I draw the line at "dignity"

I can't decide if this is supposed to be about political correctness or social decay.  Could it be that they are the same thing?

Recently, while discussing abortion with a commenter, I realized how much the pro-abortion crowd relies on the "it's just tissue" argument.  I mean, suppose abortion was completely legal everywhere, but at the same time everybody recognized the procedure as murder.  Maybe we'd even call it feticide.  Talk about safe, legal and rare -- I don't think the procedure could get much rarer than if everyone knew it as murder.  I'm thinking plenty of people who work at "women's services clinics" would think twice about doing exactly the same job at a "feticide clinic."

And consider this post about euthanasia.  I'm much, much less worried about euthanasia as an escape from terminal suffering than I am about having it become so socially acceptable -- so politically correct -- that the highly inconvenienced family members of terminal patients might start suggesting it as a way to end their own "suffering."  Even where I don't oppose the procedure, my gut tells me that we never want it to become a mainstream alternative.

All of this reminds me of just how sophisticated this Jane Galt post is:

Marriage matters. It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both spouses happier. Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important institution. It also turns out to be a lot more fragile than we thought back then. It looked, to those extremely smart and well-meaning welfare reformers, practically unshakeable; the idea that it could be undone by something as simple as enabling women to have children without husbands, seemed ludicrous. Its cultural underpinnings were far too firm. Why would a woman choose such a hard road? It seemed self-evident that the only unwed mothers claiming benefits would be the ones pushed there by terrible circumstance.

This argument is compelling and logical. I would never become an unwed welfare mother, even if benefits were a great deal higher than they are now. It seems crazy to even suggest that one would bear a child out of wedlock for $567 a month. Indeed, to this day, I find the reformist side much more persuasive than the conservative side, except for one thing, which is that the conservatives turned out to be right. In fact, they turned out to be even more right than they suspected; they were predicting upticks in illegitimacy that were much more modest than what actually occurred--they expected marriage rates to suffer, not collapse.

How did people go so badly wrong? Well, to start with, they fell into the basic fallacy that economists are so well acquainted with: they thought about themselves instead of the marginal case. For another, they completely failed to realise that each additional illegitimate birth would, in effect, slightly destigmatise the next one.

I heard someone joking (or was it more serious?) that welfare moms should have to stop at the supermarket, before using their government ATM cards (I guess that's how food stamps work now), and thank all of the other customers for their contribution.  It's only humorous because we have so accepted the premise that welfare recipients deserve a little dignity.

But do they?  I've heard so many stories of people, forced to turn to others for help, and what great pride they had to swallow to do it; how terrible it was for them to burden others.  The thing is -- the really hard thing -- is that this is exactly how it has to be.  It's a safety net.  Getting into it is a fall.  All the way to the bottom.  You sacrifice and sell off everything you own before you even begin to wonder if you're entitled to the product of other people's painful labor.

I guess it's best summed up as "tough love."  When I hear how our compassionate state needs to provide all these services, and how people need to be able to consume them with confidence and dignity, well, suddenly I almost get sick thinking about it.  That may be what the state needs, but what a productive, healthy society needs is a huge painful stigma on welfare.

And the social engineering behind this is elaborate, advanced, and entrenched.  Consider "public schools."  Is that really what they are?  I've preferred calling them "government schools," myself, but you know what?  I've sent my kids to those schools.

And I can't help but wonder if my kids would have come out better if we'd all been calling those exact same institutions "welfare schools" instead.  I'm thinking I might have paid more to keep my kids out of a welfare school than I would pay to keep them out of a public school -- even if they are one and the same.

And of course, what is public school, really?  It's socialized education.

Socialism and moral decay are the same thing.  And political correctness?  It's not progressive speak -- it is the systematic dismantling of values.  And if you think you're above it -- if you think it can't sneak up on you -- then tell me: when was the last time you thought of public schools as "socialized education" or "welfare schools"?

It starts with taking back the language.

That's the John Galt Line.

Comments

[JohnJ]

That's the difference between an entitlement and charity. You're not thankful for getting something to which you were entitled.

[John Green]

Wow. Way to be pro-individualism and pro-individual rights then brand others as collectivists and crowds simply to make them enemies of your main moral stand point. Yes, a lot of people feel that tissue is tissue, but "Pro-abortion" crowd? What do you think you're implying? That there are people that support the rights of individuals and of women specifically, and because they do so they're some how "Pro" abortion? Your view points have been said to be those based on a more natural law than those followed by "liberals" and whoever else you want to spit at collectively, yet some how the law of mother nature isn't good enough for you in this instance? A mother over her own body may not act as nature does to produce the best, to survive as she see's fit and to protect what is her highest value, whether that be her own life of the capability she has to provide that for a child she chooses.

[John Galt]

Wow, I must have hit a nerve! I actually stipulated leaving abortion legal and simply getting society back to recognizing it as murder. And you actually see that as a threat to women's rights???

I wonder if my thesis is more accurate than I'd realized.

[K Ackermann]

Do you know why the GOP platform insists that abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape and incest?

It's to get the recognition you want. The GOP wants an amendment that declares life begins at conception. The only way that will happen is if there is no exclusive language for the court to reject.

If my 13-year-old girl got raped, are you saying she should commit murder, or are you saying she should have the baby? I see it as self defense.

As for schools, what of the parents who cannot afford private school for their children? You think it would be helpful to stigmatize those children?

[John Green]

I see once again you speak about yourself as if in this instance as with others, you are accurate, ... Hitting a nerve? More that in this instance you are missing the point.

You want informed choice, simply to condemn those who choose to exercise it because they who are informed don't see as you do, perhaps in this case you are skipping factual nature in favour of a strong personal opinion. It is not mine or anyone elses nerves right now that are clouding our judgement and the rights of others to judge for themselves. You don't comprehend that whether it is murder or not IS the choice of the individual that they're making. Their body, their realm and not yours or society's. They are choosing whether it is right or wrong before even choosing abortion or not.

John in this instance you're short cutting your own ideals and liberally branding people to coerce a non intellectual response, a fear of being labelled as a murderer, simply as means to your own ends.

[John Galt]

"The GOP wants an amendment that declares life begins at conception."

Actually, I think the GOP, believing abortion is murder, simply wants the practice stopped. If they had that, I don't suppose they'd be expending resources seeking an amendment. Do you?

That said, if your 13-year-old got raped, then that really doesn't reflect on the baby, does it? Now, personally, I defend your daughter's ultimate right to choose, and in the case of rape in particular, it's obvious that choice has been denied her.

But I see no reason to be intellectually dishonest about what that choice would be. (In fact, I think it trivializes rape a little when we regard abortion as something other than murder, doesn't it?) So I hope you and your daughter would treat the decision as if a life is at stake regardless of what you decide.

Anyway, I don't think the social problem here is that rapes are resulting in too many abortions, do you? I think the greater problem is that abortion is being used as birth control, a situation which relies heavily on the rationalization that "it's just tissue."

I believe that true "choice" is only possible when the chooser is fully informed -- wouldn't you agree? So one could ponder why you might be opposed to requiring a woman to review a sonogram of the "tissue" prior to an abortion. I should think it would substantiate your tissue position -- does it not?

And you might want to consider the rationale behind "safe, legal and rare." Why rare? Why not routine?

"As for schools, what of the parents who cannot afford private school for their children? You think it would be helpful to stigmatize those children?"

LOL. The question is loaded with liberal premises. For starters, it's not about "parents who cannot afford private school for their children." It is about parents who are raising children they cannot afford to educate.

And it is not about whether it is "helpful to stigmatize those children." It is about whether it is helpful to have kids grow up understanding that welfare (schools included) is a system of last resort. Would it be helpful to have everyone understanding that -- and living as if that were the case -- or would it not?

[John Galt]

John Green:
"John in this instance you're short cutting your own ideals and liberally branding people to coerce a non intellectual response, a fear of being labelled as a murderer, simply as means to your own ends."

1. "Coercion" is a stretch, absent the use or threat of force.

2. Libertarian ideals are not an amoral free-for-all. There are still values and mores, which are imposed through social rather than political means -- i.e., without force. This is not just a provision of free society; it is a key component.

Somewhere in your argument is the thesis that Rand should not have written Atlas Shrugged because it's up to people to make their own informed decisions about collectivism, and that her strong personal opinion clouded the judgement and rights of others to judge for themselves. Rejected.

[John Green]

John Galt:
"Somewhere in your argument is the thesis that Rand should not have written Atlas Shrugged because it's up to people to make their own informed decisions about collectivism, and that her strong personal opinion clouded the judgement and rights of others to judge for themselves. Rejected."

Somewhere in your lack of argument is the precept that it should be observed that a disagreement to your personal ideals is a disagreement to the basis of Randian thinking. This is not the case.

Atlas Shrugged showed the result of a world unwilling to think. You propose a world where people are able to think, but are shaped by your views, you imply that a world should be based on your judgements, you and your judgements are non-absolute. You rise and fall like the rest and are not a single sided character of fiction. You have your moments your triumphs and your distateful preceptions born of a limited view of existance that we all are bound by. But this absolute, the absolute of existance where one person does not the knowledge to judge all by his own scale. Abortion is murder? Murder of what? Tissue? Yes. A conscious mind? No. Of a soul? This is a question specific to religion, not of state or society. At what point does life become Humanity, at what point does it gain Rights.

You say society should be able to unilaterally decide whether an inspecific occurance is murder? I say society should not claim dominion over the body of an individual in any form. Who's thinking is more or less Randian - who is the non-absolute?

[John Galt]

"Atlas Shrugged showed the result of a world unwilling to think."

1. A world that rationalizes is not thinking.

2. "It's just tissue" is either thought or it is rationalization.

3. If "it's just tissue" is thought, then thinking people should not be affected by imagery of "tissue," or ultrasounds of "tissue."

4. If "it's just tissue" is rationalization, then the discomfort felt upon viewing such imagery is the pain of thought threatening the false comfort of a contrived reality.

Now, if this was just a dispute between the conclusions of people who think and people who rationalize, then I would say to let each have his own solution and live with the consequences. But in this case the consequences arguably fall on an innocent life.

You see, the only truly honest pro-abortion position is that the procedure does not take a life, that it is perfectly acceptable birth control, and that a truly free and open society ought to be perfectly comfortable sharing its abortion experiences casually with one another, like stories of having your gallbladder removed.

If that is your position, then you should have no problem standing up to the superstitious idiots who think the "tissue" is something more, and you should have no problems facing images of the "tissue" before you have it removed, any more than you might agree to look at an ultrasound of your gallbladder before agreeing to surgery.

What you don't get to think is that "it's only a little wrong," or that it should even be "rare," because that's not thinking at all -- it's rationalization. Abortion's either not wrong at all, or it's bloody murder.

All I can tell you is that if you value thinking, I value the truthful presentation of facts. The sponsors of the "it's just tissue" movement do not -- so if you're really a thinking person then that should tell you something.

If people are not thinking, then it is no threat to their freedom to open their eyes. There is no wrong, no infringement whatsoever in trying to lead people to reasonable conclusions with evidence.

It is absurd for you to suggest that opening eyes is an imposition. It's a service, and the only people who resent it are the ones who don't want to know the truth. Is that what you call thinking???

[Someone]

I suppose what we should be asking is what is what is most beneficial to both society and for the individual.

You can argue what is right and what is wrong all day, but what it comes down to is what the effects of our actions are.

A well documented study shows that states that have legalized abortion have a lower crime rate (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8004).

So the question is who is really getting the benefit from this abortion? To me it seems as if society as a whole benefits from having kids that are bound to be mistreated, not entered into the world. Also the individual does not have the burden of being forced into a marriage which is either dysfunctional or unappealing for either party.

On the flip side, you can always promote a healthy state run orphanage system, which might possibly work. But that doesn't seem like a situation that you would favor ;). Besides the fact orphanages are riddled with other problems, which I won’t even being to dive into.

I suppose it all trickles down to, how much good will a unwanted child bring into the world, and how much good will an unwanted child take away from the world?

If my views sound insensitive to human life, that because it is

[K Ackermann]

Mistakes do happen. To err is human, all that. It's rationalizing, but it's the truth.

I don't think too many women or men who decide on abortion literally think about tissue. Most think it is a very sad affair, but the lesser of two possible sad affairs.

As for education, it benefits society to make sure every citizen has maximum access to education.

The free market is pyrimid shaped. The top can only grow with a solid base. People hold up Hong Kong as the most market driven economy, but even they make sure the base is stable.

Our government is a complete mess because it exists for special interests. It cannot me simply minimized or done away with; it needs to get neutral and do the things it is chartered to do. The only countries without a government are rat holes. A power vacuum will not stand for long. Someone will fashion a badge for themselves and the game is on.

B.T.W. If the GOP wanted the practice of abortion to stop, they would go state-by-state. The GOP only wants it on their platform to attract the low-information crowd who think it can pass through the Supreme Court. They GOP knows it will never get through SCOTUS, and that's ultimately fine by them. I mean, how hard have they really tried? They are no different the dems - useless liars, the whole lot of them.

[John Green]

I really have to apologise, I couldn't read your entire comment John and this may sound harsh but from my perspective its too garbled with a mix of hypocrisy and bull swaddle. It would've been wrong if I had looked for anything more than the facts in what you wrote. I agree, pushers of the it's tissue movement are inconsequential thinkers, as you say its rationalization.

However, you're rationalizing that a conceived embryo equates to life, there by awarding it Humanity and Innocence. The fact is, what is life, what is sapient, what is human isn't clearly definable by Human standards, or else we wouldn't have this disagreement.

With your arguement you're using intelligence garnered from the basis of your other normally correct view points to play backer to a strong personal opinion - not facts, and logic and reason only in so much as a rational Human being rationalizing what they feel to be right.

I've not rationalised abortion, simply advocated placing it into the hands of those who's human right it is to decide how their body is used. As you say, let them rationalise it for themselves. Mine is an absolutist's view on what you yourself advocate, but without the use of Society to pressure people into rationalising their reality for them.

If a person thinks abortion is murder and does not choose it as an option, it is their choice. If a person thinks abortion is murder and does choose it, they are free to live with the ramifications of their decision. If a person does not believe abortion is murder, and Society enforces this "concept" as medical fact with no other gain than enforced guilt then it is a pure example of the rights of an individual being removed for the ignorant unrewarded will of society.

Or if you want to be completely Randian about it, let's take another approach. In the relationship between an undeveloped, unborn child and it's mother. Who is the producer and who is the parasite? Ignorance or inability is no excuse. There is no innocence, only the capability of the willing and their OWN moral standards to judge THEMSELVES by. We do not call on society to enforce a conceptual view.

[John Galt]

"It's rationalizing, but it's the truth."

Really? I've always thought of rationalizing as lying to one's self.

"I don't think too many women or men who decide on abortion literally think about tissue."

Irrelevant. The point is that not enough of them think of it as murder. It is either not sad at all, or it is bloody murder. To say it is simply "sad" is to suggest it's only a "little" murder. Nonsense.

"As for education, it benefits society to make sure every citizen has maximum access to education."

You mean like school vouchers, which congressional Dems just did away with in Washington DC? I'd love to hear you rationalize that.

"it needs to get neutral and do the things it is chartered to do."

Disagreed. It needs to stop doing so many many things that it is constitutionally forbidden from doing in the first place.

"The only countries without a government are rat holes."

Strawman. Without a government and constitutional government are two different concepts.

[K Ackermann]

Strawman? Every argument you make is judgemental and subjective.

Rationalizing is an emotional lie, not a factual lie. It's similar to the pseudospeciation you practice in your displays of contempt.

Moralizing is a fools errand. The highest divorce rates are in the Bible belt.

You label people as socialists those who want affordable health care and good education. It bothers you that you would not have the choice, and you feel like you would be forced to transfer a fraction of your wealth for the benefit of someone else.

I understand that. I can see where that would get under a person's skin, but you have to recognize that your existence in society affects me too. I can't get away from you.

I smell your garbage, I sit on the jury during your trial, I pave your road that you wear out with those studded tires you insist on using. I really want to educate your kids because I don't want to deal with stupid ones. I pay more for insurance because you forgot to check the batteries in your smoke detector. I have to pull over for the ambulance rushing you to get your arteries unclogged. Etc, etc, etc.

The day you figure out how to leave no footprint in society, is the day you get a free pass on everything. In the meantime, if there is anything I can do to help you with anything, just let me know and I'll see what I can do.

[John Galt]

"Strawman? Every argument you make is judgemental and subjective."

Irrelevant. If you mischaracterize my desire for constitutionally-limited government as a desire for no government, then that deflection is a strawman.

"Rationalizing is an emotional lie, not a factual lie."

You're honestly defending abortion with "to err is human"?

"You label people as socialists those who want affordable health care and good education."

LMAO. I label as socialists those who seek socialized medicine and socialized education. I label as idiots whose who think either is "affordable" or "good." And a day ago you were proud to wear those labels -- now suddenly it's an insult??? LOL!

"It bothers you that you would not have the choice"

Choice suggests freedom, and yes, unlike you I'd like to maximize that. For myself and for all the slaves on the Democrat plantation.

"and you feel like you would be forced to transfer a fraction of your wealth for the benefit of someone else."

Actually, it's more than a fraction. And "someone else" is always free to make their own wealth. Furthermore, the actual cost to society is much more like pulling everyone down to "someone else's" level than like actually giving him a benefit. You act like giving "someone else" my money only affects me and him, but in reality it affects everyone in between as well -- and mostly for the negative.

"you have to recognize that your existence in society affects me too. I can't get away from you."

Only because you are a parasite. As for me, I am certainly a net tax payer -- I more than cover all of my own costs, and likely quite a few of yours as well. You should save that lecture for the beneficiaries of your government "charity" with my money, as they are the ones not carrying their own weight. I pay enough in taxes to provide for an entire other person's salary.

"The day you figure out how to leave no footprint in society, is the day you get a free pass on everything."

I more than cover the cost of my footprint, you liberal scumbag.

[K Ackermann]

You took what I wrote personal, and that's unfortunate because it applies to everyone. There is cost we all incur by participating in society. It's unavoidable.

I have no idea how much you pay in taxes, but I assume it's the same as everybody else in proportion.

Why not propose an idea to change things instead of lashing out and getting nowhere?

I worked my tail off so that I can call myself a man of the earth. I still design electronic products and software, but I only do that for money. What I really do is run my little hobby ranch.

I don't have a child or grandchild who doesn't know how care for an animal, shoot the center out of a target, balance an equation, say Please and Thank You, stand up for themselves, and stand up for others.

They are good kids and it irritates me that you would be so dismissive of my opinion, and project that I am somehow to be blamed for your problems because of it.

Don't you have any fight left in you? What the hell whipped you so hard that you have to hide behind hatred?

This country is not holding you back from doing anything you want to do. This country used to be great. This country used to do anything. I still do anything I want because to do less in front of my family tells them that it's OK to aim lower.

If you spew hate and vitriol all the time, anyone who looks up to you is going to think they already started out whipped and defeated.

[John Galt]

Response here.

[PJ]

John Galt,
This quote found on the web:
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, ... “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter , IV, 2, 3. ..."
Also:
"I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having ...... Ayn Rand, "A Last Survey — Part I", The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. IV, No. ..."
And lastly:
"If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth." (Ayn Rand, The Last Survey)
Rand also uses the "just tissue" argument.

[John Galt]

Excellent, PJ. I have to commend her for being principled -- she did it, she could talk about it, she saw no shame in it. She genuinely believed it wasn't murder.

I disagree, and I only feel compelled to act because I view the procedure as the initiation of terrible force.

Be sure to read this.

Thank you.

[PJ]

John Galt,
I respect your view of the procedure as initiation of terrible force. I also respect your compulsion to act, but I also note you are acting from "feeling" which raises a red flag; caution becomes critical in maintaining well-thought out responses and to enjoin in dialogue. I could well be in error, but to date I sensed your blog was created to engage and exchange thought, not to "sing to the choir". Passion is a wonderful thing but it is always the double-edged sword, able to set us as far back as it brings us forward. Thank you for your consideration, my words to you are well-intended (another double-edged sword).

[John Galt]

PJ,

If I saw you getting attacked, and I "felt compelled to act because I viewed the procedure as the initiation of terrible force," would you say my "feeling" raises any sort of "red flag"?

If my goal is simply to restore to the mainstream the traditional sense that what is being aborted is an actual life -- and not merely tissue -- is that the same as seeking the use of force to prevent abortion? Is that sort of social persuasion even "wrong" by your reasonable account?

[PJ]

John Galt - Under your "I have to ask" entry -Francisco and John Green spoke to the red flag and passion. The red flag is not to stop your action, but questions what if anything the action will achieve before the energy needed is actually spent. John Green stated well what I was unable to.

[Mitch Baker]

I took a look at those Rand quotes. While she clearly viewed a fetus as not (yet) human and vehemently supported having abortion as an option, it seems like she was definitely in the "it's just tissue" camp. She specifically references "a few human cells" as not being a "person". Clearly, the whole "when is it a person" argument is a very large part of the debate, but, with the advent of ultrasounds, nobody really thinks that the thing in a woman's uterus after 8-10 weeks of pregnancy is just a collection of cells, do they? At least not in any sense other than the fact that I, too, am merely a collection of cells.

Also, the more I look into her philosophical writings and biography, I can't help but see Rand as a deeply troubled person, with her need to "excommunicate" people from her life and lots of other craziness. Maybe a discussion on that front would be interesting, although it probably shouldn't be in this thread as it would clearly get intertwined with the abortion debate.