analytic philosophers of Thompson’s tradition).[32]

So now the question is: “Is carrying an unwanted child to term an action required of Minimally Decent Samaritans?” I argue that it is not. Let’s return to the violinist example and see if we can get some traction on the idea of Minimally Decent Samaritanism. Imagine that the scenario is exactly the same, but instead of having to live with the violinist attached to one’s back for nine months, the doctor tells you that he can disconnect you in an hour and the violinist will be cured. I would find it exceptionally difficult to argue that one can simply disconnect oneself from the violinist and be deserving of no moral condemnation. After all, it is plausible, if not obvious, that saving someone’s life is well-worth the cost of an hour of your time. But what has changed? The violinist has still been imposed upon us against our will. However, the sacrifice we have been asked to make has been substantially reduced. It seems to me that the change in the sacrifice required is morally salient here. I would argue that agreeing to remain plugged into the violinist for an hour, while not morally required, is the mark of a Minimally Decent Samaritan. Further, we can play with the number of hours of being plugged in and see what sort of tension this puts on the notion of Minimally Decent Samaritanism. I would argue that it should remain uncontroversial that the virtuous choice is to let the violinist you’re attached to use your kidneys for an hour, for a few hours, for a day, and perhaps even a week. But soon we begin to find the ceiling of self-sacrifice – the limit of what people think they owe other people by virtue of their shared humanity.

This is a moral grey area, no doubt. But there is no reason to be afraid of grey areas. After all, there is a grey area with respect to the notion of baldness. How many hairs must a man lose for him to be considered bald? The fact that I cannot put my finger on a specific number doesn’t mean that the concept of baldness is a fiction, but rather that the concept has some degree of vagueness – just like the concept of Minimally Decent Samaritanism. Therefore, to put the issue in the spotlight, our question is, “is carrying a fetus to term more similar to being plugged into a violinist for an hour, a few hours, a day, a week, or nine months?”

It seems obvious to me that carrying a fetus to term constitutes a major imposition on the mother much more analogous to being plugged into a violinist for nine months than any of the other alternatives I’ve offered. Further, I think that pregnancy might even be more of an imposition than being plugged into a violinist for nine months since the effects of a pregnancy continue long after she has given birth. A woman who carries a baby to term now has an additional mouth to feed and an additional responsibility which might impede her career goals. Even if we remove these cases by suggesting that she might put the baby up for adoption (interestingly enough, this is how I actually came into existence), the consequences of a pregnancy do not disappear. Imagine a young girl who wants to be a ballerina. The changes a pregnancy would cause to her body would preclude her ability to be a ballerina (or so I am told by my dancer-friends). Asking that women make sacrifices such as these is tantamount to demanding that they act as Good Samaritans, perhaps even Exceptionally Good Samaritans, and that is asking too much.[33]

Now there are a set of cases in which having an abortion strikes me as failing to live up to the minimum expectations required by Minimally Decent Samaritanism. Consider, for example, a woman who uses abortion as a form of birth control since she is too lazy or too selfish to use other forms of birth control. Or consider a woman who reaches the ninth month of her pregnancy, and decides on a whim that she no longer wants to have a child. These decisions fail to meet the minimum standard of Minimally Decent Samaritanism because they show no regard whatsoever for the fetus.[34] What Thompson has illustrated by the violinist and burglar cases is that there are cases in which the rights of the fetus might reasonably be trumped by the concerns of the mother – not that the rights of the fetus are altogether irrelevant. Thompson characterises her position (and I, as a Humanist, believe this is a position worth our endorsement) thusly:

“[My account] does not give a general yes or a general no. It allows for and supports our sense that, for example, a sick and desperately frightened fourteen-year-old schoolgirl, pregnant due to rape, may of course choose abortion… And it also allows for and supports our sense that in other cases resort to abortion is even positively indecent. It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion… if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad.”[35]

Thus, the Humanist position, as articulated by Thompson, suggests that we have to exercise our own notions of virtue, propriety, and most importantly, our concept of the absolute minimum we owe to other human beings (manifested in Minimally Decent Samaritanism). Finally, Thompson ends her article with an important caveat that we, as Humanists, find particularly important. Thompson argues that the right to procure an abortion does not constitute the right to kill the fetus, but only the right to deny access to one’s body that is needed by the fetus. In parallel, your right to disconnect yourself from the violinist does not grant you the right to “turn around and slit his throat” (Mappes and DeGrazzia 2006, p478). The suggestion being entertained here is that if we became capable of safely transplanting fetuses to potential mothers who would volunteer to carry the fetus to term or to machines capable of serving the role of the mother’s womb, that abortion should then be regarded as morally wrong (since there would be a valid alternative that would not involve ending what might be a life).

V

Concluding Remarks

This last point brings to the forefront an idea that we Humanists think is of great importance. In an ideal world, only those women who truly wanted to become pregnant (and were capable of bearing the consequences of such a choice) would actually become pregnant. But we do not live in such an ideal world. Everywhere we turn, our wills butt up against a world that is largely indifferent to our hopes, beliefs, and desires. Everywhere we turn, luck, fate, and chance wreak havoc upon our plans and constrain our choices. Thus, we are often put in the position, not of choosing between good and evil, right and wrong, but rather between the lesser of two evils.

The abortion debate seems to be a perfect illustration of this point. We can all imagine a better world – a world where abortion is simply not necessary (for no one, even abortion’s most ardent supporters, truly likes the idea of abortion). Those of us who think that abortion is morally acceptable in the aforementioned cases believe this because although we think abortion is an awful thing, we think that the alternative (denying women the basic right to be the ultimate arbiters over matters concerning their own bodies) is far worse. We earnestly hope that someday, abortions will no longer be necessary; but until then, allowing women to have abortions, in the cases herein discussed, remains the lesser of two evils.

This is an interesting opinion piece I came across in the NY Times from the past week or two.

It discusses the fact that Barack Obama has renounced Islam, embraced the Christian faith and how this will be seen through the eyes of the Muslim world if he is elected president.

President Apostate?

“Holding Colleges accountable for Teaching America’s History and Institutions”

Would you believe that no college that was part of this test earned better than a “D+”.

WIth that in mind I bet you wouldn’t expect to find Harvard, Yale and Brown college on the list or the University of Minesota and University of California - Berkeley in the 50% correct range. see Rankings

TAKE QUIZ HERE!!

Thanks for sending this site to me J-MO!

I wrote this back in college.  (I have always wanted to say that.)  I don’t suspect anyone will ever do this, but if you want to, respond directly to me.  I have only posted this because I think some parts are funny and will get a reaction, especially from the Illinois (no E) skunk lady.

Using 2.5” length brass (I use 7mm Redneck Magnum because I don’t shoot one and the brass is found nearly everywhere one may think to shoot):

Optional (1): decap, saving primer cup.  Replace anvil with #6 lead shot.  This supposedly prevents powder gas from punching through weakened primer cup and blowing lead shot all over inside of bore and muzzle brake.  I used to do this, but do so no longer.

Anneal: place brass upright in ½” deep water (in a pan). In a darkened room, heat brass with torch (propane or butane); heat to dull red color, but do not burn zinc off by heating too hot or too long.  I heat down one inch from case mouth.  Search the Internet if you need any clarification on annealing.  Several people have posted experiences on their sites that are very helpful.

Lube: lube case body with Imperial sizing wax; apply sparingly!!

Size (1): size annealed brass in die #1.

Fill: fill brass to desired weight with lead shot. 

At this point, some commentary is in order.  One may be interested in different filler materials or different bullet weights.  I looked for #12 shot, but couldn’t find any for a reasonable price, so I use #9.  You could use larger shot, but the larger void spaces will lighten the bullets (undesirable to me).  I have dabbled with lead filings; these are more dense than shot and may also have different terminal results.  However, the supply is sporadic at best and I doubt that the form of lead matters much at impact velocities over 2200fps.  I have also dabbled with powdered tungsten (W).  One must note the label on the storage container: avoid contact between powdered tungsten and nitrates.  This has certain implications that may be very desirable.  However, the cost of powdered tungsten may outweigh the very desirable density or terminal results.  One could try casting or swaging cores, but that isn’t my desired product.  One could also try plastics, other metals, even different forms of metals, such as are used in novelty shotgun shells, but I have no experience here. Wink.

Size (2): sparingly relube brass (arguably a bullet at this point, so I will refer to it as such now) and size with die #2.  If you have not filled the bullet at this point, do so now, unless you wish to place shot individually into the bullet after the next step.

Size (3): place a closure atop filler charge and size bullet in die #3.  I have experienced some shot loss from finished bullets when the hole in the forward end of the bullet (hollow point, if you will) doesn’t close fully.  A larger piece of shot (like #4) will work for this purpose, or you could opt for modeling clay (works for me) or even molten lead (I haven’t tried this yet). 

This step produces a nearly finished bullet.  If your bullet has dimples, you are over-lubing, just as if you are resizing brass for reloading. Don’t fret, though, as the bullet will still be the most devastating non-incendiary bullet you can imagine.  Although, I have never used sintered copper 50 caliber bullets…

Turn: chuck bullet, belt exposed, in a lathe.  Center the bullet for concentricity with the bullet body. A split bushing is best for repeatability and consistency, but you can directly chuck in jaws and with a little attention produce a concentric bullet base. Again, if you need clarification, search the ‘net or just take your little(?) bundles of love to a machinist for finishing.  Turn. I turn the base of my bullets to 0.510”. You may want or need to do something different depending on your bore, but I will let you iron that out on your own. I also cut off the case rim, producing some semblance of a rebated boat tail bullet.  I do this for one reason: the bullets feed better into the case mouths of brass while reloading.  I am premeditatedly lazy and this is proof.

Optional (2): coat bullets.  I found cartridge brass to foul badly, so I moly coat.  I dislike the messes created by moly, but I have enough to coat everything I own, so that is what I use.  I use a dedicated bowl for my Dillon vibratory and 1/8” glass beads.  Even more than with Imperial sizing wax, a little goes a long way!

Reloading notes:  I load a lot of API to 5.25”.  This is spec for military ammo, I believe.  And since I am lazy, I use that setting for my seating die.  The rounds are a lot longer than API or ball, but they fit my chamber and that is all I care about.  You may have a different experience.  I also use the same powder charges as I do for API, since the bullet weight is similar (640 grains for my bullets) and my bullets are slick due to the moly coating.  Look at reloadersnest.com if you want load data, or search the ‘net.  Or ask around.  Just don’t ask me, because I won’t tell you.  I don’t want to wonder if I caused your gun to rupture (see Bluegrass Armory’s test of their gun).  If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.

Terminal results: My initial tests were on 1-gallon milk jugs filled with water. Numbered and set in-line with my bore at 25 yards, I commenced shooting.  WOW! The first jug emptied and had a one-inch exit hole.  The second in line had a 1.5-inch entrance and the back ripped totally open, like with a 22-250 or 308. Some shot remained in the second in line.  The third jug disappeared.  Three of us scoured the area, but found nothing. The lids from the first two jugs were in the vicinity, but the lid from the third was gone (remember they were numbered, both the lids and the jugs).  The fourth remained unscathed.  Not so much as a pellet hole!

I shot a 275# black bear at 75 yards.  He was broadside and level with me for both shots.  The first bullet hit one inch into his shoulder from the rear.  It angled into his opposing shoulder and did not exit.  I waited about 10 seconds to fire the second shot because I wanted to see what was happening but I got nervous as he turned around. The second bullet hit one inch behind the shoulder (he turned 180 degrees) and exited one inch behind the opposite side shoulder (the initial shoulder), two inches behind the first entrance hole.  The exit wound was approx 3” diameter.  He fell dead upon impact, as if the Hammer of Thor had struck him at full swing.  When I gutted him, his lungs were just gone.  Some reddish lung-paste remained, as did his badly bruised heart, diaphragm, liver and spleen.  Needless to say, I was impressed.

I have shot a few marmots, as well.  The most memorable was shot from 25 degrees above.  It was hit from behind, in the body, just where the tail starts.  The pelvis and rear legs remained in place, with the front forelegs connected by small strips of hide.  The rest disappeared.  Literally gone.  Three of us searched for 10 minutes for parts, especially the head, but found nothing. NOTHING!  At that point I realized we are onto something.  And the fun began.

“Go forth, young man, and shoot a toilet,” I heard the voice say.  And then…

I agree to some extent with you Odd. But, I do think we should have common goals and work towards them. I do believe all children at the least are created equal when it comes to: Health care, education, and simply put, the best life possible.
To answer the question about wages - even in socialism their is a hierarchy of pay based on education.
NEVER will I support the idea that everyone should be paid the same - that is the removal of incentive. When you remove incentive, expect at the best mediocrity and indifferent populations or much worse.
I;m not going to say I agree with this statement entirely “We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they desire.”, but I do think there is some good justification on his part for this statement.
The part of the speech that is most meaningful to me starts here:
“too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach non-violence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.

Some look for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this much is clear: violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is the slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.

This is the breaking of a man’s spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all.

I have not come here to propose a set of specific remedies nor is there a single set. For a broad and adequate outline we know what must be done. When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this, there are no final answers.

Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of others. We must admit in ourselves that our own children’s future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanquish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.”

I read this and think of our current illegal alien situation. Here are my conclusions:

In support of his statements(in my opinion) I offer 3 statements. #1 is basic economic principle and #2 is basic economic principle extrapolated.

1)Educate your countries population regardless of their citizenship.
2)Take care of the sick that are in your country regardless of their citizenship.

Now, an statement why it isn’t practical also using basic economic principle.
1) It isn’t possible to have more people using than contributing.

Basically,there will be a point when the number of people using the resources will exceed the amount of resources available (some states are at this point already).

Anyway, my “take away” here is that I do believe that the first 2 statements are not only the right thing to do morally, they are the only thing to do for OUR societal preservation.

william

I just finished the movie Bobby.  I recommend you watch it.  It was slow going for me in the beginning, but I was really glad that I watched it all the way through.

I feel he really was a pretty incredible person and found the movie showing some very realistic parallels.

I don’t know anything about him other than 2 speeches that I have read by him.   I feel that this one is well worth posting and it has really got my mind turning about some things.

___________________

On the Mindless Menace of Violence

City Club of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio
April 5, 1968

This is a time of shame and sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity, my only event of today, to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.

It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one - no matter where he lives or what he does - can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.

Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by an assassin’s bullet.

No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of reason.

Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.

“Among free men,” said Abraham Lincoln, “there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs.”

Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they desire.

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach non-violence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.

Some look for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this much is clear: violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is the slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.

This is the breaking of a man’s spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all.

I have not come here to propose a set of specific remedies nor is there a single set. For a broad and adequate outline we know what must be done. When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this, there are no final answers.

Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of others. We must admit in ourselves that our own children’s future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanquish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.