Black Dog

Do you support comprehensive sex education at the elementary school-level? Condoms in schools? HIV/AIDS education programs? Well, duh. Sorry, but the fact is, not everyone who has sex is able to handle the burdens of parenthood. You could argue that people just shouldn't have sex, but to argue that is to argue against human nature and biology. Because you're talking about forcing someone (even someone who has undergone the trauma of rape) to sacrifice nine months of their life to carry a child they didn't want. Pregnancy and childbirth are no walk in the park and not everyone is equipped to handle it (mentally, physically, financially etc.) especially those who didn't want a child in the first place. What self-rigteoous hogwash. I know several women who've had abortions: some were careless and others mere victims of circumstance. But the one thing that holds true in every case is that abortion, though an unpleasant experience for all, was the only realistic choice. I think we can dispense with the emotional nonsesnse about pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood. It is not a magical experience for everyone: for a great number of women who don't have access to safe, legal abortions, pregnancy means your life is ruined. And, frankly, if terminating one "potential" life means saving an existing member of society from ruination, that's a tradeoff I'm willing to allow.

Yes, becaus ethere's a legal distinction between the two. OPbviously, you can extend that to say you can't kill a baby at 8 3/4 moonths. However, I think comparing these cases with abortion is specious, simply by virtue of the fact that so few abortions are carried out at a stage where the fetus can be viable outside the womb.

This article by Frank Rich neatly encapsulates how fundamentalist elements in the U.S. are promoting a mindset of victimhood in order to muscle their way in.

Because there's a distinction between a fetus as a living thing and a real person. It's a necessary one for balancing individual rights. I belive the question being asked is why is that distinction selectively applied, as with the Scott Peterson case, how can he be charged with second degree murder for killing something that supposedly is non-human. As well why was there a transfer from fetus to infant in just a few short days in covering the above story. Maybe that is not what Reagan is getting at but it seems to me as this distinction you talk of is non-existent in some cases. Well, in order to look at the Peterson case, for example, one must also look at the current political climate in the states. Under Bush, the fight to curtail abortion rights has been stepped up across the board. Prenatal homicide laws are another step in that direction because once you cross the line between unborn fetus and bouncing baby, it becomes a lot more difficult to justify abortion at any stage, or so the theory goes. I can see why the original poster would be confused, but I have a problem with how the original article is framed. It simply draws the wrong lines by quibbling over the semantics of "baby" vs. "fetus" as opposed to the "alive" vs. "person" distinction I mentioned earlier. Further, to compare the crimes perpatrated upon both Laci Peterson and Bobbie Jo Stinnett with abortion is further muddling the issue: both (it can be reasonably assummed) wanted their children and were prepared to carry them to term. Which brings us back to the issue of choice: Peterson and Stinnett were stripped of their right to choose by their killers. It's strange that the opponents of abortion would put themselves in the same league as Scott Peterson and Lisa Montgomery.

I think that's b.s. Now personally, I can't understand why someone would buy into the whole God thing, but that's none of my business. What is my business is when religion is used to shape or direct public policy (as in the case of gay marriage). I hardly consider the fight to limit the influence of religion on affairs of state to be presecution, as some would suggest. Can you cite some examples?

A-hem! I beg to differ.

I think it's disingenious to use the cases like these where the gestation is far enough along that the fetus can survive outside the womb to raise doubts about abortion. In both cases mentioned, the women were 8 months pregnant. No, almost no abortions occur at that stage. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks (based on the most recent data from 2000). Just over 10 percent are performed between 13 and 20 weeks. Less than one-half-of-one percent occur after 24 weeks.

Because there's a distinction between a fetus as a living thing and a real person. It's a necessary one for balancing individual rights.

No, because once the child is born it becomes a member of society, a legal person entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else.

Revisionist history, countered by Dallaire himself.

As Dallaire said in the previous article I linked to: Contro of natural resources is and will continue to be the greatest source of strife and conflict in the developing world. In some cases, yes. Certain segments of the west benefit greatly from the imbalance between the first and third worlds. There's a reason why western democracies and private corporations cosy up to third-world dictators and oppressive regimes. It's a relationship that allows the west to continue to exploit the developing world for resources, labour and markets. Honestly, most of the hand-wringing about the failures of the third world is crocodiel tears. If the west genuinely wanted to help foster successful, free states, they could have done so at any point in the last three hundred years. Plenty. For one thing, you'd have to convince the people you're trying to save that your motives are pure. After centuries of western meddling in the affairs of the developing world, there is a great deal of mistrust out there. The idea that we need to save the developing world from themselves bears a strong resemblence to imperialism, which is what largely got us into this mess in the first place. Simply pt, democracy cannot be created or imported, but must grow and develop. The best we can do is to try and give them the tools to build their own functioning societies, stop meddling and leave them alone.

Because we know what happens when high-minded ideals collide with real-world politics. The former loses, which is largely why Canada has become so powerless to act in world affairs: we're hamstrung by political and economic interests. So, while the goal you set is noble, it's completely unrealistic. Here's a good interviw with Deallaire that provide3sa lot of context and backgropund to the whole affair.The Genreal and the Genocide The problem with intervention is: how do you know when it's the right thing to do? The problem is, as I alluded to at the start of this post, the motives of natuions are seldom alturistic.

Let's see... issues of intervention are ultimately up to the Security Council, not the General Assembly. the Security Council is dominated by the major western powers, as well as China and Russia. Dallaire himself has stated the UN is nothing but the "front man" for the failure in Rwanda. As he told the BBC back in 2000, "the true culprits are the sovereign states that influence the Security Council, that influence other nations into participating or not. And I would say there are a number of countries who absolutely did not want to get embroiled in any possible complex mission, and brought their weight to prevent others who were ready to go, as, for example, a number of African nations." So, the real question is, if the UN is irrelevant, who has made it so and why?

Just to say I can't really add anything more, but will henceforth refer to Hugo's post above as the definitive one on this issue. Bravo!

I think you're missing out on a critical option, one that is seldom employed: what are they dying for? It's easy to get wrapped up in nationalistic jingoism, to fall back on catchphrases like freedom and democracy, but such words are little more than excuses that shut down potentially meaningful discussion over whether or not those who serve in a nation's armed forces are putting themselves at risk for something meanignful. More often than not, these men and women aren't fighting and dying for freedom, or for abstract notions of patiriotism (even though those may be the factors that influenced tham to put themselves in that position), but for far more prosaic, concrete and oftentimes unsavoury motives. Look at World War One: one of the worst meat-grinders in history and a stunning example of a senseless waste of humanity, a war that destroyed a generation. So many of the young men who marched off to the trenches believed they were fighting for their nations' honour, or for freedom from tyranny or other such lofty ideals. But the real reasons were cynical: power, treasure and prestige for an elite that never had to face a bullet. Such has ever been the way of war and so it is today. I think that when we talk about "our" war dead today in terms of heroism, we actually do them a great disservice. By calling them heroes and mourning their loss for 15 minutes before going on with our lives, we dodge the bigger questions of why they die in the first place, which means they truely die in vain. It's a form of obsequiousness that only benefits those who send the youth of our nations to kill and die on tehir behalf. So we can say that the ideal (misplaced as it may be) that fighting to defend one's country is a act of heroism is universal. Yet that acknowledgment is missing from our discourse. By the standard above, the Iraqi fighter defending his Fallujah home from an influx of foreign invaders is every bit the hero as Tillman, or the four Canadian "friendly fire " victims. Yet ho woften are the "others" demonized, written off as terrorists, when for al anyone knows, their motivation for putting their lives on the line is just as pure. But reverance for the military (especially the fetishistic proportions its taking on in the States) is dangerous in a democracy. Indeed, a standing army is anathema to democracy because it creates a segment of society that is culturally distinct, unaccountable and heavily armed. It's akin to an attack dog: good for protection, but just as capable of savaging its owners. The U.S. has always been militaristic, but the war on terror /post 9-11 realities have driven the national obsession with the military into idolatry. Your post also touches on something else: the myth of American exceptionalism and benevolance. You mention that without a (presumably) benign military force, the "truely evil" would call the shots. But that makes some very dangerous assumptions about our own motivations. Americans are taught from day one that theirs is a peaceful nation that only messes with others if messed with first. But the historical record of America’s colonialist, interventionist past and present serves up a list of meddling (more often than not, at the expense of democracy and freedom) as long as a country mile. This stands in sharp contrast to the national mythos and undermines the ideal that we need “good guys” to protect us from the ”bad guys”. We have met the enemy and he is us. I guess I have a really hard time understanding how that worldview jives with the historical realities of a U.S. government and military that has, time and again, used it’s power to undermine democracy, squelch self-determination movements and support corruption and despotism at every turn for cynical political-economic ends. In that context, the "heroism" of those who do the bidding of the government is even more in question. I'm sure, after all, that your average Wermacht stormtrooper urgently believed they were makiing the world a better place, simply because the national narrative told them so.

If you think colonialism is some distant historical relic, you're deluded. You rstement doesn't even make sense. If the third-world is kept awash in poverty and corruption by th emachinations of western nations, how is that evidence that they are incapable of running themselves? Yeah, that worked so well in the past and caused no lasting problems whatsoever.... Yet there's precious little to indicate the west would manage the affairs any better, given how many of the current third-world messes are the result of foreign meddling. This seems likeas good a place as any to post this. It's a comprehensive analysis from the right-libertarian Cato institute detailing American intervention in the Middle East since World War 2 and how it has shaped the political landscape there. It's a shining example of how western policies towards the developing world have been heavy-handed and focussed, not on building and maintaing democracy and prosperity, but on benefitting the west.

Certainly that's a valid point. But the larger points I'm speaking to are the degredation of the concept of heroism and the miklitarization of American society. Someone who dies as a result of another's incompetence, negligence or stupidity in the civilian realm is usually considerd an unfortunate victim. Yet slap a uniform on them and stick a gun in their hand, and the same pointless, uneceesary death elevates the individual to the status of hero? Weird. As well, the visceral reaction elicited by any critical evaluation of the role of the military in society (as evidenced by a certain comment above) is a sign that the military (and its members) is a sacred object in American society. Such unquestionable reverence and devotion to an authoritrian ionstitution is an unusual trait for a democracy to possess.

There's a world of differnce between someone who has a disorde rthat cause sthem to violate non-consenting minors and someone who engages in consesual sexual and emotional relationships with members of the same sex. Because marriage is not simply about having kids. It may have been at one time, but that is no longer the case: society has moved on. Who gives a shit? Really, what people decide to do with their lives is none of your business and you certainly have no business promoting discriminatory legal practices because you are uncomfortable with a lifestyle that has no affect on you whatsoever. Let me put in this way: if you don't like homosexual marriage, then don't marry a homosexual.

But that doesn't answer the question of why pot is illegal, whereas, say, alcohol (which is arguably as destructive as narcotics, if not moreso) is okay. Furthermore, your answer demonstrates a blind obediance to the law based soley on the fact of the law's existence, as oppossed to its practicality, logic and usefulness.

I remember that one Hugo and agree wholeheartedly. I was brought up in the Catholic church, but found the tendency among the church and other so-called Christian religions to distort Christs' basic message to be off-putting enough that I questioned the whole works. That was why I brought it up in the first place: the religious argument against homosexuality in general and gay marriage specifically is rife with contradictions and hypocrisy. Yet it seems to be the strongest one out there, which says to me that SSM's opponents don't have much of a leg to stand on.

So let me get this straight: because Tillman was rich, his sacrifice is far more noble than, say, the kid from the slums of Detroit who chokes out his last in some Baghdad alley? I think the fact that Tillman had a choice between a life of wealth and fame and death in Afghanistan says a lot about American society when you consider how many of those putting their lives on the line don't have the luxury of choice. They're in the service out of pure necessiity. Now, while that may not sound quite as noble as "giving one's life for one's country", it's a tragedy to me that that is the reality.

Tangentially, I notice that much of the vocal opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuals in general comes from religious groups. Which raises the question: on what grounds do the major religions forbid homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular? I mean, I'm aware of the oft-cited passage from Leviticus, but I can safely assume that not everyone who believes homosexuality is wrong based on that passage follows many of the other rules and prohibitions laid down within the same Book, such as refraining from contact with mensturating women (Lev. 15:19-24), abstaining from eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood (Lev. 11:10), or not wearing cotton-poly blends (Lev. 19:19). Yet the seem particularily incensed by the notion of homosexuality (even though, based on its omission in Biblical texts, lesbianism is A-Ok by the Lord). I hope someone can fill me in on this very curious phenomenon.

Friendly fire is a fact of life in war time,. However, what this revalation does is highlight the ridiculousness of the posthumous lionization of Tillman and other members of the U.S. armed forces who are acclaimed as "heroes" for doing nothing so heroic as signing enlistment papers and having the bad fortune of dying in uniform. The fact that he was killed by his own side only underscores the ludicrousness of this trend. I'm sure if one was able to ask Tillman or indeed any other serviceman or woman if they considered themselves heroes, they would protests. They are doing their job (questionable as it may be) and accept the risks it entails: there's not much more prosaic than that.

Lynch mob's target not Annan, but UN Of course, as Argus' posts indicate, this is no secret. Yeah because, after all, those corrupt third nations sprang up n a vacumn and are completely in poverty because of their own lack of gumption and initiative. No outside meddling from the west, no sirree. Or supreme arrogance. Certainly any culture that produces the kind of garbage the west does, that routinely spits on the very ideals it claims to uphold is no position to preach. Well, let's see: foreign aid is largely an uphill battle when so many third-world countries are crippled by foreign debt and ridiculous structural adjustments imposed by outside entities. Indeed, through the workings of the World Bank and IMF, unequal trade practices, conditional aid and economic and material support for these regimes, the west has played a major role in denying the third world the opportunity to become self-sufficient. Really, to conclude that the developing world is soley responsible for its own fate is to completely deny the historical realities of hundreds of years of colonialism, occupation and interference by the "civilized" world. Well for starters there's the rue of law, set down in the UN charter and agreed to by member nations. The fact that the individual enforcing the law is unpleasant does not render the law itself illegitimate. So, when the UN votes to declare certain things (such as Israel's occupation of Palestine) to be in violation of international law, that means they are upholding the universally agreed-upon principles set down at the founding of the UN, prionciples which by and large reflect western values.

Where did you get that idea, BD? You're right, I was mistaken. In actuality, the federal government only has jurisdiction over “marriage” and not any other relationship status. They simply don’t have the power to replace civil marriage with civil union. To be honest, I was being a little tounge in cheek when I spoke of abolishing marriage altogether. I'm a little uneasy at the idea of stripping the right to marry from everyone across the board. It would seem to make a lot more sense (not to mention be more in line with democratic values) to simply extend the right to marry to gays and have done with it.