Blogger's Note: The Orthodox Heretic is going anonymous for a while as I begin the job-hunting process. As a result, I have removed my pic and profile info.
I blogged last year about how vegetarianism sustained the environment that we humans depend on for life, and is therefore the best diet. I still consider this a sufficient reason to be a vegetarian, but I also want to evaluate this issue from a moral perspective. It will take me several weeks to fully articulate my own position, but the short answer is that no, I do not think that killing an animal is wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong, yet I also not think that animal consumption is free from ethical concerns.
I am apparently by myself on this one, as I have only ever met one other Christian who shared my belief that eating animals is morally problematic. I think that the best way to start arguing for my position is to turn the tables around and instead ask, what are the arguments for eating animals? There are two I hear more than any others, namely the mono-theistic argument (animals are God’s provision for human consumption) and the evolutionary argument (eating meat is ground into our nature). I think that both of these arguments fail in important ways, which will perhaps give my readers a reason to allow me to articulate my beliefs.
In my experience, that is the most difficult part of beginning this dialogue. People don’t want to engage me on this issue because they are sure that it will not be an interesting conversation and probably a little embarrassing for me. But perhaps if I am able to destabilize the two most common rationales for a carnivorous diet, I will gain a more sympathetic audience.
12.30.2008
12.01.2008
Abortion and the Election, Part V: FOCA
Last time I said that I was finished blogging about this issue, which turns out not to be true, since I have noticed one more hot button issue associated with abortion that has picked up steam in the Evangelical community: opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act. There’s a petition circulating against FOCA that you may be interested in signing. This is a bad piece of legislation, I believe. I think the worst part is that it mandates (as far as I can tell – and I could be wrong) that even doctors with a moral opposition to abortion would be forced to perform the procedure. I can say with certainty that if I were a medical doctor, I would resign without hesitation before being forced to perform an abortion.
My prediction is that Barack, despite his campaign promise, will not sign FOCA. The reason is that it would ignite a culture war to end all culture wars. The Catholics, who own something like one in six of this nation’s hospitals, have talked about closing (not selling) their hospitals if the act goes through, which would probably finish tanking the economy. Barack wouldn’t want to jeopardize the economy and health care further, and he wouldn’t want to intensify the so-called culture war. He has much more important bipartisan things to accomplish, namely restoring the economy, working on energy policy, and reforming the health care system. One thing that we have learned about O’Bama is that he is a smart democratic politician, and I just can’t imagine him throwing away his presidency on this single issue.
But let me be clear: while I oppose FOCA, I have 100 times more disdain for the pro-life movement, since it is their social and economic policies that make it almost impossible for our country to achieve the low abortion rates enjoyed by Western Europe. So if you sign FOCA, I challenge you to examine another document, called the 95/10 initiative (related to the now-defunct Pregnant Women Support Act), being supported by the Democrats for Life and some pro-life democrats in Congress. This piece of legislation gets its name because it has the goal of reducing the abortion rate by 95% in the next 10 years (that was starting in 2005).
Will reducing abortions involve making contraception more available? Yes. Will reducing abortions involve ‘spreading the wealth’ to single mothers who need to finish high school? Yes. Will reducing abortions involve long, paid maternity leave so that women don’t have to sacrifice their careers? Probably. Will reducing abortions involve increasing special needs funding and children’s health care? Yes. Unfortunately the pro-lifers, fiscal conservatives, and laissez-faire Republicans will be the very same people who defeat these common-sense measures. They are too busy being concerned about Joe the Plumber and his fake bid to buy his company. But if you are really pro-life, you may want to rethink your staunch opposition to “spreading the wealth.”
My prediction is that Barack, despite his campaign promise, will not sign FOCA. The reason is that it would ignite a culture war to end all culture wars. The Catholics, who own something like one in six of this nation’s hospitals, have talked about closing (not selling) their hospitals if the act goes through, which would probably finish tanking the economy. Barack wouldn’t want to jeopardize the economy and health care further, and he wouldn’t want to intensify the so-called culture war. He has much more important bipartisan things to accomplish, namely restoring the economy, working on energy policy, and reforming the health care system. One thing that we have learned about O’Bama is that he is a smart democratic politician, and I just can’t imagine him throwing away his presidency on this single issue.
But let me be clear: while I oppose FOCA, I have 100 times more disdain for the pro-life movement, since it is their social and economic policies that make it almost impossible for our country to achieve the low abortion rates enjoyed by Western Europe. So if you sign FOCA, I challenge you to examine another document, called the 95/10 initiative (related to the now-defunct Pregnant Women Support Act), being supported by the Democrats for Life and some pro-life democrats in Congress. This piece of legislation gets its name because it has the goal of reducing the abortion rate by 95% in the next 10 years (that was starting in 2005).
Will reducing abortions involve making contraception more available? Yes. Will reducing abortions involve ‘spreading the wealth’ to single mothers who need to finish high school? Yes. Will reducing abortions involve long, paid maternity leave so that women don’t have to sacrifice their careers? Probably. Will reducing abortions involve increasing special needs funding and children’s health care? Yes. Unfortunately the pro-lifers, fiscal conservatives, and laissez-faire Republicans will be the very same people who defeat these common-sense measures. They are too busy being concerned about Joe the Plumber and his fake bid to buy his company. But if you are really pro-life, you may want to rethink your staunch opposition to “spreading the wealth.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)