The Only Question that Matters

The basic moral principal in this case, and many other throughout history, is as follows: human beings should be granted equal protection under the law. No matter the color, size, shape, race, creed or religion, all men are created equal. That there is a basic humanity in all of us that says that we should all be protected from the taking of property, illicit or illegal torture, and the taking of life indiscriminately: protections from these have been given to us because of our humanity by Natures God and should be granted to us under the law in a just society. A just society protects the innocent against those who would violate those basic civil rights granted to all human beings.

The irony is that the most innocent among us are in danger in the most vulnerable place imaginable - the easiest and most socially acceptable time to kill a child is in the womb of her mother. However, if the child were inches away, at her mother’s breast, the very same act would be considered villainous. 

If the question is ‘Can I kill this?’ then the obvious follow up question must be ‘What is it?’ and only with the answer to that question can the first be adequately answered. If the unborn is a human being, even a potential human being, then that human being has certain rights that all other human beings possess. In that case, no excuse for abortion is adequate to the consequences.

However, if the unborn is not a human person (as there is no question as to whether or not it’s a human being) then no excuse is necessary. If it isn’t a human being then it does not possess any such rights and therefore has no protection under the law. 

What makes a person? This is a question that has been asked throughout history as well: by the National Socialists in Germany during the 1930’s and 40’s, by the British slave traders and by any number of groups who have committed the act of genocide against another group of people. If there is some dividing line between humans we can’t kill and humans we can kill, I would contend that the line needs to be very clear.

Let’s find that line. Location doesn’t seem to matter, nor does size or color. Intelligence doesn’t seem to change anything either and neither does religion. Dependency and physical viability seems, on the face of it, that it may make a difference, but the question is, if you lost physical ability, would you still be you? If you lost your legs, would you still be you? Your sight? Voice?   If you’re knocked unconscious do you lose your value as a person? If you have to go on a breathing tube? Food tube?

If it’s true, that you remain viable despite physical losses and dependency, doesn’t it apply for those around you?

If it’s true for them, isn’t it true for everyone?

Absolutely Everyone?

First off, spoiler warning for anyone that watches and haven't seen the episode of Doctor Who that aired May 2.

I love Doctor Who.  Probably the best show on television, sans those mini-series found on HBO (ex. John Adams, which was so increadibly good), involving fanciful characters, a powerfully performing main character and actor (David Tennant, who plays the Doctor, is probably one of the best actors of this generation) as well as engaging story and creative plot.

Also, I've noticed that there are within the episodes, whether diliberately or not, complex moral issues that are dealt with quite handily.

For the record, I don't mean to say that a 'complex moral issue' is a so-called 'grey area' of morality.  Indeed, if such grey areas exist, which I'm not discussing at this point, they only exist because we have knowledge of what White and Black is.  Indeed, if we had no idea of what true 'Good' and 'Evil' really is, objectively, then these so called 'grey areas' wouldn't exist in the first place because there would be no set of moral issues in conflict.

To the point, this last episode finds the Doctor and his companion at Pompeii the day before the volcano erupts and Pompeii dissapears off the map.  However, they discover that within Pompeii is a race of alien creatures (bare with me) that have created a device that would convert the population of the world into creatures like them, essentially killing off humanity.  In order to prevent this, the Doctor must reverse the device, saving the world but then destroying Pompeii, killing over 20,000 in the blast, as history says.  The choice - kill Pompeii or let the world die.

Aren't you glad you stuck with it?

Of course, the Doctor makes the choice and destroys Pompeii, thereby saving the world.

Now, I highly doubt that anyone would say that he made the wrong choice - indeed, as awful as it is to say, the needs of the many usually outweigh the needs of the few, or, to put it another way, when faced with a moral choice, even a particularly difficult or unthinkable moral choice, one should choose the option that causes the most good, or is the least amount of bad.  This sounds like a bunch of relativistic hogwash, but when faced with the specifics the choice becomes obvious.  Which is the most moral - killing 1 or killing 100?  One might say that since they both involve death that they are equally evil.  I am not one of these.  Indeed, if the killing of 1 would save the lives of 100, or if by inaction the 100 would die if one did not kill the 1, then the killing of the 1 would then be the most moral.

Sounds awful I know.  Never said this was a clear, cut and dried issue.

There are multiple applications, however, to this idea.  One could say that making the difficult but nessesary choice is what makes us moral, in our choice to bear the weight of moral recrimination if only to save others.  I would say that this is what 
our US Soldiers, Airmen and Marines are doing over in Iraq right now.  They shoulder the burden for us so that we can continue on with
our lives, confident in our security and safety.  

I would also say that the same applies to us today, in a small way.  The principle of choosing the lesser of two evils can easily be applied to this current election.

We have less then ideal choices on either side: on the Dem side there's Hillary Clinton, the enemy we know, one could say.  There's very little about Hillary that we are not aware of.  Whether it's politics, family life or personal friends, we know a lot about her given her time in the White House.  

Next, we have Barak Obama, whom we know less about.  Indeed, the man, as far as what he's said about things, is essentially a blank slate.  All we know about him is the company he keeps (Ayers, Dorn, Wright and Rezko), his voting record (one of the most left in the senate), his wife (a radical leftist) and a questionare that he filled out in 2005, once again showing him to be an extremely left candidate.

Finally, on the Right, we have John McCain.  War Hero, man of the Right... sorta... and respected senator... mostly.  Once again, a candidate that we know - his possitions are well known on near every issue and the one's that we don't know about, he's willing to talk about, unlike the Dahli Obama.  Even Hillary mixed it up on O'Reilly and did herself no harm at all in answering his questions directly.  

The point?

Many prominant conservatives have claimed that they would not Vote for John McCain.  Truthfully, I can sympathize - when Romney dropped out, whom I was supporting, I said much the same thing.  However, the Doctor Who Delema rears it's ugly head.  Obama would be a nightmare for the country with his uber leftist politics and lack of straight answers, as well as his appearant lack of judgement in regards to others views about America (see: the Rev. Wright and Ayers/Dorn).  This is giving him the bennefit of the doubt as I'm not assuming for a moment that he agrees with their anti-American rantings.

Hillary would be... well... not as bad as Obama, but her HillaryCare health care idea would bankrupt the nation and, quite frankly, does anyone really want another 4 or 8 years of Bill anyware near the Oval Office?  I mean, honestly?

So, we're left with John McCain, a Semi-conservative (closer to moderate) war hero who's policy choices have left us wanting, who's given conservatives the finger more the once (figuratively, of course), but, has a better record on defence then any of the Dems, has a better fiscal policy then the Dems and has said that he'd appoint constructionist judges to the court - the antithesis to the Dems.  

If the lesser of two evils (or three, in this case) is the right moral choice, then isn't the choice of who to vote for in November obvious?

Well, it's been a while since I've last posted, but I'm going to try to keep a regular schedual.

I've become a columnist.  Other then here I mean, but in the real world.

The story - a few days ago I discovered an opening at my universities newspaper as the conservative columnist.  The current columnist is graduating and is leaving a hole to fill.  Truthfully, I never cared for his columns.  Seemed like more smoke and
mirrors rather then an actual serious discussion based on facts and reason.  

Anyway, heres to the future.  This is why I'm going to try to keep up with this blog from now on.  Hoping i can cut my teeth on it before
jumping off into the world of professional columnisting... er... something.

Wish me luck.