Pro-life terrorism in the US

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chilperich

Having formerly been an unconditional supporter of abortion on demand, I've gradually become uneasy about it to the point of thinking that there needs to be a cultural shift that severely restricts its availability and use.

You're entitled to your opinion. I simply think that the abortion issue needs to be seen in a much wider context of social attention and education concerning matters of sexuality, family structures, and social issues such as poverty. By reducing the focus to just the when-is-a-fetus-human parlor game, we're ignoring a staggering amount of relevant context.

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

You're entitled to your opinion.

I pose this question in a fairly lighthearted way, but why is that when someone tells me that I'm entitled to my opinion I get the distinct feeling that they really think I'm not?

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chilperich

I pose this question in a fairly lighthearted way, but why is that when someone tells me that I'm entitled to my opinion I get the distinct feeling that they really think I'm not?

I think you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't happen to agree with it.

Like I said, the matter of abortion itself is a small part of a huge discussion we're not having in the USA. We like to pretend that teenagers aren't sexual, so we can deny them sex education and contraception, as well as feign outrage at the parties making money off their interest in sexual behavior. Then we act surprised when teenage girls end up pregnant. We pretend that a lack of social prospects isn't a big factor in teenage pregnancy or single motherhood, because this is supposedly an ideal egalitarian meritocracy and we resent our illusions being challenged. And we pretend that the abortion issue isn't fraught with religious fanaticism and misogyny, so we can dismiss anyone who criticizes the narrow way we frame the debate as a nutty feminist.

I wish there were fewer unwanted pregnancies, and thus less demand for abortions. But it takes too much time and effort to educate people and change the conditions that have led to the way things are. It's much easier to reduce the entire matter to arguing over the ethical issues involved in a surgical procedure and pretend we're addressing the issue in an honest way.

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

:Like I said, the matter of abortion itself is a small part of a huge discussion we're not having in the USA. We like to pretend that teenagers aren't sexual, so we can deny them sex education and contraception, as well as feign outrage at the parties making money off their interest in sexual behavior. Then we act surprised when teenage girls end up pregnant. We pretend that a lack of social prospects isn't a big factor in teenage pregnancy or single motherhood, because this is supposedly an ideal egalitarian meritocracy and we resent our illusions being challenged. And we pretend that the abortion issue isn't fraught with religious fanaticism and misogyny, so we can dismiss anyone who criticizes the narrow way we frame the debate as a nutty feminist.

I wish there were fewer unwanted pregnancies, and thus less demand for abortions. But it takes too much time and effort to educate people and change the conditions that have led to the way things are. It's much easier to reduce the entire matter to arguing over the ethical issues involved in a surgical procedure and pretend we're addressing the issue in an honest way.

Well, the debate on sex and reproduction is "framed" in terms of wildly competing theories and value systems, and there really isn't a broad consensus on these topics any longer as I think there still was until a generation or so ago. I think that our predominantly liberal elites (and many of their middle managers) have a default position on these subjects that is perhaps best described as politically-correct, while large numbers of the general public (although by no means all) cling to a broadly traditional view of sexual morality (even if they don't always live up to their own ideals, and often moderate or attempt to conceal their private opinions in the presence of those who don't share them).

I'd characterise myself as socially and culturally conservative (with a small "c"). I read a fascinating book some years ago by an expatriate American psychologist who now lives in England, Aric Sigman, called New, Improved? (Simon & Schuster, 1995). It's an odd book in some ways, with a prose-style that is alternately witty and slipshod. Sigman couldn't in any way be described as sexually prudish; indeed, he is quite the opposite, positively relishing his discussion of the subject in the most frank terms. However, his conclusions are essentially conservative ones, quite at odds with the official, politically-correct establishment line. I think he makes a pretty strong case, but I realise that those who sympathise with the official line are unlikely to be converted. I'd suggest that you read it if you can, though.

I've never quite understood why children need to have sex education, beyond the kind of scientific approach to reproduction in biology lessons. I'm inclined to think that such so-called education is actually for the benefit of those who wish it to be given rather than for its nominal beneficiaries, and that it is essentially a form of ideological indoctrination into politically-correct moral and behavioural norms. After all, they don't call the sexual act "doing what comes naturally" for nothing! I'm pretty sure that in a Blue Lagoon scenario, a teenage boy and girl wouldn't require several terms' worth of instruction before they figured out what to do.

[Balthazar]

Chilperich,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk in terms of "liberal elites" and their "politically correct" agenda. Could you be a little more specific?

I consider myself very progressive politically. And I too deplore political correctness, which I see mainly as a way for people to whitewash social problems by sanitizing the way they're discussed in society. For example, a great hue and cry goes up if a celebrity says something insensitive about blacks or gays (in fact, it's probably bad enough to use terms like "black" or "gay"), and we're allowed to feel virtuous in our outrage because it substitutes for any concern we should have for systemic inequities in our society. Lip service becomes the only way we deal with racism or homophobia, not because it's effective but because it's cheap.

You mention Sigman's book, but you're very vague about his actual ideas. What is it that confers such maverick integrity on him and his crusade against the "official, politically-correct establishment line"? I'm also not exactly sure why you think that sex education is "a form of ideological indoctrination into politically-correct moral and behavioural norms," either. Could you clarify a little?

[Scott Good]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

And I too deplore political correctness, which I see mainly as a way for people to whitewash social problems by sanitizing the way they're discussed in society.

(sorry for this - a big tangent)

My 2 cents on this is that "political correctness" addresses the issue of language and it's power to convey ideas, which in turn become actions. Words carry baggage, and should be used with incredible care and sensitivity.

I think it has done much good for society, and this can be seen more clearly in young people. People who have grown up in a society that deplores abusive and bigoted language will be less bigoted, and they are. There quite a large ideological divide between the over and under 40 year olds.

But look at the internet!? Here, where people can hide, does political correctness get thrown into the trash bin - it's detractors are drooling at their chance to unleash their vile use of language. The wolves wait at the door.

Never before has "political correctness" needed to be implemented so vigilantly. And luckily, in many places like this, it is. Simply put, if we stop talking in abusive terms, many of the problems will vanish, as language and it's use is closely connected to thought and action. Does it solve everything? Of course not.

But when I hear someone using the word "Indian" to describe First Nations people, I know immediately they are racist, and by using this language, are spreading the racism. When I hear a man say "Little lady", I know they are sexist, and are suggesting their sexist ideas to others as if it is ok. These might be a light versions, but not innocent.

Political correctness is very confusing, but by looking at it and addressing, we WILL be looking directly at the problem - a difficult problem as complex as language it's self. It is not about "celebrities", as nothing except silly useless gossip is about them. It is about everyday interactions with our families, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow citizens. It is where ideas and existential projections are made to define who we are and what we will do through our most important tool of thought and communication - words.

(note: words like "black" and "gay" are very sketchy to use in my opinion - especially in the public forum. To identify someone by the supposed colour of their skin is borderline (I say "supposed" because I have problem with the words black and white to define skin colour - I have been told I am a white person, but when I look at my skin, it isn't white at all - it is brown, and pink, with hues of yellow and red, all depending on what I've been eating and how much sun I've seen - it's complexity of colour shows the incredible diversity of my genetic heritage) Ultimately, why does it need to be done? It lcan lead to ignorant profiling. Also, black and white and yellow all have metaphoric qualities that run deep in our understanding of these words (look them up in the dictionary), and we project these meaning if we want to or not. This is the essence of political correctness).

And why should the orientation of someones sexuality be an issue what-so-ever? This is a private affair, and should only discussed in loving environments with friends and family. It should not be the food of public discourse. It will be a great day for humanity when the inherent privacy of this issue is respected.

As a general rule of thumb (..oops, a very sexist expression) we should be defining one-another by our choices and actions, not our genetics. You can call me a musician, a trombonist, a composer, a father, a husband, a tree hugger (yes, I hug trees - you should try it too), a chess player,a liberal etc etc. I'll accept Canadian, although it is lower on the list as I had no choice to where I was born. But I have decided to stay, at least for the time being!

Hummm...I'm wondering if I'm opening a big can of worms....)

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Scott Good

People who have grown up in a society that deplores abusive and bigoted language will be less bigoted, and they are.

Or they'll be just as bigoted, but accustomed to using acceptable language to convey it. Is that really any better?

Simply put, if we stop talking in abusive terms, many of the problems will vanish, as language and it's use is closely connected to thought and action.

This is pretty speculative, isn't it? I mean, you're assuming that the terminology people use affects social conditions, and not vice versa. I'm actually of the opinion that we preserve many of the social problems that exist in society through finding acceptable ways to articulate them.

But when I hear someone using the word "Indian" to describe First Nations people, I know immediately they are racist, and by using this language, are spreading the racism. When I hear a man say "Little lady", I know they are sexist, and are suggesting their sexist ideas to others as if it is ok. These might be a light versions, but not innocent.

Another set of very strange assumptions. Can I point out that merely adopting another phrase to describe people of a certain background doesn't necessarily endow them with the rights they deserve?

(note: words like "black" and "gay" are very sketchy to use in my opinion - especially in the public forum.)

And yet in the 60's, African-Americans used rhetoric like "I'm Black and I'm Proud" and that's what people of my generation recall. So are we all racists, or is there some context you're willing to ignore in order to assume virtue for yourselves that we're not allowed to share?

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Scott Good

Political correctness is very confusing, but by looking at it and addressing, we WILL be looking directly at the problem - a difficult problem as complex as language it's self. It is not about "celebrities", as nothing except silly useless gossip is about them. It is about everyday interactions with our families, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow citizens. It is where ideas and existential projections are made to define who we are and what we will do through our most important tool of thought and communication - words.

But this causal connection between speech and social progress is something that no one has ever established in an even remotely scientific sense. It's one thing to say that you're addressing the personal prejudices of individuals. However, I've never accepted that personal opinions are anything more than peripherally related to systemic inequities in society.

The progress that has been made in the last half century in America toward greater racial and gender parity hasn't been because of highly-publicized crusades against "hate speech," it's been due to the efforts of lawyers and activists who have fought discriminatory practices in lending, housing, hiring and advancement, education, and the judicial system itself. Anyone who thinks that things magically got better in the USA for a historically disenfranchised community just because people nowadays say "African-American" instead of "black" is living in a fantasy world.

[Scott Good]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Or they'll be just as bigoted, but accustomed to using acceptable language to convey it. Is that really any better?

Yes, because it will stifle the spread of the thought. Children will not hear it, and grow up not knowing racist terminology. It's not about changing a person, but about changing the trajectory of a society.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

This is pretty speculative, isn't it? I mean, you're assuming that the terminology people use affects social conditions, and not vice versa. I'm actually of the opinion that we preserve many of the social problems that exist in society through finding acceptable ways to articulate them.

I'm of the opinion that using racist language is an act of racism. And it is good for society to acknowledge this collectively.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Another set of very strange assumptions. Can I point out that merely adopting another phrase to describe people of a certain background doesn't necessarily endow them with the rights they deserve?

How about the right to not be labeled with racist terminology? To be cast as an outsider, an "other"?

Originally Posted by Balthazar

And yet in the 60's, African-Americans used rhetoric like "I'm Black and I'm Proud" and that's what people of my generation recall. So are we all racists, or is there some context you're willing to ignore in order to assume virtue for yourselves that we're not allowed to share?

Well, it could be argued that everyone is racist.

At any rate, much of the rhetoric from the 60's is outdated now. Times change, society and language evolves. Saying "I'm Black and I'm Proud" comes from a time when these people were not even allowed to vote. It makes sense in that era.

But, if I said "I'm white and I'm proud", or, "I'm yellow and I'm proud", or "I'm shades of brown and pink, and I'm proud" well, it would all just sound silly. But then, people who are brown and pink and yellow and green and mauve and plaid are still allowed to vote and get on buses and all that insanity those unfortunate people had to endure. I just think we should all try to be on the same footing.

I don't think that people have to be proud because of the colour of their skin, their hair, their eyes, their weight, their height,the width of their femur, the length of their index finger, the size of their big toe, etc etc. What people should be proud of is what they do with their available options - their actions - what they produce - what they do for the betterment of society - what they teach - how they love. Stuff like that.

[Scott Good]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

But this causal connection between speech and social progress is something that no one has ever established in an even remotely scientific sense.

Ya, so? Does that mean that the study of humanities is nothing but casual bunk? And science can solve everything? We don't even have a working hypothesis for how the brain works. We still don't understand consciousness, but the humanities are trying very hard to figure it out - music being an important component of that understanding. Well, at least it is for me (had to bring it back to BC).

Originally Posted by Balthazar

It's one thing to say that you're addressing the personal prejudices of individuals. However, I've never accepted that personal opinions are anything more than peripherally related to systemic inequities in society.

This doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm hoping you can elaborate. Are you saying that they way people think is in direct relation to the systems which govern them?

Or do you mean that by calling someone on their racist remarks, we don't address the larger social context?

Please explain. I think there is something important here.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

The progress that has been made in the last half century in America toward greater racial and gender parity hasn't been because of highly-publicized crusades against "hate speech," it's been due to the efforts of lawyers and activists who have fought discriminatory practices in lending, housing, hiring and advancement, education, and the judicial system itself.

For sure (well, except for the first part). And amen to those who fought the good and virtuous fight!!! A great triumph for civilization.

But let me ask, from where did the ideas come from to make these "radical" changes? Do you not think that the use of language in everyday discourse played a role in the changing attitudes?

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Anyone who thinks that things magically got better in the USA for a historically disenfranchised community just because people nowadays say "African-American" instead of "black" is living in a fantasy world.

Really? If someone doesn't want to be categorized under a racist label, and they are, it must be quite awful.

But aside from that, I actually have some contention with the "African-American" label as well. First off, many black people are not from Africa, or at least not directly (cause we are all from Africa, aren't we). Also, what the heck does "Africa" mean? It is a huge landmass with a very diverse cultural make up. On top of it, all those countries that make up Africa have little to do with the indigenous people themselves. (just like the Americas!). Don't you think it is a bit condescending and ignorant to us such a wide label? I mean, isn't their a difference between the Amhara and Zulu people. Yes yes, they both have dark skin and live on the same giant continent. But what after that?

It's a bit of a mess. Maybe we should keep cleaning and sorting and learning and sorting and cleaning.